[Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 196)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62470-62472]
[DOCID:fr12oc10-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0228-201038; FRL- 9212-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Tennessee:
Knoxville; Determination of Attaining Data for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On February 19, 2010, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), submitted
a request to EPA to make a determination that the Knoxville, Tennessee
nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) has attained these standards based on quality
assured, quality controlled monitoring data from 2007 through 2009. The
Knoxville 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is comprised of
Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, and Sevier Counties in their
entireties, and the portion of Cocke County that falls within the
boundary of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (hereafter referred
to as ``the Knoxville Area''). In this action, EPA is taking final
action to determine that the Knoxville Area has attained the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. This determination is based upon complete, quality
assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data
for the years 2007-2009 showing that the Knoxville Area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This final action is
consistent with the CAA, and EPA policy and guidance.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on October 12,
2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0228. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Royce Dansby-Sparks, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Dansby-Sparks may
be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at dansby-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the effect of this action?
III. What is EPA's final action?
IV. What is the effective date?
V. What are the statutory and executive order reviews?

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is determining that the Knoxville Area (comprised of Anderson,
Blount, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, and Sevier Counties in their
entireties, and the portion of Cocke County that falls within the
boundary of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park) has attaining data
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination is based upon
quality assured, quality controlled and certified ambient air
monitoring data that shows the Knoxville Area has monitored attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the 2007-2009 data.
    Other specific requirements of the determination and the rationale
for EPA's final action are explained in the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) published on August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45568) and will not
be restated here. The comment period closed on September 2, 2010. No
comments, adverse or otherwise, were received in response to the NPR.

II. What is the effect of this action?

    This final action, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.918, suspends the
requirements for this area to submit attainment demonstrations,
associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable
further progress plans (RFP), contingency measures, and other planning
SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as long as
this Area continues to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Finalizing
this action does not

constitute a redesignation of the Knoxville Area to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Further, finalizing this action does not involve approving
maintenance plans for the Area as required under section 175A of the
CAA, nor does it involve a determination that the Area has met all
requirements for a redesignation.

III. What is EPA's final action?

    EPA is determining that the Knoxville Area has attaining data for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination is based upon quality
assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data
showing that the Knoxville Area has monitored attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS during the period 2007-2009. This final action, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.918, will suspend the requirements for this
Area to submit attainment demonstrations, associated RACM, RFP plans,
contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as long as the Area continues to meet the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

IV. What is the effective date?

    An expedited effective date for this action is authorized under
both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rule actions may become
effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction'' and section 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days
after publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause
found and published with the rule.'' EPA finds that there is good cause
for this approval to become effective upon publication.
    Approval of a clean data determination relieves the obligation for
the State of Tennessee to submit for the Knoxville Area an attainment
demonstration and associated RACM, RFP plan, contingency measures, and
any other SIP-related planning requirements to attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS provided the Area does not monitor any violations of
the ozone standard. The relief from these obligations is sufficient
reason to allow an expedited effective date of the rule under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1). In addition, Tennessee's relief from these obligations
provides good cause to make this rule effective immediately upon
publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day
waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected
parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before
the final rule takes effect. Where, as here, the final rule relieves
obligations rather than imposes obligations, affected parties, such as
the State of Tennessee and the Knox County Department of Air Quality
Management, do not need time to adjust and prepare before the rule
takes effect.

V. What are statutory and executive order reviews?

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission or State request that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR
52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions or state requests, EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 13, 2010. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, pertaining to the determination of attaining data
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the Knoxville Area, may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: September 27, 2010.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2235 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2235  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (c) Determination of Attaining Data. EPA has determined, as of
October 12, 2010 the Knoxville, Tennessee nonattainment area has
attaining data for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.918, suspends the requirements for this area
to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available
control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency
measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the
standards for as long as this area continues to meet the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2010-25461 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 47395]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Commercial Air
Tour Operator Reports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The commercial air tour operational data provided to the
FAA and the National Park Service will be used by the agencies as
background information useful in the development of air tour management
plans and voluntary agreements for purposes of meeting the mandate of
the National Parks Air Tour Management Act (NPATMA) of 2000.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by November 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara
Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0750.
    Title: Commercial Air Tour Operator Reports.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection of information.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 included
amendments to the National Parks Air Tour Management Act (NPATMA) of
2000. One of these amendments required commercial air tour operators
conducting tours over national park units to report on the number of
operations they conduct and any such other information prescribed by
the FAA Administrator and the Director of the National Park Service
(NPS).
    Respondents: Approximately 75 air tour operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected quarterly, or annually for park
units with 50 or fewer tours per year.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 11.66 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 3,200 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 13, 2018.
Barbara L. Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-20397 Filed 9-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<!DOCTYPE html
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

<title>Title V Permit Writer's Tips - Compliance/Enforcement | Mid-Atlantic Air Protection</title>
<meta name="Description" content="Title V Permit Writer's Tips" />
<meta name="Keywords" content="title v,title 5,permit,permit shield,certification,credible evidence,practical enforceability" />

<meta name="DC.Title" content="" />
<meta name="DC.Subject" content="" />
<meta name="DC.Type" content="" />

<meta name="DC.Date.modified" content="" />
<meta name="DC.Date" content="" />

	<meta name="DC.Language" content="en|sp" />
	<meta name="DC.Creator" content="US EPA Region 3, Air Protection Division" />
	<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
	<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
	<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" />
	<link rel="meta" href="http://www.epa.gov/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" title="ICRA labels" />

	<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/s/print.css" />

Jump to main content.

Mid-Atlantic Air Protection

	<form id="EPAsearch" method="get" action="http://nlquery.epa.gov/epasearch/epasearch">

Serving Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia

Recent Additions | Contact Us
			Search:
			<input type="hidden" name="fld" value="reg3artd" />
			<input type="hidden" name="areaname" value="Mid-Atlantic Air Protection" />
			<input type="hidden" name="areacontacts" value="http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/divinfo/contactus.htm" />

			<input type="hidden" name="areasearchurl" value="" />

			<input type="hidden" name="result_template" value="epafiles_default.xsl" />
 			<input type="hidden" name="filter" value="samplefilt.hts" />
			<input name="typeofsearch" id="EPAall" type="radio" value="epa"/>All EPA
			<input name="typeofsearch" id="Areaall" type="radio" value="area" checked="checked" />This Area
			<input name="querytext" id="searchbox" value="" />
		  <input name="submit" id="searchbutton" type="submit" value="Go" />

	</form>

You are here: EPA Home

EPA Permits

EPA Air Permits

Mid-Atlantic Air Protection

Mid-Atlantic Air Permitting

Permit Writer's Tips

Title V Permit Writer's Tips - Compliance/Enforcement

Title V Permit Writer's Tips - Compliance/Enforcement

A. Practical Enforceability

Each Title V permit condition must be practically enforceable. EPA’s primary
		guidance on practical enforceability is contained in "Guidance
		on Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting," June 13, 1989 (Attachment 2).

					Practical Enforceability Answers:
						WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, HOW & HOW OFTEN

 1.  No Calendar Year Limits

Emission limits which require compliance on a calendar year basis are not practically
		enforceable. For long-term emission limitations to be practically enforceable, compliance
		must be determined, at a minimum, on a 12-month rolling sum basis. This means that each
		month the emissions of the current month + the 11 previous months are summed.

When an emission or other limitation is expressed as a "12-month rolling
		total" (or a similar "rolled" limit), the permittee should be required to
		keep records of the emissions for each month as well as the calculation of the
		12-month rolling total of emissions for each month. This will enable an inspector to
		readily assess the source’s compliance status in any given month.

 NOTE:

			It is incorrect to say "12-month rolling average". There is no "averaging" because the limit is derived by summing the monthly emissions over the previous 12-months. Correct terminology includes
				"12-month rolling sum", "12-month rolling total", or "emissions
				shall not exceed x in any consecutive 12 month period."

 2.  Operation of Control Equipment

 If a Title V permit requires the emissions from certain equipment to be
		controlled by a control device, there must also be an explicit permit condition to operate that control device.

 Example #18

			A Title V permit requires the emissions from
				a boiler to be controlled by an electrostatic precipitator (ESP). The permit must also
				require the source to operate the ESP whenever the boiler is in use. An example permit
				condition states:

The ESP shall be operated at any time Boiler #1 is in use.

Additional permit conditions are necessary to govern specific requirements about
					operation and maintenance of the control device, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping and
					reporting to assure compliance.

 3.  Calculation Equations

 For any permit term that requires a calculation to determine compliance, make
		sure that the equation and all assumptions are written into the permit.

Example #19

			An example permit condition states:

The permittee shall report monthly VOC emissions from the coating operations, using
						the following equation and information provided by the coating manufacturer on the VOC
						content and assuming 100% of the VOC in the coatings are released to the atmosphere:

[Provide VOC calculation equation in permit].

 B. Credible Evidence

Title V permit conditions cannot limit the types of data or information (i.e., credible
		evidence) that may be used to prove a violation of any applicable requirement. Title V
		permits should contain language clarifying that any credible evidence may be used in
		determining a source’s compliance status (or alternatively, that nothing in the
		permit precludes the use of credible evidence in determining compliance or noncompliance
		with the terms of the permit). Such language gives fair notice to the source and the
		public, and prevents the source from claiming that they weren’t on notice that other
		credible evidence could be used to demonstrate a violation or compliance. Such language
		can most easily be added to Title V permits by modifying the "boilerplate"
		provisions (i.e., general permit conditions) as in the following example.

Example #20

			Permit Conditions Addressing Credible
				Evidence

Delaware includes this provision in the General Compliance section of each
					Title V permit:

Nothing in this permit shall be interpreted to preclude the use of any credible
						evidence to demonstrate noncompliance with any term of this permit.

In addition, Delaware includes the following related provision in the General
					Compliance Certification Requirements section of each Title V permit:

Any additional information possessed by the Company that demonstrates noncompliance
						with any applicable requirement must also be used as the basis for compliance
						certifications.

In addition to including language similar to the above in the
		permit, you should also make sure that credible evidence "buster" language is
		NOT included in the permit. Such language (see examples below) could be construed to limit
		credible evidence. In general, the permit should simply tell the source what it must do
		(e.g., measure pressure drop). It is NOT necessary that the permit include a statement
		that a term "assures compliance" or that an activity (e.g., monitoring) is
		required to "demonstrate compliance."

					Watch out for credible evidence
						"buster" language!

 Example #21

			Credible Evidence "Buster"
				Language

Language similar to the following should NOT be included in
					Title V permits:

The monitoring methods specified in this permit are the sole methods by which
						compliance with the associated limit is determined.

Reference test method results supersede CEM data [or parametric monitoring data].

Compliance with this provision shall be demonstrated solely by ... [periodic
						monitoring provisions]...

C.  Compliance Certifications

All Title V applications must include certifications of compliance or non-compliance
		with applicable requirements. If a source certified "not in compliance" in the
		permit application, the permitting authority should make sure one of the following two
		things happens before issuing the draft permit:

1) If the source still is not in compliance prior to issuing the draft permit, the
			Title V permit must include a compliance schedule.

2) If the source came into compliance since the permit application was submitted, the
			source must submit a revised compliance certification confirming this fact, prior to
			issuance of the draft permit.

D.  Permit Shield

Permits should identify the specific operations which are shielded and the specific
		requirements from which they are shielded. Particularly, if there is a permit shield for a
		determination of non-applicability, the Statement of Basis should explain why the
		shielded requirements are not applicable (e.g., because the source does not have certain
		equipment or processes, or because the equipment or processes are of a size or type which
		are not regulated).

Example #22

			Permit Shield for a Determination of
				Non-applicability

A permit in West Virginia states:

1. The permittee has requested and is hereby granted a permit shield. The permit
					shield applies as long as the permittee operates in accordance with the information
					contained within this permit.

2. The list below identifies requirements which are not applicable to the permittee and
					the determinations thereof. So long as the permittee operates within the constraints of
					these determinations, the permit shield shall apply to the following provisions.

a. 40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart G, Standards of Performance for Stationary Gas Turbines. There
						are no turbines located at the Source.

b. 40 C.F.R. 60 Subparts K and Ka, Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for
						Petroleum Liquids. All tanks at the Source are below 40,000 gallons in capacity.

c. 40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart Kb, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid
						Storage Vessels. All tanks storing volatile organic liquids at the Source are below 10,000
						gallons in capacity.

d. 40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart KKK, Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC From
						Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants. The Source is not engaged in the extraction of
						natural gas liquids from field gas or in the fractionation of mixed natural gas products.

e. 45 C.S.R. 21, To Prevent and Control Air Pollution from the Emission of Volatile
						Organic Compounds. The Source is not located in Cabell, Kanawha, Putnam, Wayne, nor Wood
						counties.

f. 45 C.S.R. 27, To Prevent and Control the Emissions of Toxic Air Pollutants. Natural
						gas is included as a petroleum product and contains less than 5% benzene by weight. C.S.R.
						§ 45-27-2.4 exempts equipment "used in the production and distribution of petroleum
						products providing that such equipment does not produce or contact materials containing
						more than 5% benzene by weight."

3. Compliance with the conditions of this permit shall be deemed compliance with the
					corresponding applicable requirements as of the date of permit issuance and/or that the
					requirements specifically identified are not applicable to the permittee as of the date of
					permit issuance. C.S.R. § 45-30-5.6.a.

		Index of Air Topics || Directions & Accommodations || State & Local Agencies

Local Navigation

Home

Climate Change

Clean Diesel Program

Clean Energy

Indoor Air Quality & Radon

Vehicles

Air Quality

Laws & Regulations

Enforcement

Permits

Toxic Air Pollutants

Index of Air Topics

About Us

EPA Home

Privacy and Security Notice

Contact Us

Jump to main content.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51120]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20749]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Release of Federally
Obligated Property at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport,
College Park, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c),
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the
City of Atlanta, Department of Aviation to waive the requirement that a
4.5-acre parcel of federally obligated property, located at the
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport; be used for
aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports
District Office, Attn: Aimee A. McCormick, Program Manager, 1701
Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Louis Miller, Aviation General Manager at
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to the following
address: City of Atlanta, Department of Aviation, P.O. Box 20509,
College Park, GA 30320-2509.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aimee McCormick, Program Manager,
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building,
Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application
may be reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the City
of Atlanta, Department of Aviation to release 4.50 acres of federally
obligated property at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
The property will be released from federal . obligation so that it may
be purchased and developed for compatible land uses. The net proceeds
from the sale of this property will be used for airport purposes. The
proposed use of this property is compatible with airport operations.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any
person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other
documents germane to the request in person at the City of Atlanta,
Department of Aviation:

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on August 10, 2011.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports, District Office Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2011-20749 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 132 (Thursday, July 9, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41193-41195]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13376]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0155; FRL-10010-76-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri and Kansas; Determination of
Attainment for the Jackson County, Missouri 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area and Redesignation of the Wyandotte County, Kansas
Unclassifiable Area to Attainment/Unclassifiable

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to determine that the Jackson County, Missouri 1-hour (1-hr)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) Nonattainment Area has attained the NAAQS and to redesignate
the Wyandotte County, Kansas 1-hr SO2 NAAQS Unclassifiable
Area as Attainment/Unclassifiable. Both final action decisions are
based on air quality monitoring and modeling data.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 9, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0155. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Brown, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. The EPA's Response to Comments
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    This document takes final action on the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources' (MoDNR) May 4, 2018 request asking the EPA to make a
determination that the Jackson County, Missouri (hereby referred to as
the ``Jackson County area'') Nonattainment Area has attained the 2010
1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS.
    This document also takes final action to redesignate the Wyandotte
County, Kansas 1-hr SO2 NAAQS unclassifiable area
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Wyandotte County area'') to
attainment/unclassifiable based on a January 10, 2017 request from the
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). Detailed
information regarding these actions can be found in the proposed rule,
85 FR 20896, published April 15, 2020 in the Federal Register and in
this docket.

II. The EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened April
15, 2020, the date of its publication in the Federal Register and
closed on May 15, 2020. During this period, the EPA received one
comment. This comment is not substantive and does not require a
response from the EPA.

III. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to determine that the Jackson County
2010 1-hr primary SO2 nonattainment area, in Missouri, has
attained the 2010 1-hr primary SO2 NAAQS. This final
determination of attainment is based on a May 2018 request from the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) asking the EPA to
consider complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data from the 2015-2017 monitoring period and make a
determination that the area has attained the 2010 1-hr primary
SO2 NAAQS.
    The EPA is also taking final action to a January 2017 request from
the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to redesignate
the Wyandotte County, Kansas 1-hr SO2 NAAQS unclassifiable
area to attainment/unclassifiable. The EPA's redesignation of the
Wyandotte County area is based on air quality dispersion modeling
submitted by the KDHE and supplemented by modeling analysis from the
MoDNR for the Jackson County area. The relationship between the MoDNR's
modeling analysis and the Wyandotte County area is explained in more
detail in the ``What is the EPA's Analysis of the Information Submitted
by the States?'' and ``Connection to the Jackson County Clean Data
Modeling'' sections of the proposed rule, 85 FR 20896, published April
15, 2020. The EPA has made the monitoring and modeling data available
in the docket to this rulemaking through www.regulations.gov.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action makes a determination based on air quality monitoring
data and modeling and results in the suspension of certain Federal
requirements and does not impose any additional requirements.
    With regard to the redesignation portion of this action, under the
Clean Air Act (CAA), redesignation of an area to attainment/
unclassifiable is an action that affects the air quality designation
status of geographical areas and does not impose any regulatory
requirements. For these reasons, this final action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe
has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the action does not
have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Clean data
determination, Determination of attainment, Incorporation by reference,
Redesignation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: June 16, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts
52 and 81 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart--AA Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1343, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1343  Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.

* * * * *
    (b) Determination of attainment. EPA has determined, as of July 9,
2020, that the Jackson County 2010 SO2 nonattainment has
attained the 2010 SO2 1-hr NAAQS. This determination
suspends the requirements for this area to submit an attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures,
reasonable further progress, contingency measures, and other plan
elements related to attainment of the standards for as long as the area
continues to meet the 2010 SO2 1-hr NAAQS.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

0
4. In Sec.  81.317, the table titled ``Kansas-2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
[Primary]'' is amended by revising the entry ``Wyandotte County, KS''
to read as follows:

Sec.  81.317  Kansas.

* * * * *

                                        Kansas--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
                                                    [Primary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Designation
     Designated area \1\     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Date \2\                                    Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Wyandotte County, KS........  July 9, 2020............................  Attainment/Unclassifiable.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is April 9, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-13376 Filed 7-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43497-43498]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17896]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75464; File No. SR-OC-2015-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; OneChicago, LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Decimal Pricing for Spread
Transactions

July 16, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on July 1, 2015,
OneChicago, LLC (``OneChicago,'' ``OCX,'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change 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. OneChicago has also filed
this rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC''). OneChicago filed a written certification with the CFTC
under Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') on July 1,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule
Change

    OneChicago is proposing to amend OCX Rule 905 (Form of
Specifications Supplement) to add spreads to the types of transactions
to which four (4) decimal pricing applies.\2\ This expansion will allow
these trades to be more efficiently priced because the interest rate
component of Single Stock Futures (``SSFs'') spreads can be more
accurately expressed in sub-penny increments. Currently, the minimum
price fluctuation is set at $0.01 for non-block and non-EFP trades, and
$0.0001 for block and EFP trades. In other words, block and EFP trades
are already traded in four decimals. Upon amending Rule 905, outright
SSF trades (non-spread, non-block, and non-EFP trades) will continue to
trade with minimum fluctuations of $0.01, while spread, block, and EFP
transactions will trade in minimum fluctuations of $0.0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A spread transaction involves buying (selling) a stated
number of contracts of a particular expiry month and simultaneously
selling (buying) the same number of those contracts of a different
expiry month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OneChicago is concurrently issuing NTM 2015-23. The NTM informs
market participants that OneChicago is amending OCX Rule 905 and that
the Exchange is reducing the minimum price fluctuation for spread
transactions to $0.0001.
    The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 4 to
the filing submitted by the Exchange but is not attached to the
published notice of the filing.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OneChicago 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 a summary
of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    OneChicago is proposing to amend OCX Rule 905 (Form of
Specifications Supplement) to decrease the minimum fluctuation for
spreads to $0.0001 from $0.01. In 2011, OneChicago similarly amended
the pricing of block and EFP transactions to allow for four decimal
point trade prices.\3\ This expansion allowed these trades to be more
efficiently priced because the interest rate component of these trades
is more accurately expressed in sub-penny increments.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65053 (August 8,
2011) (SR-OC-2011-01). Block spreads, which are simply block-sized
calendar spreads, have been trading in four decimal places since
this rule change in 2011. OneChicago is now adding regular calendar
spreads (of any size) to those transaction types that are traded in
four decimal places. On July 20, 2015, block spreads will no longer
be distinguished as a separate trade type on the Exchange.
    \4\ The difference in price between the front month and back
month of a spread generally reflects the interest rate component of
the trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OneChicago is now adding spreads to the types of trades to which
four decimal pricing applies. OneChicago believes that this change will
also allow spreads to be more efficiently priced, consistent with how
blocks and EFPs are currently priced. The additional precision will aid
in aligning these trades with the appropriate implied interest rate
desired by market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    OneChicago believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \6\ in particular. The proposed rule
change furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) because it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons facilitating transactions,
and will remove impediments to and help perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will allow all market participants to
price their spread trades more accurately. Since the price difference
between the buy and the sell in a spread trade reflects the interest
rate component of the trade, the pricing of this component in four
decimal places allows market participants to tailor their trade prices
to their desired interest rate levels.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change and associated
NTM are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they would
apply equally to all market participants. The ability to trade spreads
in four decimal places will not be limited to any class of market
participant.

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

    OneChicago does not believe that the rule change and associated NTM
will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, in that the rule change and
associated NTM simply allow an additional type of transaction to be
priced in four decimal places. This change will allow all market
participants to more accurately price the interest rate component of
their spread transactions.

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

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

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

    The rule amendment and NTM will become operative on July 20, 2015.
    At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the
proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC,
may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the
proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of
Section 19(b)(1) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 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-OC-2015-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OC-2015-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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-OC-2015-02,
and should be submitted on or before August 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(73).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17896 Filed 7-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32502-32505]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14414]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86270; File No. PCAOB-2019-006]

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Order Granting
Approval of Amendments to Auditing Standards for Auditor's Use of the
Work of Specialists

July 1, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On March 20, 2019, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(the ``Board'' or the ``PCAOB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 107(b) \1\ of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the ``Sarbanes-Oxley Act'') and Section
19(b) \2\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act''), a proposal to adopt amendments to auditing standards for
auditor's use of the work of specialists (collectively, the ``Proposed
Rules'').\3\ The Proposed Rules were published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 4, 2019.\4\ At the time the notice was
issued, the Commission extended to July 3, 2019 the date by which the
Commission should take action on the Proposed Rules.\5\ We received
four comment letters in response to the notice.\6\ This order approves
the Proposed Rules, which we find to be consistent with the
requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the securities laws and
necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection
of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 7217(b).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \3\ The PCAOB staff originally issued a staff consultation paper
on this matter in 2015. See The Auditor's Use of the Work of
Specialists, PCAOB Staff Consultation Paper No. 2015-01 (May 28,
2015), available at https://pcaobus.org/Standards/Documents/SCP-2015-01_The_Auditor's_Use_of_the_Work_of_Specialists.pdf. In 2017,
the Board issued a proposed rule. See Proposed Amendments to
Auditing Standards for Auditor's Use of the Work of Specialists,
PCAOB Release No. 2017-003 (June 1, 2017) (``PCAOB Proposal''),
available at https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket044/2017-003-specialists-proposed-rule.pdf.
    \4\ See Release No. 34-85435, Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rules on Amendments to
Auditing Standards for Auditor's Use of the Work of Specialists,
(Mar. 28, 2019), 84 FR 13442 (Apr. 4, 2019).
    \5\ See id.
    \6\ We received comment letters from Deloitte & Touche LLP,
April 10, 2019 (``Deloitte Letter''); the Council of Institutional
Investors, April 18, 2019 (``CII Letter''); PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, April 25, 2019 (``PwC Letter''); and the Center for Capital
Markets Competitiveness, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, April 25, 2019
(``CCMC Letter''). Copies of the comment letters received on the
Commission order noticing the Proposed Rules are available on the
Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/pcaob-2019-03/pcaob201903.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rules

    On December 20, 2018, the Board adopted amendments to auditing
standards for using the work of specialists.\7\ The Proposed Rules are
intended to strengthen the requirements that apply when auditors use
the work of specialists in an audit.\8\ The Proposed Rules relate to an
auditor's evaluation of the work of a company's specialist, whether
employed or engaged by the company, and apply a supervisory approach to
both auditor-employed and auditor-engaged specialists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Amendments to Auditing Standards for Auditor's Use of
the Work of Specialists, PCAOB Release No. 2018-006 (Dec. 20, 2018)
(``PCAOB Adopting Release''), available at https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket044/2018-006-specialists-final-rule.pdf.
    \8\ In the Proposed Rules, a specialist is defined generally as
a person (or firm) possessing special skill or knowledge in a
particular field other than accounting or auditing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Changes to PCAOB Standards

    The Proposed Rules primarily amend two existing PCAOB auditing
standards and retitle and replace a third auditing standard.\9\ The
Proposed Rules will make the following changes to existing
requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Proposed Rules: (1) Add an appendix to Auditing Standard
(``AS'') 1105, Audit Evidence, with supplemental requirements for
using the work of a company's specialist as audit evidence; (2) add
an appendix to AS 1201, Supervision of the Audit Engagement, with
supplemental requirements for supervising an auditor-employed
specialist; and (3) replace existing AS 1210, Using the Work of a
Specialist, with an updated standard titled, Using the Work of an
Auditor-Engaged Specialist, for using the work of an auditor-engaged
specialist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amend AS 1105
    [cir] Adds a new Appendix A that supplements the requirements in AS
1105 for circumstances when the auditor uses the work of the company's
specialist as audit evidence, related to:
     Obtaining an understanding of the work and report(s), or
equivalent communication, of the company's specialist(s) and related
company processes and controls;
     Obtaining an understanding of and assessing the knowledge,
skill, and ability of a company's specialist and the entity that
employs the specialist (if other than the company) and the relationship
to the company of the specialist and the entity that employs the
specialist (if other than the company); and

     Performing procedures to evaluate the work of a company's
specialist, including evaluating: (i) The data, significant
assumptions, and methods (which may include models) used by the
specialist, and (ii) the relevance and reliability of the specialist's
work and its relationship to the relevant assertion.
    o Aligns the requirements for using the work of a company's
specialist with the risk assessment standards \10\ and the standard and
related amendments adopted by the Board on auditing accounting
estimates, including fair value measurements; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Board's ``risk assessment standards'' include AS 1101,
Audit Risk; AS 1105; AS 1201; AS 2101, Audit Planning; AS 2105,
Consideration of Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit; AS
2110, Identifying and Assessing Risks of Material Misstatement; AS
2301, The Auditor's Responses to the Risks of Material Misstatement;
and AS 2810, Evaluating Audit Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Sets forth factors for determining the necessary evidence to
support the auditor's conclusion regarding a relevant assertion when
using the work of a company's specialist.
     Amend AS 1201
    [cir] Adds a new Appendix C that supplements the requirements for
applying the supervisory principles in AS 1201.05-.06 when using the
work of an auditor-employed specialist to assist the auditor in
obtaining or evaluating audit evidence, including requirements related
to:
     Informing the auditor-employed specialist of the work to
be performed;
     Coordinating the work of the auditor-employed specialists
with the work of other engagement team members; and
     Reviewing and evaluating whether the work of the auditor-
employed specialist provides sufficient appropriate evidence.
Evaluating the work of the specialist includes evaluating whether the
work is in accordance with the auditor's understanding with the
specialist and whether the specialist's findings and conclusions are
consistent with, among other things, the work performed by the
specialist.
    [cir] Sets forth factors for determining the necessary extent of
supervision of the work of the auditor-employed specialist.
     Replace existing AS 1210
    [cir] Replaces the existing standard with AS 1210, as amended,
which establishes requirements for using the work of an auditor-engaged
specialist to assist the auditor in obtaining or evaluating audit
evidence;
    [cir] Includes requirements for reaching an understanding with an
auditor-engaged specialist on the work to be performed and reviewing
and evaluating the specialist's work that parallel the final amendments
to AS 1201 for auditor-employed specialists;
    [cir] Sets forth factors for determining the necessary extent of
review of the work of the auditor-engaged specialist;
    [cir] Amends requirements related to assessing the knowledge,
skill, ability, and objectivity of the auditor-engaged specialist; and
    [cir] Describes objectivity, for purposes of the standard, as the
auditor-engaged specialist's ability to exercise impartial judgment on
all issues encompassed by the specialist's work related to the audit;
and specify the auditor's obligations when the specialist or the entity
that employs the specialist has a relationship with the company that
affects the specialist's objectivity.

B. Applicability and Effective Date

    The Proposed Rules would be effective for audits of financial
statements for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2020. The
PCAOB has proposed application of the Proposed Rules to include audits
of emerging growth companies (``EGCs''),\11\ as discussed in Section IV
below, and audits of brokers and dealers under Exchange Act Rule 17a-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``emerging growth company'' is defined in Section
3(a)(80) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(80)). See also
Release No. 33-10332 Inflation Adjustments and Other Technical
Amendments Under Titles I and III of the JOBS Act (Mar. 31, 2017),
82 FR 17545 (Apr. 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    The comment period on the Proposed Rules ended on April 25, 2019.
We received four comment letters from accounting firms, an investor
association, and an issuer organization.\12\ Commenters generally
supported the Proposed Rules.\13\ Most commenters encouraged us to
support the PCAOB's plans to monitor implementation, conduct post
implementation review, or monitor advancements in technology that may
affect application of the Proposed Rules.\14\ One commenter also raised
concerns regarding the effective date due to other financial reporting
activities that need to be implemented and the potential impact on
smaller audit firms.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Deloitte Letter, PwC Letter, CII Letter, and CCMC
Letter.
    \13\ See Deloitte Letter, PwC Letter, CII Letter, and CCMC
Letter.
    \14\ See e.g., Deloitte Letter, PwC Letter, and CCMC Letter.
    \15\ See CCMC Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires us to determine whether the
Proposed Rules are consistent with the requirements of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act and the securities laws or are necessary or appropriate in
the public interest or for the protection of investors.\16\ In making
this determination, we have considered the comments we received, as
well as the feedback received and modifications made by the PCAOB
throughout its rulemaking process. The discussion below addresses the
significant points raised in the comment letters we received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Section 107(b)(3) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act also specifies that the provisions of Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act shall govern the proposed rules of the
Board. See Section 107(b)(4) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Section 19
of the Exchange Act covers the registration, responsibilities, and
oversight of self-regulatory organizations. Under the procedures
prescribed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act, the Commission must either approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rules of the
Board should be disapproved; and these procedures do not expressly
permit the Commission to amend or supplement the proposed rules of
the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General Support for the Proposed Rules

    Commenters generally supported the Proposed Rules, including the
objective to strengthen the requirements that apply when auditors use
the work of specialists in an audit.\17\ One commenter noted that the
proposed amendments address the need to differentiate, define, and
provide scalability of the requirements based on the nature of a
specialist's involvement in the context of an audit as well as the
identified risk of material misstatement to which the specialist's work
relates, which the commenter indicated will achieve greater consistency
in practice.\18\ Another commenter agreed with the Board that the
Proposed Rules will benefit investors ``because the application of the
requirements should result in more consistently rigorous practices
among auditors when using the work of a company's specialist in their
audits, as well as a more consistent approach to the supervision of
auditor-employed and auditor-engaged specialists.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Deloitte Letter, CII Letter, PwC Letter, and CCMC
Letter.
    \18\ See Deloitte Letter.
    \19\ See CII Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Implementation Efforts

    Most commenters noted their desire for ongoing monitoring by the
PCAOB if the Proposed Rules are approved.\20\ Two commenters
specifically supported the PCAOB's plan \21\ to monitor

implementation, including advances in technology and any related
effects on the application of the proposed amendments.\22\ Another
commenter recommended that the Commission, as part of its oversight of
the PCAOB, should request that the PCAOB periodically update the
Commission on the PCAOB's activities for monitoring the implementation
of the Proposed Rules along with the PCAOB's findings and responses to
these activities, including the PCAOB's plans for a post-implementation
review.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See e.g., Deloitte Letter, PwC Letter, and CCMC Letter.
    \21\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 5 and 60.
    \22\ See Deloitte Letter and CCMC Letter.
    \23\ See CCMC Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the PCAOB Adopting Release, the Board stated it would monitor
implementation to determine whether additional interpretive guidance is
necessary, including monitoring the advancement of technology.\24\ In
addition, the PCAOB has an established program to conduct post-
implementation reviews of its rules and standards to evaluate the
overall effect of significant rulemakings.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 5 and 60.
    \25\ See PCAOB website at https://pcaobus.org/EconomicAndRiskAnalysis/pir/Pages/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We acknowledge the importance of monitoring the implementation of
the Proposed Rules. The Commission staff works closely with the PCAOB
as part of our general oversight mandate.\26\ As part of that
oversight, Commission staff will keep itself apprised of the PCAOB's
activities for monitoring the implementation of the Proposed Rules and
update the Commission, as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Section 107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Effective Date of the Proposed Rules

    As noted above, the Proposed Rules would be effective for audits of
financial statements for fiscal years ending on or after December 15,
2020. One commenter expressed concerns related to the effective date as
a result of other financial reporting activities, including upcoming
effective dates of certain Financial Accounting Standards Board
(``FASB'') projects, other PCAOB standards, and a view that smaller
audit firms may be disproportionately impacted.\27\ The commenter
suggested a phased implementation of the Proposed Rules. Specifically,
the commenter recommended, as an example, that the Commission allow
triennially inspected audit firms \28\ to elect an effective date of
audits for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2021, while
also permitting earlier implementation since smaller audit firms may be
disproportionally impacted.\29\ The commenter further expressed the
belief that a phased implementation may facilitate post-implementation
reviews of the Proposed Rules.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See CCMC Letter.
    \28\ ``Triennially inspected audit firms'' are audit firms that,
in accordance with PCAOB Rule 4003(b), are required to be inspected
at least once in every three calendar years if during that time, the
audit firm issued an audit report for at least one issuer but no
more than 100 issuers. An audit firm is required to be inspected on
an annual basis if during the prior calendar year, it issued audit
reports for more than 100 issuers (``annually inspected audit
firms). See PCAOB Rule 4003, Frequency of Inspections, available at
https://pcaobus.org/Rules/Pages/Section_4.aspx.
    \29\ See CCMC letter.
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the PCAOB Adopting Release, the Board recognized the effort
required for other implementation efforts, but stated the effective
date determined by the Board was designed to provide auditors with a
reasonable period of time to implement the Proposed Rules, without
unduly delaying the intended benefits of the Proposed Rules.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe the Board has appropriately balanced the amount of time
needed by audit firms to implement the Proposed Rules with the
objectives of, and benefits obtained from, the Proposed Rules. In this
regard, we note that, aside from the commenter who suggested that the
Commission consider a phased implementation approach, we received no
other comments from audit firms, including triennially inspected audit
firms, requesting a phased implementation.
    In addition, there could be practical implications of allowing for
a phased implementation approach related to an auditor performance
standard.\32\ For example, audits of multi-national companies often
involve the work of more than one auditor conducted in accordance with
AS 1205, Part of the Audit Performed by Other Independent Auditors
(``AS 1205''), wherein a principal auditor may provide instructions to
the other auditors. Under a phased implementation approach, an annually
inspected audit firm serving as the principal auditor may instruct a
triennially inspected audit firm to follow the Proposed Rules before
the triennially inspected audit firm has implemented the Proposed
Rules. This approach could create challenges for the triennially
inspected audit firm as it would be instructed to implement the
Proposed Rules on individual engagements even though it may not have
updated its methodologies or trained its professionals on the Proposed
Rules, which could have a negative effect on audit quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The CCMC Letter references differences in considering a
phased implementation approach for auditor performance standard as
compared to an auditor reporting standard, which is why it did not
suggest a phased implementation approach based on issuer size
similar to the auditor communicating critical audit matters in
accordance with AS 3101, The Auditor's Report on an Audit of
Financial Statements When the Auditor Expresses an Unqualified
Opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, within the Global Networks of accounting firms,\33\ many
of the affiliated accounting firms outside the United States are
triennially inspected audit firms. Many of these affiliated firms
participate in the multi-national audits discussed above. Our
understanding is that these arrangements make it more practical for the
Global Network Firms to adopt the Proposed Rules simultaneously across
their respective networks. As a result, the Global Network Firms may
not delay implementation for the triennially inspected audit firms
within their network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See PCAOB website for a listing of ``Global Networks'' and
further discussion, available at https://pcaobus.org/Registration/Firms/Pages/GlobalNetworkFirms.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these considerations, we do not believe a phased
implementation approach for the Proposed Rules, including providing
triennially inspected audit firms with the option to delay
implementation, is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or
for the protection of investors.

IV. Effect on Emerging Growth Companies

    In the PCAOB Adopting Release, the Board recommended that the
Commission determine that the Proposed Rules apply to audits of
EGCs.\34\ Section 103(a)(3)(C) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as amended by
Section 104 of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012,
requires that any rules of the Board ``requiring mandatory audit firm
rotation or a supplement to the auditor's report in which the auditor
would be required to provide additional information about the audit and
the financial statements of the issuer (auditor discussion and
analysis)'' shall not apply to an audit of an EGC. The provisions of
the Proposed Rules do not fall into these categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 103(a)(3)(C) further provides that ``[a]ny additional
rules'' adopted by the PCAOB after April 5, 2012, do not apply to
audits of EGCs ``unless the Commission determines that the application
of such additional requirements is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, after considering the protection of investors and
whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital
formation.''

The Proposed Rules fall within this category. Having considered those
statutory factors, we find that applying the Proposed Rules to the
audits of EGCs is necessary or appropriate in the public interest.
    The PCAOB provided information identified by the Board's staff from
public sources, including data and analysis of EGCs that set forth its
views as to why it believes the Proposed Rules should apply to audits
of EGCs. To inform consideration of the application of auditing
standards to audits of EGCs, the PCAOB staff published a white paper
that provides general information about characteristics of EGCs (``EGC
White Paper'').\35\ In addition, the Board sought public input on the
application of the Proposed Rules to the audits of EGCs.\36\ Commenters
who addressed this question generally supported applying the Proposed
Rules to audits of EGCs, citing that consistent requirements should
apply for similar situations encountered in any audit of a company,
whether the company is an EGC or not, as well as that the benefits
described in the Proposal would be applicable to EGCs.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Characteristics of Emerging Growth Companies as of
November 15, 2017 (Oct. 11, 2018), available at https://pcaobus.org/EconomicAndRiskAnalysis/Documents/White-Paper-Characteristics-Emerging-Growth-Companies-November-2017.pdf.
    \36\ See PCAOB Proposal; see also comment letters provided to
the PCAOB related to this matter, available at https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Pages/docket-044-comments-auditors-use-work-specialists.aspx.
    \37\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Board observed in the PCAOB Adopting Release, ``an analysis
by the PCAOB staff . . . suggests that the prevalence and significance
of the use of the work of specialists in audits of EGCs is comparable
to the prevalence and significance of the use of the work of
specialists in audits of non-EGCs, for audit engagements by both
smaller audit firms and larger audit firms.'' \38\ Additionally, the
PCAOB Adopting Release noted that ``any new PCAOB standards and
amendments to existing standards determined not to apply to the audits
of EGCs would require auditors to address the differing requirements
within their methodologies, which would also create the potential for
confusion.'' \39\ In the EGC White Paper, the PCAOB staff stated that
``[a]pproximately 99% of EGC filers were audited by accounting firms
that also audit issuers that are not EGC filers.'' \40\ As a result,
there is a potential for confusion and complexity to have auditors
maintain two sets of methodologies related to using work of
specialists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See id at 66.
    \39\ See id at 64.
    \40\ See EGC White Paper at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board recognized that even a small increase in audit fees could
negatively affect the profitability and competitiveness of EGCs.
However, the PCAOB Adopting Release notes that many EGCs are expected
to experience minimal impact from the Proposed Rules. For example, for
those EGCs that use a company specialist,\41\ the Proposed Rules
relating to the auditor's use of the work of such specialists are risk-
based and designed to be scalable to companies of varying size and
complexity.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 50, which discusses that the
most significant impact on the final amendments related to costs for
auditors is expected to result from the requirements to evaluate the
work of a company's specialist.
    \42\ See id at 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PCAOB Adopting Release also noted EGCs generally tend to have
shorter financial reporting histories and as a result, there is less
information available to investors regarding such companies relative to
the broader population of public companies.\43\ As such, the Proposed
Rules, which are intended to enhance audit quality, could increase the
credibility of financial statement disclosures by EGCs.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See id at 65.
    \44\ See id at 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with the Board's analysis. We believe the Proposed Rules
will benefit EGCs at least as much as non-EGCs, in part, because the
prevalence and significance of the use of the work of specialists in
audits of EGCs is comparable to the prevalence and significance of the
use of the work of specialists in audits of non-EGCs. In addition, we
agree with the Board that, given the scalability and risk-based nature
of the new audit requirements, EGCs likely will experience only minimal
cost impacts from the Proposed Rules. Finally, we also agree with the
Board the Proposed Rules could increase the credibility of financial
statement disclosures by EGCs.
    As such, after considering the protection of investors and whether
the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation,
we believe there is a sufficient basis to determine that applying the
Proposed Rules to the audits of EGCs is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest.

V. Conclusion

    The Commission has carefully reviewed and considered the Proposed
Rules, the information submitted therewith by the PCAOB, and the
comment letters received. In connection with the PCAOB's filing and the
Commission's review,
    A. The Commission finds that the Proposed Rules are consistent with
the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the securities laws and
are necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
protection of investors; and
    B. Separately, the Commission finds that the application of the
Proposed Rules to the audits of EGCs is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, after considering the protection of investors and
whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital
formation.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 107 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act and Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that the Proposed
Rules (File No. PCAOB-2019-006) be and hereby are approved.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14414 Filed 7-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44843-44845]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18089]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1425]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports,

prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each
community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data.
The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been
revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance
of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, part
65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will
be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood
insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those
buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community
number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new
policies and renewals.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Chief executive                       Online location of
        State and county          Location and case      officer of       Community map        Letter of map          Effective date of       Community
                                         No.             community          repository           revision               modification             No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California: San Bernardino.....  City of Chino (14-  The Honorable      13220 Central      http://               November 3, 2014..........       060272
                                  09-2136P).          Dennis Yates,      Avenue, Chino,     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of     CA 91710.          lomc.
                                                      Chino, 13220
                                                      Central Avenue,
                                                      Chino, CA 91710.
Iowa:
    Bremer.....................  City of Waverly     The Honorable Bob  200 First Street   http://               October 24, 2014..........       190030
                                  (13-07-0864P).      Brunkhorst,        NE., Waverly, IA   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of     50677.             lomc.
                                                      Waverly, 200
                                                      First Street
                                                      NE., P.O. Box
                                                      616, Waverly, IA
                                                      50677.
    Bremer.....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable      415 East Bremer    http://               October 24, 2014..........       190847
                                  Areas of Bremer     Lena Fowler,       Avenue, Waverly,   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (13-07-      Chairman, Bremer   IA 50677.          lomc.
                                  0864P).             County Board of
                                                      Supervisors, 415
                                                      East Bremer
                                                      Avenue, Waverly,
                                                      IA 50677.
Missouri: Jefferson............  Unincorporated      Mr. Ken Walker,    Jefferson County   http://               October 24, 2014..........       290808
                                  Areas of            County             Administration     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  Jefferson County    Executive,         Center, 729        lomc.
                                  (14-07-1157P).      Jefferson          Maple Street,
                                                      County, 729        Hillsboro, MO
                                                      Maple Street,      63050.
                                                      Suite G30,
                                                      Hillsboro, MO
                                                      63050.
Pennsylvania:
    Susquehanna................  Borough of          Mr. Mark Carmody,  P.O. Box 89,       http://               October 30, 2014..........       422582
                                  Thompson (13-03-    President of       Thompson, PA       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  2723P).             Council, Borough   18465.             lomc.
                                                      of Thompson,
                                                      P.O. Box 89,
                                                      Thompson, PA
                                                      18465.

    Susquehanna................  Township of         Mr. Richard        P.O. Box 89,       http://               October 30, 2014..........       422583
                                  Thompson (13-03-    Wademan,           Thompson, PA       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  2723P).             Supervisor,        18465.             lomc.
                                                      Township of
                                                      Thompson, P.O.
                                                      Box 89,
                                                      Thompson, PA
                                                      18465.
Wisconsin: Pierce..............  Unincorporated      Mr. Jeff Holst,    414 West Main      http://               October 23, 2014..........       555571
                                  Areas of Pierce     Chair, Pierce      Street,            www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-05-      County Board of    Ellsworth, WI      lomc.
                                  2976P).             Supervisors, 414   54011.
                                                      West Main
                                                      Street,
                                                      Ellsworth, WI
                                                      54011.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: July 11, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-18089 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P