[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62454-62464]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24762]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 206

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0005]
RIN 1660-AA18

Disaster Assistance-Federal Assistance to Individuals and
Households

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency provides financial assistance to individuals and
households after a Presidentially-declared major disaster or emergency.
This rule finalizes, without change, current interim regulations which
establish the requirements and procedures for the Individuals and
Households Program.

DATES: This rule is effective December 16, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Millican, FEMA, Individual
Assistance Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472-3100,
(phone)<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (Stafford Act) provides the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) the authority to administer the Individuals and

Households Program (IHP). See 42 U.S.C. 5174. Through the IHP, FEMA
provides financial and/or direct assistance to help survivors recover
from Presidentially-declared emergencies and major disasters. This help
may be in the form of Housing Assistance and/or Other Needs Assistance,
which includes personal property losses, medical, dental, funeral,
child care, transportation, and other miscellaneous expenses.
    Specifically, FEMA provides the following types of Housing
Assistance:
    Temporary Housing: Financial assistance is available to rent a
different place to live for a limited period of time. If housing
resources are not available and the applicant is unable to make use of
FEMA-provided financial assistance, FEMA may provide direct assistance
in the form of a manufactured housing unit.
    Housing Repair: Financial assistance is available to homeowners to
repair disaster damage to their primary residence. Assistance is only
available to repair damage that is not covered by insurance. The goal
is to make the damaged home safe, sanitary, and functional.
    Housing Replacement: Financial assistance is available to
homeowners to replace their primary residence if it was destroyed in
the disaster. Assistance is only available for damage that is not
covered by insurance.
    Permanent and Semi-Permanent Housing Construction: In exceptional
circumstances, FEMA is authorized to provide permanent and semi-
permanent housing construction. If FEMA exercises its discretion to
offer this form of disaster assistance, FEMA may provide financial
assistance for the construction of a home or may construct the new
permanent or semi-permanent housing unit for an individual or
household. FEMA may provide this type of assistance only in insular
areas outside the continental United States and in other locations when
alternative housing resources are not available and no other types of
temporary housing assistance are available, feasible, or cost-
effective. Assistance is provided only for damage that is not covered
by insurance.
    44 CFR part 206, subparts D and F regulate the types of IHP
assistance, the eligibility requirements for assistance, and the
procedures for obtaining assistance.
    On September 30, 2002, FEMA published an interim final rule in the
Federal Register. See 67 FR 61446.\1\ The interim final rule
implemented new statutory authority provided from section 206 of the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390 (DMA 2000). Section
206 of the DMA 2000 consolidated and streamlined the provision of
assistance to individuals, which FEMA previously administered under two
separate assistance programs: (1) The Temporary Housing Assistance
Program and (2) the Individual and Family Grant Program. Specifically,
the interim final rule provided a framework for the new consolidated
IHP in 44 CFR 206.110-206.120, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FEMA published a correction to the interim final rule on
October 9, 2002. See 67 FR 62896.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 206.110 provided a broad overview of the new
consolidated program.
     Section 206.111 provided the definitions for terms used
throughout sections 206.110-120.
     Section 206.112 provided information on the registration
period for the IHP.
     Section 206.113 provided the eligibility factors that
individuals must meet in order to qualify for the IHP.
     Section 206.114 provided criteria for continued assistance
in the IHP.
     Section 206.115 provided the appeals process and protocols
for the IHP.
     Section 206.116 provided information on when and how FEMA
would seek recovery of funds from IHP recipients.
     Section 206.117 provided information on the types of
housing assistance as well as the eligible costs that are covered under
the IHP.
     Section 206.118 provided the procedures that FEMA would
follow if FEMA decides to sell temporary housing units that were
purchased under 206.117(b)(1)(ii), temporary housing, or direct
housing.
     Section 206.119 provided the process for individuals to be
eligible to receive financial assistance to address other disaster-
related needs.
     Finally, Section 206.120 provided the process and options
for States when delivering financial assistance to address other
disaster-related needs.
    On April 3, 2009, FEMA published a final rule that provided
technical, organizational, and conforming amendments to Title 44 of the
CFR to reflect the current organization and procedures of FEMA. See 74
FR 15328. The final rule had no substantive effect on the regulated
public and corrected organization names and addresses, updated
Information Collection Approval Numbers issued by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), removed the text of an Executive Order
that was repealed, and made other technical and editorial corrections
throughout Title 44. Specifically, in 44 CFR 206.110, 206.111, 206.112,
206.115, 206.117, and 206.120, FEMA updated the titles of various FEMA
leadership positions as well as updated the term ``FEMA Office of
Inspector General'' to ``DHS Office of Inspector General'' to reflect
that FEMA became a component of the Department of Homeland Security in
2003.
    On July 30, 2012, FEMA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM), which addressed the public comments received on the 2002
interim final rule related to housing repair and replacement, the
provisions for which are found at 44 CFR 206.117. See 77 FR 44562. In
addition, FEMA proposed four separate sets of changes in the NPRM.
First, FEMA proposed revisions to the interim rule to respond to public
comments received on the 2002 interim rule. Second, FEMA proposed
changes that were intended to restate the existing requirements more
clearly and in greater detail without substantively changing the
underlying requirements. Third, consistent with statutory amendments in
the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA), FEMA
proposed removing the housing repair and replacement subcaps which
previously limited housing repair assistance to $5,000 and housing
replacement assistance to $10,000. Finally, also consistent with
statutory amendments in PKEMRA, FEMA proposed adding the term ``semi-
permanent'' and removing the term ``remote'' with respect to the
eligibility requirements for housing construction pursuant to PKEMRA.
    On November 7, 2013, FEMA published a final rule that finalized the
NPRM without change. See 78 FR 66852.

II. FEMA's Response to 2003 IHP Implementation Review Report

    In February 2003, during the comment period for the Interim Final
Rule, FEMA held a meeting with representatives from the five States who
first implemented the IHP to identify the best practices and problems
or issues that needed corrective actions. An IHP Implementation Review
Report was prepared, which outlined the issues discussed and
recommendations. None of the issues discussed were specifically
pertinent to this rulemaking.
    The general topics discussed and the recommendations were related
to:
    1. The business rules and functionality for the National Emergency
Management Information System (NEMIS), which FEMA uses to

process applications for disaster assistance;
    2. Internal and external communications, to include FEMA Helpline
numbers and printed Applicant Guides;
    3. Addressing unmet needs of disaster survivors through referrals
to voluntary agencies;
    4. Financial and grants management regarding internal billing
processes and procedures;
    5. Training needs for field staff administering the program; and
    6. Policy development.
    All of these topics focused primary on procedural and other aspects
of IHP that were beyond the scope of the interim final rule and were
addressed in separate actions, such as developing policies, training
courses, fact sheets and handouts, or standard operating procedures.
Therefore, FEMA is not addressing these issues and recommendations in
this final rule.

III. Discussion of Comments Received on 2002 Interim Final Rule

    In response to the 2002 interim final rule, FEMA received written
comments from five States: Texas, Maine, Washington, New York, and
Virginia. This section describes the comments received, as well as
FEMA's responses to the public's input.

Comments Regarding Duplication of Benefits (44 CFR 206.110(h))

    Section 206.110(h) in the interim final rule addresses duplication
of benefits. Under this section, FEMA will not provide assistance under
IHP when any other source has already provided such assistance or when
such assistance is available from any other source. The section also
states that in the instance of insured applicants, FEMA will provide
assistance only when:
    1. Payment of the applicable benefits are significantly delayed;
    2. applicable benefits are exhausted;
    3. applicable benefits are insufficient to cover the housing or
other needs; or
    4. housing is not available on the private market.
    Three State agencies (from Washington, Virginia, and Maine)
commented on this section. All three State agencies commented that the
term ``significantly delayed'' should be defined in the regulation so
that it is applied consistently and equitably and to avoid confusion
and undue hardship while the term is being debated at the time of a
disaster. The commenters stressed that the definition should be in the
regulation as opposed to a policy.
    Two State agencies (Washington and Maine) commented that if the
estimated damage is below the deductible of the insurance policy, the
applicant should not have to wait for a formal denial from the
insurance company in order for FEMA to process the application,
especially since insurance companies are slow to provide damage reports
and produce decisions on eligibility. Rather, the regulation should
allow an applicant to certify to FEMA that the estimated damage is
below the maximum allowable repair assistance award and to provide a
copy of the hazard insurance declaration page that clearly shows the
damage is below the insurance deductible. The commenters proposed that
if at the time of disaster the applicant estimates the damage to be
below the insurance deductible, the applicant should be allowed to
produce a copy of the declaration page or policy at the time of
inspection in order to receive immediate assistance. In addition, two
State agencies (Washington and Virginia) recommended modifying the
regulation text to provide assistance to applicants immediately if they
produced an insurance declaration page as proof of the limits of the
policy.
    In support of its comment, a Washington State agency described how,
following an earthquake affecting 22 counties in that State, most of
the homes had less than $10,000 damage, and since the homes were valued
in excess of $100,000, the damage was below the earthquake insurance
deductible of 10 percent. The commenter described how the applicant had
to send in an insurance denial before FEMA would process the
application and that later, FEMA changed its policy and asked the
applicant to send in the declaration page of the earthquake policy, if
damage was below $10,000. The commenter stated that this further
confused the affected public. The commenter concluded that when
applicants have to wait for an insurance denial before FEMA will
consider their application, the applicants assume falsely that they
would have been better off if they had not had the insurance, which has
the unintended consequence of applicants dropping their insurance
coverage.
    Finally, the commenters on the insurance coverage provision also
suggested that if FEMA makes the requested changes, FEMA should also
make conforming changes to 44 CFR 206.113(a).

FEMA's Response

    The three State agencies that commented that the term
``significantly delayed'' should be defined in the regulation were in
error. The term ``significantly delayed'' was defined in the interim
final rule at 44 CFR 206.111 and used at 44 CFR 206.110(h) and 44 CFR
206.113(a)(3). The term ``significantly delayed'' is defined in the
interim final rule as more than 30 days.
    With respect to the request that FEMA amend the regulation to allow
for an applicant to certify to FEMA that the estimated damages are
below the maximum allowable repair assistance award and to provide a
copy of the hazard insurance declaration page that clearly shows the
damage is below the insurance deductible, FEMA has concluded that
applicants are not qualified to objectively estimate the total cost of
damages, and therefore are not qualified to certify that the estimated
cost is below their deductible. Therefore, FEMA did not make any
changes based on this comment.
    In addition, prior to DMA 2000, FEMA accepted declaration pages
from applicants to support their claims for assistance. However, an
unintended consequence of this was that applicants were asking their
insurance companies for a copy of their declaration page. In turn, the
insurance companies classified the applicants' inquiries as claims
against their policies, so in some cases, the applicants' insurance
premiums were increased. After DMA 2000, FEMA made a policy
determination to stop accepting declaration pages from applicants to
support their claims for assistance. For this reason as well, FEMA did
not make any changes based on this comment.
    With respect to the comment from the Washington State agency, FEMA
notes that if the applicant has filed a claim with their insurance
provider and, through no fault of their own, the coverage has been
delayed for 30 days or more and the person has agreed to pay FEMA back
when their insurance proceeds arrive, FEMA can provide assistance up to
the maximum IHP award. For fiscal year 2020, the IHP maximum award is
$35,500 for housing assistance and $35,500 for other needs assistance.
84 FR 55323, Oct. 16, 2019; see 44 CFR 206.113(a)(3). In addition, if
the applicant's insurance proceeds are less than what FEMA can
authorize and the proceeds are insufficient to cover the necessary
expenses or serious needs, FEMA can provide the difference up to the
maximum award. See 44 CFR 206.113(a)(4). Otherwise, FEMA would be
competing with the applicant's insurance company to see which entity
could issue assistance the fastest. FEMA has to allow the insurance
company time to process the applicant's claim.
    FEMA does not agree that applicants would have been better off if
they had

not had insurance. The Stafford Act only allows FEMA to issue a maximum
amount of assistance, which is usually much less than the amount of
insurance coverage for which an applicant could insure their dwelling.
IHP provides financial assistance and, if necessary, direct assistance
to eligible individuals and households who, as a direct result of an
emergency or major disaster, have uninsured or under-insured necessary
expenses and serious needs, and are unable to meet such expenses or
needs through other means. IHP's purpose is not to make an applicant
``whole again.'' FEMA's assistance is intended to help applicants on
the road to self-sufficiency. Therefore, FEMA did not propose any
changes to the regulations based upon this comment.

Comments Regarding Conditions of Ineligibility (44 CFR 206.113(b))

    The interim final rule at 44 CFR 206.113(b)(9) indicates business
losses are ineligible for IHP grant assistance. One State (Texas)
commented that there should be an exception to the rule forbidding IHP
grant assistance for business losses. The State proposed that the
exception should allow IHP to provide grants for the loss of uninsured
work tools for self-employed individuals who are denied loan assistance
from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) for financial
reasons. The commenter noted that under current regulations, self-
employed individuals who suffer work tool loss, and are ineligible for
SBA loans, receive no assistance from IHP for this significant loss,
and therefore, they fall through the cracks of the recovery program.

FEMA's Response

    Section 408(e) of the Stafford Act limits financial assistance to
medical, dental, child care, funeral expenses, personal property,
transportation, and other necessary expenses or serious needs resulting
from the major disaster. Financial assistance for ``personal property''
losses provides assistance to repair or replace personal property
damaged or destroyed due to a disaster.\2\ Financial assistance for
``other necessary expenses'' provides assistance to households with
certain disaster-caused miscellaneous expenses; eligible items must be
purchased or rented after the incident to assist with the applicant's
disaster recovery.\3\ FEMA does allow for assistance to replace
essential tools, supplies, and equipment owned pre-disaster that are
required by an employer as a condition for employment.\4\ If a self-
employed individual's tools are destroyed due to a disaster, FEMA
considers the tools as property of the business and not the individual
and thus a business loss. The Small Business Administration Office of
Disaster Assistance's provides low interest disaster loans to
businesses of all sizes, private non-profit organizations, homeowners,
and renters to repair or replace real estate, personal property,
machinery and equipment, inventory and business assets that have been
damaged or destroyed in a declared disaster.\5\ Section 312 of the
Stafford Act prohibits duplication of benefits for losses incurred as a
result of a major disaster. Since the SBA provides assistance for
business related losses, FEMA structured the IHP to provide assistance
to individuals and households and not businesses, and thus FEMA chose
to not make any changes to the regulations based on this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FEMA, Individuals and Households Program Unified Guidance,
FP 104-009-3, September 30, 2016, at 105, available at https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/124228.
    \3\ Id. at 102.
    \4\ Id. at 107.
    \5\ Small Business Administration, A Reference Guide to the SBA
Disaster Loan Program, May 2015, at 1, available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/SBA_Disaster_Loan_Program_Reference_Guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conditions Regarding Appeals (44 CFR 206.115(b))

    Section 206.115 allows for applicants to appeal any determination
of eligibility under 44 CFR part 206, subpart D. Section 206.115(b)
provides that ``appeals must be in writing and explain the reason(s)
for the appeal.'' One State (Washington) recommended that FEMA publish
an email address for use in filing appeals, as this would expedite the
appeals process, would reduce the possibility of lost regular mail, and
would speed up the process of passing misdirected appeals to the right
agency.

FEMA's Response

    FEMA does not provide the address in 44 CFR 206.115(b) since the
address to submit appeals may change and FEMA would not want applicants
to have to wait for the publication of a document in the Federal
Register before they would have the updated address to submit their
appeal. Instead, FEMA provides applicants with the address that they
may submit an appeal to in FEMA's denial letter. FEMA does not provide
an email address in the denial letter, as FEMA does not have a secure
system in place that would allow appeals to be emailed to FEMA. The
only secure server FEMA has in place that can accommodate applicant
appeals is the system handling applications for FEMA disaster
assistance. If an applicant creates an online disaster assistance
account, they can submit an appeal ``electronically'' by uploading
appeal documentation into their file.

Comments Regarding Moving and Storage (44 CFR 206.119(c)(5))

    The proposed rule, in 44 CFR 206.110(c)(5), provided for financial
assistance for necessary expenses and serious needs related to moving
and storing personal property ``away from the threat of damage
including the evacuation'' of such property. In contrast, the interim
final rule, in 44 CFR 206.119(c)(5), provided for financial assistance
for necessary expenses and serious needs related to moving and storing
personal property ``to avoid additional disaster damage.'' Four State
agencies (Virginia, New York, Texas, and Washington) commented on this
provision, stating that financial assistance should be provided for
pre-disaster preventative moving and storage and not only for moving
and storage of property after a disaster has occurred. Several
commenters noted that the restriction on paying for pre-disaster moving
and storage was inconsistent with the Federal and State philosophy of
promoting and supporting hazard mitigation measures and that the people
should be encouraged to move personal property out of flood zones, if
they have time to do so. One commented that it was most desirable that
proactive actions be taken to avoid serious harm or injury to person or
property.
    The commenters stated that the cost of moving and storage was much
less than the cost of replacing personal property. One commented that
the concept of not paying for taking preventive measures to reduce the
potential loss is in direct contrast to the ``insurance model,'' where
individuals who sustain losses or may incur additional losses are
required to take necessary and effective action to prevent or mitigate
further losses and that the reimbursement of expenses incurred to
minimize prospective losses prior to or during a disaster would seem to
be prudent and should be encouraged and rewarded. The commenter stated
that it was inconsistent to not reimburse an applicant for moving items
out of harm's way prior to a disaster and then make them purchase
mandatory flood insurance coverage for items that could have been
safeguarded.

FEMA's Response

    Section 408(e)(2) of the Stafford Act provides that financial
assistance may be provided to address personal property,
transportation, and other necessary expenses or serious needs resulting
from the major disaster. FEMA interpreted Section 408(e)(2) in 44 CFR
206.119(c)(5) to provide financial assistance under ONA to pay for the
cost of storage of personal property while repairs are being made to
the primary residence and the cost of returning the property to the
applicant's primary residence. FEMA has provided further guidance that
eligible expenses for moving and storage assistance include the
following expenses: Costs for commercial moving labor, moving truck
rental fee, fuel for the rental vehicle, costs for tape and boxes,
storage unit fees, and associated sales taxes.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FEMA, Individuals and Households Program Unified Guidance,
FP 104-009-3, September 30, 2016, at 111, available at https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/124228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to comments stating that the restriction on paying for
pre-disaster moving and storage is inconsistent with the Federal and
State philosophy of promoting and supporting hazard mitigation
measures, FEMA believes that even if it were to remove the restriction
and begin paying for pre-disaster moving and storage expenses it would
have limited affect, as it would only apply sporadically and affect a
small population of disaster survivors. This is because pre-disaster
moving and storage expenses would only apply to specific types of
disasters that have advance warning such as hurricanes and lava flows.
Unexpected disasters such as earthquakes and tornados would not be
eligible for pre-disaster moving and storage expenses because those
events occur without sufficient warning to permit sufficient time to
move and store. In addition, FEMA's system for processing applications
for IHP accepts expenses that occurred post major disaster declaration
date. Allowing moving and storage expenses pre-disaster declaration
date is an administrative challenge and would require system changes.
For these reasons, FEMA has chosen, at this time, to continue to limit
moving and storage assistance to assistance provided after the disaster
has occurred while repairs are being made to the primary residence.
However, FEMA is taking the commenter's suggestion under advisement and
it will conduct a policy review to evaluate a possible future change to
allow moving and storage expenses pre-disaster declaration date.
    With respect to comments stating that the cost of moving and
storage was much less than the cost of replacing personal property,
FEMA also notes that the insurance industry generally does not
reimburse for pre-disaster, preventative moving and storage. In
addition, the insurance industry requires individuals who sustain
losses or may incur additional losses to take necessary and effective
action to prevent or mitigate further losses. The insurance industry
generally does not require prevention or mitigation before the loss
occurs.

Comments Regarding Ineligible Costs (44 CFR 206.120(f)(3))

    As discussed in the NPRM and changed by the interim final rule, the
Other Needs Assistance (ONA) provision of the IHP may be administered
one of three ways: (1) Exclusively by FEMA, (2) administered by the
State with substantial FEMA assistance, or (3) by the State with
minimal FEMA participation. If the State administers ONA, it may
request a grant from FEMA that it uses to administer assistance to
individuals and households in the State. In accordance with section
408(f)(1)(B) of the Stafford Act, a State that receives an ONA grant
may expend not more than 5 percent of the amount of the grant for
administrative costs. These administrative costs typically include
conducting grants management oversight; generating financial status
reports, weekly program status reports, and other accounting documents;
maintaining records; and conducting audits.
    Under the terms of 44 CFR 206.120(f)(3), funds provided to the
State for administrative costs cannot be used to pay regular time for
State employees but may be used to pay overtime for those employees.
Three of the State agencies that commented on the rule (Texas,
Washington, and New York) disagreed with this provision. One commenter
stated that FEMA had arbitrarily implemented a rule that runs contrary
to the definition of eligible costs in OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A,
General Principles for Determining Allowable Costs. The commenter
stated that staff costs, whether they are incurred by an incumbent
State employee or newly hired person, should be an eligible expense
against grant management if the employee spends most of his/her
available hours managing the grant.
    Another commenter stated that because overtime is an allowed
expense by 206.120(f)(3),\7\ and thus recognized as an identifiable and
specific function which fully benefits IHP/ONA, regular time should be
allowed since it is also an identifiable and specific function which
fully benefits IHP/ONA. The commenter also stated that funding the
regular time of State employees with another funding source would
contradict OMB Circular No. A-87, Attachment A, C.3.c., which addresses
overcoming funding deficiencies for Federal grant awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The commenter referenced 44 CFR 206.120(e)(3). FEMA
construes the citation as a reference to 44 CFR 206.120(f)(3),
because section 206.120(e)(3) does not exist and 44 CFR
206.120(f)(3) states that ``Funds provided to the State for the
administrative costs of administering Other Needs assistance shall
not be used to pay regular time for State employees, but may be used
to pay overtime for those employees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters stated that some employees involved in IHP/ONA
administration devote 100 percent of their time to the management of
the disaster processing operation, and for those that perform other
tasks in addition to grant management, any sizeable disaster will
require hiring additional staff to backfill the other duties that the
grant manager no longer has time to do.
    A commenter stated that the current rule, as written, runs contrary
to a State's effort to remain involved in ONA and that considerable
time and effort has been expended in order to train State staff to be
ready and able to respond effectively to disaster declarations.
According to the commenter, the current rule encourages States to hire
a temporary person to manage the grant, thus allowing their salary to
be a legitimate cost against the 5 percent administrative fee; however,
hiring someone who knows nothing about the IHP, which needs to be up
and running within hours of a declaration, is not justifiable.

FEMA's Response

    The 2002 interim final rule was not contrary to the definition of
eligible costs in OMB Circular A-87. On September 30, 2002, the date
that FEMA promulgated the interim final rule (see 67 FR 61446), the
applicable version of OMB Circular A-87 was the version published in
the Federal Register on May 17, 1995. See 60 FR 26484. The 1995 OMB
Circular A-87, Attachment A, E.2.a., states that typical direct costs
that are chargeable to Federal awards include compensation for
employees for the time devoted and identified specifically to the
performance of those awards. However, OMB Circular A-87 does not
prohibit FEMA from making

these types of direct costs ineligible through the regulatory process.
See 1995 OMB Circular No. A-87, Attachment A, C.1d.
    With respect to the commenter's statement that funding the regular
time of State employees with another funding source would contradict
the 1995 OMB Circular No. A-87 C.3.c., FEMA construes the citation as a
reference to the 1995 OMB Circular No. A-87, Attachment A, C.3.c., as
the referenced cite, C.3.c., does not exist in the main portion of the
1995 OMB Circular No. A-87. The interim final rule at 44 CFR
206.120(f)(3) does not contradict the 1995 OMB Circular No. A-87,
Attachment A, C.3.c., as the regular time of State employees would be
funded by the State and would not be charged to other Federal awards to
overcome funding deficiencies. FEMA made a program determination to
reimburse States that hire additional personnel for the grant because
in such cases the costs for the additional personnel hired are directly
linked to the management of the IHP/ONA grant award. FEMA determined
that it would reimburse the State for the costs for these additional
State employees because their salaries are not covered under previously
appropriated funds in a State's budget and they were hired simply to
work on the management of the IHP/ONA grant award. For the same
reasons, 44 CFR 206.120(f)(3) does not contradict the 1995 OMB Circular
No. A-87, Attachment A, C.3.c.
    Since the interim final rule was promulgated, OMB has issued two
additional versions of OMB Circular A-87, which have superseded the
previous versions. See 69 FR 25970 and 78 FR 78590. The 2004 OMB
Circular A-87 version was merely a revision, and while the citations
were updated, the language was not changed. In 2013, OMB issued final
guidance that superseded and streamlined requirements from OMB
Circulars A-21, A-87, A-110, and A-122 (which have been placed in OMB
guidance); Circulars A-89, A-102, and A-133; and the guidance in
Circular A-50 on Single Audit Act follow up. See 78 FR 78590. The
purpose of this consolidation was to provide the aforementioned
circular in a streamlined format that aims to improve both clarity and
accessibility.

Comments Regarding Ineligible Costs (44 CFR 206.120(f)(3)) and
Federalism

    One commenter also added that the interim final rule appears to be
a subtle attempt to encourage the States to let FEMA administer the
grants. The commenter stated that the rule may, therefore, have
federalism implications.

FEMA's Response

    As discussed under the Federalism heading of the preamble, a rule
has federalism implications if it has 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. This regulation clearly leaves the
decision whether to administer (or apply for) ONA to the States.
``Subtle encouragement'' to participate voluntarily in a Federal
program, whether intended or not, does not rise to the level of a rule
with federalism implications. The regulatory text in question does not
require States to participate in the program, mandate that FEMA
administer the program, prohibit States from administering the program,
or limit the policymaking discretion of the States with respect to
whether they may or may not administer the program. States are free to
administer the grants; however, FEMA will not fund the regular salaries
of State employees, for the reasons stated above.

Comments Regarding Recovery of Other Needs Assistance Funds (44 CFR
206.120(f)(5))

    Section 206.120(f)(5) requires the States to recover ONA funds from
applicants who obtained the funds through fraud, who expended the funds
for unauthorized items or services, who expended the funds for items
for which assistance is received from other means, and from applicants
to whom the award was made in error. Four State agencies (Texas,
Washington, Maine, and New York) commented that the States should not
be responsible for recovering ONA funds when the recovery is necessary
due to FEMA error, for example when a grant is issued erroneously by
FEMA's automated determination process. One State agency proposed that,
since many States use the ``AUTO-D'' option, which is based on the FEMA
inspection reports and business rules set up in NEMIS, the following
language should be added to 44 CFR 206.120(f)(5): ``FEMA will be
responsible for recovering assistance awards from applicants when an
award has been mistakenly made as a result of a FEMA processing
error.'' The commenter added that the State administrative ``cost to
recover funds runs two to three times more than the cost of issuing an
award. Under the current FEMA policy, the administrative costs are
deducted from the total Federal outlay, which means the States are not
compensated (five percent administrative costs) for moneys recovered.''
The commenter noted that requiring the States to recover award moneys
for Federal mistakes results in use of State funds to correct Federal
errors, which is punitive to the States.

FEMA's Response

    FEMA inserted 44 CFR 206.120 into the interim final rule to address
the financial management principles that FEMA would use to implement
the ONA portion of the IHP. Even before FEMA published the proposed IHP
rule, a number of States had expressed a desire to actively participate
in the administration of IHP. The comments that FEMA received on both
the proposed and interim final rule indicated that the States wanted
opportunities to be active partners in the administration of the new
program. One component in the administration of the IHP is the recovery
of funds that were issued in error. Federal agencies are required to
take action to identify and recover improper payments, regardless of
whether the payments were made in error or obtained by fraud.\8\ In
addition, by statute, applicants must return funds to FEMA when the
assistance provided by FEMA duplicates assistance from another
source.\9\ And the generally applicable IHP regulations, which apply
regardless of which entity administers IHP, require applicants to
return funds when such funds were provided in error, were spent
inappropriately, or were obtained through fraudulent means.\10\ When a
State is administrating the ONA portion of the IHP, FEMA provides a
grant to the State, territorial, or Tribal government and they are
responsible for all tasks associated with the administration of ONA.
The State, territorial, or Tribal government provides assistance to
applicants, and FEMA is responsible for reimbursing the State,
territorial, or Tribal government for its portion of the cost share.
The State, territorial, or Tribal government may utilize 5 percent of
the grant toward administrative costs, including the costs of
reimbursement. Because the State, territorial, or Tribal government are
the entities who made the decisions regarding whether an applicant was
eligible for ONA funds and have the records regarding who was awarded
ONA funds, the State, territorial, or Tribal government are ultimately
the party that must be responsible for recovering funds that were
issued in error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Debt Collection Act of 1996, Public Law 104-34; 31
U.S.C. 3711(a).
    \9\ Section 312(c) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5155(c); 44
CFR 206.191.
    \10\ 44 CFR 206.116(b).

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

    Additionally, as a result of cost-share requirements, 25 percent of
the funds that were issued in error are actually State funds that need
to be returned to the State. Thus, the State can recover the funds,
subtract their portion of funds, and return the remaining 75 percent to
the Federal Government.

Comments Regarding Flood Insurance Purchase Requirement (44 CFR
206.110(k)) and Group Flood Insurance Policy (44 CFR 206.119(d))

    The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended, requires
that individuals or households that are located in a Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA) may not receive Federal assistance for National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) insurable real and/or personal property
damaged by a flood unless the community in which the property is
located is participating in the NFIP. See 42 U.S.C. 4001-4129. In
addition, the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 and the
Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
state that no Federal disaster assistance may be provided to a person
for damage to any personal or residential property who has received
flood disaster assistance that was conditioned on the person first
having obtained flood insurance and subsequently failed to obtain and
maintain flood insurance as required. See 42 U.S.C. 5154a. Pursuant to
the flood insurance purchase requirement, individuals and households
must buy and maintain flood insurance as a condition of receiving
Federal assistance. For purposes of IA, FEMA interprets financial
assistance to mean assistance to an individual or household to buy,
receive, build, repair, or improve insurable portions of a home and/or
to purchase or repair insurable contents. See 44 CFR 206.110(k).
    Individuals identified by FEMA as eligible for ONA under section
408 of the Stafford Act as a result of flood damage caused by a
Presidentially-declared major disaster and who reside in a special
flood hazard area may be included in a Group Flood Insurance Policy
(GFIP) established under the NFIP. See 44 CFR 206.119(d). The GFIP is a
policy that is established for each disaster declaration that results
from flooding and authorizes the provision of Individual Assistance.
FEMA or the State will withhold a portion of ONA funds for such
individuals and provide it to the NFIP on behalf of individuals and
households who are eligible for coverage. Payments to cover the premium
amount for each applicant are paid for a 3-year policy term. The master
GFIP policy term is for 36 months and begins 60 days from the date of
the disaster declaration. However, individual coverage becomes
effective 30 days following the NFIP's receipt of the applicant's name
and premium payment from the State, Territory, Tribal government, or
FEMA.
    Three State agencies (Washington, Virginia, and Texas) commented on
the requirement that individuals and households must purchase flood
insurance when their GFIP grant ends. Washington and Virginia stated
that the requirement to maintain the policy places a disproportionate
burden on the poor, as the poor were more likely to buy property in
SFHAs because it is the least expensive property in a community, and
that the cost of GFIP renewal for such individuals was cost-
prohibitive, given their limited resources. Texas stated that, since
the penalty for failure to purchase and maintain flood insurance, which
is a condition of IHP, is a denial of future disaster assistance, it
would be imprudent not to continue to provide GFIP coverage for low
income disaster victims.
    Three State agencies (Maine, Washington, and Virginia) commented
that FEMA should consider changing the GFIP requirement for people who
cannot pass an SBA income test. Maine expressed concern that the
individuals would become disenfranchised from assistance following the
expiration of their GFIP grant and that, unless the financial
situations of such individuals improved dramatically, it was unlikely
that such individuals would either qualify for SBA programs or be able
to pay an NFIP premium following the expiration of the GFIP grant.
Virginia also commented that if an individual fails the SBA income test
they should be subsidized by a formula based system.

FEMA's Response

    In the proposed rule, FEMA proposed the elimination of the GFIP.
See 67 FR 3415. As discussed in the interim final rule, FEMA received
comments from States which supported the continuation of the GFIP. See
67 FR 61449. The States stated that the basis for their support of the
program related to the fact that disaster survivors who qualified for
Individual and Family Grant assistance (the precursor program to the
IHP) generally had low incomes and were not as able to afford to pay
flood insurance premiums as other disaster survivors. See 67 FR 61449.
Because the penalty for failing to purchase and maintain flood
insurance as a condition of receiving disaster assistance under the old
Individual and Family Grant Program and under the new IHP is a denial
of future disaster assistance, most of the States that commented on
FEMA's proposal believed that it would be imprudent not to continue
providing GFIP coverage for low income disaster survivors.
    FEMA retained the GFIP in the interim final rule based upon the
comments FEMA received on the proposed rule as well as the requirement
from the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 and the Riegle
Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (See 42
U.S.C. 5154a). But some States questioned the requirement to maintain
flood insurance, arguing that it places a disproportionate burden on
the poor, since the poor are more likely to buy property in special
flood areas because they are the least expensive properties in a
community, and that the cost for such individuals is too high. Also,
the Stafford Act requires the purchase and maintenance of flood
insurance as a condition of receiving future disaster assistance in
certain circumstances. See 42 U.S.C. 5154a. Therefore, FEMA does not
have the discretion to waive the flood insurance requirement. To assist
applicants with maintaining flood insurance, as mentioned above, FEMA
provides all eligible applicants with GFIP for 3 years. See 44 CFR
206.119(d).

Comments Regarding Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

    Two State agencies (Washington and Virginia) commented generally
that the interim final rule would ``discriminate covertly'' against the
poor. Specifically, these two commenters stated that the housing repair
cap of $5,000 and the housing replacement cap of $10,000 have a
negative impact on low-income disaster survivors.

FEMA's Response

    FEMA does not believe that the interim final rule discriminates
covertly against the poor. For instance, the interim final rule
assisted the poor by retaining the GFIP.
    The two comments that FEMA received regarding the housing repair
and replacement caps were addressed in the final rule published on
November 7, 2013, that removed the caps.

IV. Final Rule

    FEMA is finalizing the interim final rule implementing 44 CFR
206.110-120 published on September 30, 2002, (67 FR 61446), with the
corrections published on October 9, 2002, (67 FR 62896), the technical
amendments to 206.110, 206.111, 206.112, 206.115, 206.117, and 206.120
published on

April 3, 2009, (74 FR 15328), and the amendments to 206.117 published
on November 7, 2013, (78 FR 66852), without change.

V. Regulatory Analysis

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review and Executive
Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'') directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a ``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this
rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from
the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum
``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''' (April 5, 2017).
    This final rule will result in no changes to the IHP and FEMA does
not anticipate any additional costs. FEMA is not requiring applicants
to perform any additional tasks, fill out any new forms, or provide any
additional information. It is anticipated that the cost to applicants
will not change as a result of this rule. FEMA is not changing the
parameters of the program in any way so there is no expectation that
the number of applications processed by FEMA would be altered. As such,
FEMA's workload will not be impacted.
    The IHP provides financial and direct assistance to those who, as
the result of a Presidentially-declared emergency or major disaster,
have necessary expenses and serious needs they are unable to meet
through other means. This aid may include temporary housing, aid to
repair or replace housing, permanent or semi-permanent housing
construction, and ONA, which provides financial assistance for personal
property losses, medical, dental, funeral, child care, transportation,
and other miscellaneous expenses. These services and the benefits
derived from them are not being altered by this final rule and will
continue to exist at their current levels. Since there are no changes
to the amount or type of assistance available, there will
correspondingly be no change in the benefits currently derived from the
IHP.
    Similarly, this final rule will not change the number of eligible
applicants or the amount of funds expended per applicant. This rule
also has no anticipated impact on transfers.
    This rule finalizes an interim final rule and addresses outstanding
comments received on the September 30, 2002 interim final rule. This
final rule makes no changes to the IHP either in response to or
independent of those comments. FEMA does not anticipate any changes to
the associated costs, benefits, or transfers from this final rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FEMA must consider the impact of
this proposed regulation on small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
When the Administrative Procedure Act requires an agency to publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, the RFA requires a
regulatory flexibility analysis for both the proposed rule and the
final rule if the rulemaking could ``have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.''
    This final rule concerns the provision of Federal assistance to
individuals and households after a Presidentially-declared emergency or
major disaster. Individuals and households are not classified as small
entities. A household is defined at 44 CFR 206.111 as ``all persons
(adults and children) who lived in the pre-disaster residence who
request assistance under this subpart, as well as any persons such as
infants, spouse or part-time residents who were not present at the time
of the disaster, but who are expected to return during the assistance
period.'' This rule does not directly regulate any small entities.
    Additionally, while this rule is addressing comments from the
September 30, 2002 interim final rule, it is making no changes and
imposes no direct costs.
    During the public comment period on the January 23, 2002, NPRM,
FEMA did not receive any comments contrary to the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis certification provided at that time.
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the head of FEMA certifies this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 658, 1501-1504,
1531-1536, 1571, pertains to any notice of proposed rulemaking which
implements any rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million (adjusted annually
for inflation) or more in any one year. If the rulemaking includes a
Federal mandate, the Act requires an agency to prepare an assessment of
the anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate. The Act also
pertains to any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Before establishing any such
requirements, an agency must develop a plan allowing for input from the
affected governments regarding the requirements. The Act exempts any
regulation or proposed regulation that ``requires compliance with
accounting and auditing procedures with respect to grants or other
money or property provided by the Federal Government'' or ``provides
for emergency assistance or relief at the request of any State, local,
or tribal government or any official of a State, local, or tribal
government.'' 2 U.S.C. 1503(4). FEMA finds this rule to be exempt from
the Act under those provisions.
    As reported in the 12866 section, FEMA has determined that this
rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, nor by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year as a result of a Federal mandate, and
it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., an agency must prepare an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for any
rulemaking that significantly affects the quality of the human
environment. FEMA has determined that this rulemaking does not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment and
consequently has not prepared an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement.
    Rulemaking is a major Federal action subject to NEPA. Categorical
exclusion A3 included in the list of exclusion categories at Department
of Homeland Security Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Revision 01,
Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, Appendix A,
issued November 6, 2014, covers the promulgation of rules, issuance of
rulings or interpretations, and the development and publication of
policies, orders, directives, notices, procedures, manuals, and
advisory circulars if they meet certain criteria provided in A3(a-f).
This final rule finalizes an existing regulation without changing its
environmental effect, which meets Categorical Exclusion A3(d).

E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    FEMA has determined that this rule will not create a new collection
of information or create a revision to an existing collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
3501-3520. All information submitted by applicants seeking IHP housing
assistance, including information submitted on appeal, is included in
OMB-approved collections.
    The following collections related to IHP have been approved by OMB
under the following titles and control numbers: ``Disaster Assistance
Registration,'' OMB control number 1660-0002, expiration date August
31, 2022, and ``Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households
Program (IHP),'' OMB control number 1660-0061, expiration date May 31,
2020. There is no additional paperwork burden as a result of this final
rule.

F. Privacy Act

    Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency must
determine whether implementation of a proposed regulation will result
in a system of records. A ``record'' is any item, collection, or
grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an
agency, including, but not limited to, his/her education, financial
transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and
that contains his/her name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other
identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or
voice print or a photograph. See 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(4). A ``system of
records'' is a group of records under the control of an agency from
which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some
identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to
the individual. An agency cannot disclose any record which is contained
in a system of records except by following specific procedures.
    FEMA, in partnership with other Federal agencies, hosts a single
application and resource center at http://www.disasterassistance.gov
that allows the public to apply for disaster assistance, benefits, and
other services within FEMA and other Federal agencies. This application
and resource center accepts personally identifiable information about
IHP applicants seeking disaster related housing and other needs
assistance. The application resource center is included in a Privacy
Act System of Records entitled ``Disaster Recovery Assistance Files''
number ``DHS/FEMA-008'' which was published on April 30, 2013, in the
Federal Register at 78 FR 25282. This final rule would not change the
application materials received or result in a new collection of
personally identifiable information about individuals.

G. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments,'' 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000, applies to agency
regulations that have Tribal implications, that is, regulations that
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes. Under this Executive Order, to the extent
practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any
regulation that has Tribal implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and that is not
required by statute, unless funds necessary to pay the direct costs
incurred by the Indian Tribal government or the Tribe in complying with
the regulation are provided by the Federal Government, or the agency
consults with Tribal officials. This final rule would not significantly
or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor
would this rulemaking impose substantial direct compliance costs on
those communities.

H. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999, sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to
in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism
implications, that is, regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Federal
agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and
to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials
before implementing any such action. The disaster assistance addressed
by this final rule is provided to individuals and households, and would
not have federalism implications.

I. Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, Floodplain Management and
Protection of Wetlands

    Executive Order 11988, ``Floodplain Management,'' 42 FR 26951, May
24, 1977, sets forth that each agency is required to provide leadership
and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the
impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore
and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in
carrying out its responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and
disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (2) providing Federally
undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and
(3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use,
including but not limited to water and related land resources planning,
regulating, and licensing activities. In carrying out these
responsibilities, each agency must evaluate the potential effects of
any actions it may take in a floodplain; ensure that its planning
programs and budget requests reflect consideration of flood hazards and
floodplain management; and prescribe procedures to implement the
policies and requirements of the Executive Order.
    Before promulgating any regulation, an agency must determine
whether the proposed regulations will affect a floodplain(s), and if
so, the agency must

consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible
development in the floodplain(s). If the head of the agency finds that
the only practicable alternative consistent with the law and with the
policy set forth in Executive Order 11988 is to promulgate a regulation
that affects a floodplain(s), the agency must, prior to promulgating
the regulation, design or modify the regulation in order to minimize
potential harm to or within the floodplain, consistent with the
agency's floodplain management regulations and prepare and circulate a
notice containing an explanation of why the action is proposed to be
located in the floodplain.
    The requirements of these Executive Orders apply in the context of
the provision of Federal financial assistance relating to, among other
things, construction and property improvement activities, as well as
conducting Federal programs affecting land use. This final rule would
not have an effect on land use, floodplain management, or wetlands.
When FEMA undertakes specific actions in administering IHP that may
have effects on floodplain management (e.g., placement of manufactured
housing units on FEMA-constructed group sites; permanent or semi-
permanent housing construction; Multi-Family Lease and Repair;
financial assistance for privately owned roads and bridges), FEMA
follows the procedures set forth in 44 CFR part 9 to assure compliance
with this Executive Order. The notice that is required by the Executive
Order is provided separately at the time FEMA undertakes the specific
action.

J. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

    Under Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations,'' 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994, as amended by Executive
Order 12948, 60 FR 6381, February 1, 1995, FEMA incorporates
environmental justice into its policies and programs. The Executive
Order requires each Federal agency to conduct its programs, policies,
and activities that substantially affect human health or the
environment in a manner that ensures that those programs, policies, and
activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from
participation in programs, denying persons the benefits of programs, or
subjecting persons to discrimination because of race, color, or
national origin. FEMA has incorporated environmental justice into its
policies, programs, and activities.
    The IHP regulations intentionally contain provisions that ensure
they would not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health
effect on any segment of the population. FEMA received a comment on the
interim final rule that stated the interim final rule did not overtly
discriminate against disaster survivors based on race, color, or
national origin, but that it did discriminate covertly against those
who are ``financially challenged,'' and, to the extent that the
``financially challenged'' consist disproportionately of minority
groups, one might conclude that an element of the IHP program lacks
environmental justice. The commenter stated that the housing repair cap
of $5,000 has a gross negative impact on low-income disaster survivors,
and results in more low-income disaster survivors returning to unsafe,
unsanitary, and/or non-functional homes. The commenter recommended the
liberal use of housing replacement assistance to provide additional
help for the financially challenged.
    FEMA addressed this comment in a NPRM that published in the Federal
Register on July 30, 2012 (see 77 FR 44562), and a final rule that
published in the Federal Register on November 7, 2013 (see 78 FR
66852). The $5,000 subcap is no longer in place and individuals and
households may receive up to the full amount of IHP funds ($33,000 for
fiscal year 2016) for eligible housing repair and replacement
assistance. See 80 FR 62086 (Oct. 15, 2015). This figure is adjusted
annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.
    No action that FEMA can anticipate under this final rule would have
a disproportionately high and adverse human health effect on any
segment of the population. In addition, the rulemaking would not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities.

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

    FEMA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks, 62 FR 19883, Apr. 23, 1997. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health
or safety that might disproportionately affect children.

L. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. See Executive Order 12988, 61
FR 4729, Feb. 7, 1996.

M. Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    FEMA has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights, as supplemented by Executive Order 13406, Protecting
the Property Rights of the American People. See Executive Order 12630,
53 FR 8859, Mar. 18, 1988, and Executive Order 13406, 71 FR 36973, June
28, 2006. This rule will not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.

N. Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking

    Under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act (CRA), 5
U.S.C. 801-808, before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency
promulgating the rule must submit to Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) a copy of the rule, a concise general
statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule,
the proposed effective date of the rule, a copy of any cost-benefit
analysis, descriptions of the agency's actions under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and any other
information or statements required by relevant executive orders.
    FEMA has sent this rule to Congress and to GAO pursuant to the CRA.
The rule is not a major rule within the meaning of the CRA. It will not
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, it will
not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions, and it will not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on
the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 206

    Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Community
facilities, Disaster assistance, Fire prevention, Grant programs--
housing and community development, Housing, Insurance,
Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs--housing and

community development, Natural resources, Penalties, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

PART 206--FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

0
Accordingly, the amendments to 44 CFR 206.110-120 of the interim final
rule published on September 30, 2002 (67 FR 61446), with the
corrections published on October 9, 2002 (67 FR 62896), the technical
amendments to 206.110, 206.111, 206.112, 206.115, 206.117, and 206.120
published on April 3, 2009 (74 FR 15328), and the amendments to 206.117
published on November 7, 2013 (78 FR 66852), are adopted as a final
rule without change.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-24762 Filed 11-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 221 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71876-71879]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29215]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76416; File No. SR-ISEGemini-2015-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Corporate Transaction Involving
Its Indirect Parent

November 10, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 30, 2015, ISE Gemini, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the
``ISE Gemini'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which items have been prepared 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to remove Eurex Frankfurt AG (``Eurex
Frankfurt'') as an indirect, non-U.S. upstream owner of the Exchange
(the ``Transaction''). In order to consummate the Transaction, the
Exchange proposes to: (i) Amend and restate the Third Amended and
Restated Trust Agreement (the ``Trust Agreement'') that exists among
International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. (``ISE Holdings''),
U.S. Exchange Holdings, Inc. (``U.S. Exchange Holdings''), and the
Trustees (as defined therein) in order to remove references to Eurex
Frankfurt; and (ii) amend and restate the Third Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of U.S. Exchange Holdings (``U.S. Exchange
Holdings COI'') to update a reference therein to the Trust Agreement.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and on the Exchange's Internet Web
site at http://www.ise.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to remove Eurex Frankfurt as an
indirect, non-U.S. upstream owner of the Exchange.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange's affiliate, International Securities Exchange,
LLC (``ISE''), has submitted a nearly identical proposed rule
change. See SR-ISE-2015-36. The Commission granted the Exchange's
application for registration as a national securities exchange on
July 26, 2013. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70050 (July
26, 2013), 78 FR 46622 (File No. 10-209). The Exchange was
originally named ``Topaz Exchange, LLC.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    On December 17, 2007, ISE Holdings, the sole, direct parent of the
Exchange, became a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of U.S. Exchange
Holdings. U.S. Exchange Holdings is 85% directly owned by Eurex
Frankfurt and 15% directly owned by Deutsche B[ouml]rse AG (``Deutsche
B[ouml]rse''). Eurex Frankfurt is a wholly-owned, direct subsidiary of
Deutsche B[ouml]rse.\4\ Deutsche B[ouml]rse therefore owns 100% of U.S.
Exchange Holdings through its aggregate direct and indirect ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Each of Deutsche B[ouml]rse and Eurex Frankfurt is referred
to as a ``Non-U.S. Upstream Owner'' and collectively as the ``Non-
U.S. Upstream Owners.'' Each of the Non-U.S. Upstream Owners has
previously taken appropriate steps to incorporate provisions
regarding ownership, jurisdiction, books and records, and other
issues related to their control of the Exchange. Specifically, each
of the Non-U.S. Upstream Owners has adopted resolutions, which were
previously approved by the Commission, to incorporate these concepts
with respect to itself, as well as its board members, officers,
employees, and agents (as applicable), to the extent that they are
involved in the activities of the Exchange. See File No. 10-209,
supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Transaction
    The Transaction is designed to simplify the indirect ownership
structure of the Exchange.\5\ The Transaction will not have any effect
on ISE Holdings' direct ownership of the Exchange or the operations of
the Exchange. Consummation of the Transaction is subject to approval of
this proposed rule change by the Commission.\6\ In order to effectuate
the Transaction, on or about December 31, 2015, Eurex Frankfurt will
transfer its 85% ownership in U.S. Exchange Holdings to Deutsche
B[ouml]rse.\7\ As a result of the Transaction, Eurex Frankfurt will
cease to be a Non-U.S. Upstream Owner of the Exchange, as Deutsche
B[ouml]rse will be the sole, direct owner of U.S. Exchange Holdings.\8\
U.S. Exchange

Holdings will remain the sole, direct owner of ISE Holdings. ISE
Holdings will also remain the sole, direct owner of the Exchange. The
Transaction will not result in any additional person or entity
acquiring direct or indirect ownership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In 2014 the Exchange submitted a proposed rule change with
the Commission to similarly simplify the indirect ownership
structure of the Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
73861 (December 17, 2014), 79 FR 77064 (December 23, 2014) (SR-
ISEGemini-2014-24).
    \6\ See infra notes 14 and 15.
    \7\ As referenced above, Deutsche B[ouml]rse is already the 100%
indirect owner of Eurex Frankfurt. In addition, Deutsche B[ouml]rse
also is already an approved Non-U.S. Upstream Owner of the Exchange.
See supra note 4.
    \8\ In connection with each of their ownership interests in the
Exchange, Deutsche B[ouml]rse, Eurex Frankfurt, U.S. Exchange
Holdings, ISE Holdings and ISE became parties to an agreement to
provide for adequate funding for the Exchange's regulatory
responsibilities. The Exchange subsequently became a party to the
agreement. ISE Gemini subsequently became a party to the agreement.
Following the completion of the Transaction, Eurex Frankfurt will
cease to be a Non-U.S. Upstream Owner of the Exchange, and as such,
will no longer be a party to such agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to consummate the Transaction in the manner described
above, certain administrative amendments will need to be made to the
Trust Agreement and the U.S. Exchange Holdings COI. The proposed
amendments to such documents are described below.
Trust Agreement \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Trust Agreement exists among ISE Holdings, U.S. Exchange
Holdings, and the Trustees (as defined therein).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Trust Agreement serves four general purposes: (i) To accept,
hold and dispose of Trust Shares \10\ on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth therein; (ii) to determine whether a Material
Compliance Event \11\ has occurred or is continuing; (iii) to determine
whether the occurrence and continuation of a Material Compliance Event
requires the exercise of the Call Option; \12\ and (iv) to transfer
Deposited Shares from the Trust to the Trust Beneficiary \13\ as
provided in Section 4.2(h) therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Under the Trust Agreement, the term ``Trust Shares'' means
either Excess Shares or Deposited Shares, or both, as the case may
be. The term ``Excess Shares'' means that a Person obtained an
ownership or voting interest in ISE Holdings in excess of certain
ownership and voting restrictions pursuant to Article FOURTH of the
ISE Holdings COI, through, for example, ownership of one of the Non-
U.S. Upstream Owners or U.S. Exchange Holdings, without obtaining
the approval of the Commission. The term ``Deposited Shares'' means
shares that are transferred to the Trust pursuant to the Trust's
exercise of the Call Option.
    \11\ Under the Trust Agreement, the term ``Material Compliance
Event'' means, with respect to a Non-U.S. Upstream Owner, any state
of facts, development, event, circumstance, condition, occurrence or
effect that results in the failure of any of the Non-U.S. Upstream
Owners to adhere to their respective commitments under the
resolutions (i.e., as referenced in note 4) in any material respect.
    \12\ Under the Trust Agreement, the term ``Call Option'' means
the option granted by the Trust Beneficiary to the Trust to call the
Voting Shares as set forth in Section 4.2 therein.
    \13\ Under the Trust Agreement, the term ``Trust Beneficiary''
means U.S. Exchange Holdings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend certain provisions of the Trust
Agreement in connection with the Transaction. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to: (i) Update the recitals of the Trust Agreement
with respect to the Transaction; and (ii) remove references to Eurex
Frankfurt from the definition of ``Affected Affiliate'' in Section 1.1
of the Trust Agreement.\14\ The proposed amendments to the Trust
Agreement are strictly administrative changes to reflect the updated
corporate structure resulting from the Transaction and will not affect
the mechanisms established by the Trust Agreement for the benefit of
the Trust Beneficiary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The proposed, amended Trust Agreement is attached hereto as
Exhibit 5A. Section 8.2 of the Trust Agreement provides, in part,
that, for so long as ISE Holdings controls, directly or indirectly,
the Exchange, before any amendment or repeal of any provision of the
Trust Agreement shall be effective, such amendment or repeal shall
be submitted to the board of directors of the Exchange, as
applicable, and if such amendment or repeal must be filed with or
filed with and approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules
promulgated thereunder before such amendment or repeal may be
effectuated, then such amendment or repeal shall not be effectuated
until filed with or filed with and approved by the Commission, as
the case may be. The Exchange also proposes to retitle the Trust
Agreement as the ``Fourth'' Amended and Restated Trust Agreement and
update the date thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Exchange Holdings COI
    The Exchange proposes to make a non-substantive, administrative
change to the U.S. Exchange Holdings COI to update a reference therein
to the Trust Agreement. Article THIRTEENTH of the U.S. Exchange
Holdings COI contains references to (i) the ``Third Amended and
Restated'' Trust Agreement, which, as discussed herein, will become the
``Fourth Amended and Restated'' Trust Agreement; and (ii) the effective
date of the Trust Agreement, which, as discussed herein, will change to
a date in December 2015 that corresponds to the effective closing date
of the Transaction. The Exchange proposes to update these references.
The Exchange also proposes to retitle the document as the ``Fourth''
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of U.S. Exchange
Holdings and update the effective date thereof.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The proposed, amended U.S. Exchange Holdings COI is
attached hereto as Exhibit 5B. Article SIXTEENTH of the U.S.
Exchange Holdings COI provides that, for so long as U.S. Exchange
Holdings shall control, directly or indirectly, the Exchange, or
facility thereof, before any amendment to or repeal of any provision
of the U.S. Exchange Holdings COI shall be effective, the same shall
be submitted to the board of directors of the Exchange, and if the
same must be filed with, or filed with and approved by, the
Commission before the same may be effective, under Section 19 of the
Act and the rules promulgated thereunder, then the same shall not be
effective until filed with, or filed with and approved by, the
Commission, as the case may be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certain Resolutions
    As described above, each of the Non-U.S. Upstream Owners, including
Eurex Frankfurt, has previously taken appropriate steps to incorporate
provisions regarding ownership, jurisdiction, books and records, and
other issues related to their control of the Exchange. Specifically,
each of such Non-U.S. Upstream Owners has adopted resolutions, which
were previously approved by the Commission, to incorporate these
concepts with respect to itself, as well as its board members,
officers, employees, and agents (as applicable), to the extent that
they are involved in the activities of the Exchange.\16\ For example,
the resolution of each of such Non-U.S. Upstream Owners provides that
it shall comply with the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and
regulations thereunder and shall cooperate with the Commission and with
the Exchange. In addition, the resolution of each of such Non-U.S.
Upstream Owners provides that the board members, including each person
who becomes a board member, would so consent to comply and cooperate
and the particular Non-U.S. Upstream Owner would take reasonable steps
to cause its officers, employees, and agents to also comply and
cooperate, to the extent that he or she is involved in the activities
of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 4. See also File No. 10-209, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Eurex Frankfurt will cease to be a Non-U.S. Upstream Owner of
the Exchange after the Transaction, the Exchange proposes that the
resolutions of Eurex Frankfurt, as referenced above, will cease to be
rules of the Exchange as of a date in December 2015 that corresponds to
the effective closing date of the Transaction.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As referenced above, resolutions in relation to board
members, officers, employees, and agents (as applicable) of Eurex
Frankfurt also would cease accordingly. This proposed change would
have no impact on the resolutions of Deutsche B[ouml]rse or its
board members, officers, employees, and agents (as applicable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary
    Upon the consummation of the Transaction the Exchange will continue
to operate and regulate its market and members in the same exact manner
as it did prior to the Transactions. The Transaction will not impair
the ability of ISE Holdings, the Exchange, or any facility thereof, to
carry out their respective functions and responsibilities under the
Act. Moreover, the Transaction will not impair the ability of the
Commission to enforce the Act with respect to the Exchange and its Non-
U.S. Upstream Owners (which will solely be Deutsche B[ouml]rse after
the Transaction), including each of their directors, officers,
employees and agents, to the extent they are involved in the activities
of the Exchange. As such, the Commission's plenary

regulatory authority over the Exchange will not be affected by the
approval of this proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)of the Act,\18\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(1) of the Act,\19\ in particular, in that it enables the Exchange
to be so organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the
purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its
exchange members and persons associated with its exchange members, with
the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and
the rules of the Exchange. The Exchange will operate in the same manner
following the Transaction as it operates today. Thus, the Commission
will continue to have plenary regulatory authority over the Exchange,
as is the case currently with the Exchange. The proposed rule change is
consistent with and will facilitate an ownership structure that will
continue to provide the Commission with appropriate oversight tools to
ensure that the Commission will have the ability to enforce the Act
with respect to the Exchange and its Non-U.S. Upstream Owners,
including their directors, officers, employees and agents, to the
extent they are involved in the activities of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that this filing furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5) \20\ of the Act 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.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
continue to provide the Commission and the Exchange with access to
necessary information that will allow the Exchange to efficiently and
effectively enforce compliance with the Act, as well as allow the
Commission to provide proper oversight, which will ultimately promote
just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors. In
addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
continue to preserve the independence of the Exchange's self-regulatory
function and ensure that the Exchange will be able to obtain any
information it needs in order to detect and deter any fraudulent and
manipulative acts in its marketplace and carry out its regulatory
responsibilities under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approval of this proposed rule change will enable ISE Holdings to
continue its operations and the Exchange to continue its orderly
discharge of regulatory duties 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.
    Finally, the Exchange is not proposing any significant or novel
regulatory issues, nor is it proposing any changes to the Exchange's
operational or trading structure in connection with the Transaction.
Instead, the Exchange represents that the proposed rule change consists
of administrative amendments to the Trust Agreement and the U.S.
Exchange Holdings COI and addresses certain resolutions in relation to
Eurex Frankfurt, which currently is a Non-U.S. Upstream Owner of the
Exchange, but whose status as such will cease as a result of the
Transaction, such that the resolutions will cease to be rules of the
Exchange as they relate to Eurex Frankfurt, and that no changes will be
made to other aspects of the Exchange's organizational documents that
were previously approved by the Commission.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\21\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed
rule change implicates any competitive issues. Rather, the Transaction
merely represents a restructuring of indirect ownership interests of
the Exchange, and will not involve the introduction of any new direct
or indirect owners or any entity or individual that would have the
right to direct the actions of the Exchange or vote the shares of the
Exchange. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such 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-ISEGemini-2015-24 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISEGemini-2015-24. 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 on official business days
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
offices 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-ISEGemini-2015-24, and should be submitted on or before December 8,
2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29215 Filed 11-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P