[Federal Register: October 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 63218-63219]
[DOCID:fr23oc08-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IA-2804 / 803-180]

WLD Enterprises, Inc.; Notice of Application

October 17, 2008.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of Application for Exemption under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'').

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

    Applicant: WLD Enterprises, Inc. (``Applicant'').
    Relevant Advisers Act Sections: Exemption requested under section
202(a)(11)(G) of the Advisers Act from section 202(a)(11) of the
Advisers Act.
    Summary of Application: Applicant requests that the Commission
issue an order declaring it, existing and future Pool Advisory
Entities, as defined below, and their respective employees acting
within the scope of their employment, to be persons not within the
intent of section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act, which defines the
term ``investment adviser.''

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on January 27, 2005, and
an amended and restated application was filed on October 17, 2008.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving Applicant with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on November 13, 2008 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested.
    Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Applicant, WLD Enterprises, Inc., c/o
Shelley Marciano, 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2200, Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida 33301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vivien Liu, Senior Counsel, or David
W. Blass, Assistant Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Office of Investment
Adviser Regulation, Division of Investment Management).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
SEC's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC 20549-
0102 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicant's Representations

    1. The Applicant was organized as a Florida corporation to provide
services to Mr. William Horvitz and his descendants and is wholly owned
by Mr. William Horvitz's two children. It operates as a ``family
office'' for Mr. William Horvitz, his wife Norma Horvitz, and their
lineal descendants (including by adoption), and such lineal
descendants' spouses, two step-children

of Mr. William Horvitz's son, such step-children's spouses and their
children, one of Mr. William Horvitz's brothers, such brother's spouse,
his two children and four grandchildren, and the spouses of these
children and grandchildren (collectively, the ``Horvitz Family'' or
``Family'').
    2. Applicant provides services exclusively to: (i) The members of
the Horvitz Family; (ii) private charitable foundations established
exclusively by members of the Horvitz Family (``Private Foundations'');
(iii) trusts that exist exclusively for the benefit of members of the
Horvitz Family and Private Foundations (``Family Trusts''); (iv) pooled
investment vehicles that have been created exclusively for the benefit
of, and are wholly owned by, Family members, Family Trusts, or Private
Foundations (``Family Investment Entities''), except that certain key
employees, as described below, are permitted to invest in these Family
Investment Entities; and (v) solely for the purpose of investing in the
Family Investment Entities, several executive level employees of the
Applicant who have significant involvement with the investment advisory
process (``Key Employees'') or revocable trusts established for the
benefit of Key Employees (``Key Employee Trusts''). The members of the
Horvitz Family, the Private Foundations, the Family Trusts, the Family
Investment Entities, and solely with respect to investments in Family
Investment Entities, the Key Employees and the Key Employee Trusts, are
referred to collectively as the ``Family Clients.''
    3. Applicant provides both advisory services and non-advisory
services to Family Clients, which include asset allocation advice,
investment due diligence, recordkeeping assistance, federal and state
tax advice, and coordination of professional relationships with
accountants, attorneys and unaffiliated investment advisers. Applicant
provides advisory services to Family Clients directly, or indirectly
through persons that manage Family Investment Entities or Family Trusts
(``Pool Advisory Entities''). All Pool Advisory Entities are wholly
owned and controlled by the Applicant, the Horvitz Family, or Family
Trusts.
    4. Applicant represents that it does not hold itself out to the
public as an investment adviser. Applicant further represents that it
is not listed in any phone book as an in investment adviser and does
not (i) have a publicly accessible Web site, (ii) engage in any
advertising, (iii) attend investment management-related conferences as
a vendor, and (iv) conduct any marketing activities.
    5. Applicant represents that it and the Pool Advisory Entities do
not and will not solicit or accept investment advisory clients from the
public.
    6. Applicant represents that it does not operate with the purpose
of generating a profit. It charges fees only to pay its operating
expenses and the salaries of the professionals it employs.
    7. Applicant represents that it has provided each member of the
Family who is not a lineal descendant (including by adoption) of Mr.
William Horvitz and his wife Norma Horvitz or such lineal descendant'
spouse written disclosure describing the material terms of this
Application and the material legal effects associated with a Commission
Order as a result of this Application, and has received written consent
from these Family members.
    8. Applicant acknowledges that the Order, if granted, would not
affect any legal obligation (other than those under the Advisers Act)
relating to the services it and the Pool Advisory Entities provide to
their clients, including without limitation any applicable state
fiduciary obligation.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act defines the term
``investment adviser'' to mean ``any person who, for compensation,
engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through
publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the
advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or
who, for compensation and as a part of a regular business, issues or
promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities. * * *''
    2. Section 203(a) of the Advisers Act requires investment advisers
to register with the SEC. Section 203(b) of the Advisers Act provides
several exemptions from this registration requirement.
    3. Applicant represents that it currently relies on the
registration exemption provided in section 203(b)(3) of the Advisers
Act for advisers that have less than 15 clients. The Applicant
anticipates that this exemption will soon be unavailable to it as the
number of Family Clients grows. Applicant also represents that it is
not prohibited from registering with the Commission under section
203A(a) because it has assets under management of $25,000,000 or more.
    4. Applicant requests that the SEC declare it, the existing and
future Pool Advisory Entities, and their respective employees acting
within the scope of their employment, to be persons not within the
intent of section 202(a)(11). Applicant states that there is no public
interest in requiring that it, the Pool Advisory Entities, or their
respective employees acting within the scope of their employment be
registered under the Advisers Act because they offer and provide
investment advisory services only to Family Clients.

Applicant's Conditions

    1. The Applicant and all the existing and future Pool Advisory
Entities will offer and provide advisory services only to Family
Clients and will not hold themselves out to the public as investment
advisers.
    2. Members of the Horvitz Family will at all times comprise a
majority of the Board of Directors of the Applicant.
    3. The Applicant and all the existing and future Pool Advisory
Entities will at all times be owned, directly or indirectly,
exclusively by one or more members of the Horvitz Family.
    4. All the existing and future Family Investment Entities: (a) Are
excepted from the definition of ``investment company'' under section
3(c)(1) or section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and
(b) are owned and controlled exclusively by the Applicant, the Pool
Advisory Entities, or the Family Clients.
    5. If any Key Employee who owns an interest in any Family
Investment Entity, directly or through a Key Employee Trust, is no
longer employed by the Applicant or a Pool Advisory Entity or is no
longer a Key Employee, his interest in such Family Investment Entity
and/or Key Employee Trust will be limited to his investment at the time
of termination (or at the time that he no longer is a Key Employee)
together with reinvestment of accretions or distributions on that
interest.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25243 Filed 10-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 57194]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4520-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Wisconsin; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Wisconsin (FEMA-4520-DR), dated April 4, 2020, and related
determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on September 7, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Moises Dugan,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Kevin M. Sligh as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22393 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 67875-67876]
[DOCID:fr17no08-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1804-DR]

Arkansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-1804-DR), dated October 22,
2008, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 22, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under
the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42

U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Arkansas resulting from Tropical Storm Ike during the period of
September 13-23, 2008, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207
(the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of Arkansas.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible
for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public
Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If
Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is
later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program
also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

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

    Carroll, Clay, Craighead, Greene, Hempstead, Howard, Izard,
Lafayette, Lawrence, Little River, Madison, Miller, Newton,
Randolph, Sharp, and Van Buren Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Arkansas are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-27142 Filed 11-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 573-577]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31557]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0564; FRL-9905-09-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida: Non-
Interference Demonstration for Removal of Federal Low-Reid Vapor
Pressure Requirement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State of Florida's August 15, 2013, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the State's approved maintenance
plans addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Florida's revision provides updated modeling and
demonstrates that the Southeast Florida, Tampa Bay and Jacksonville
areas would continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS if the
currently applicable Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard for
gasoline of 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) was modified to a less
stringent standard of 9.0 psi for Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough,
Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties (hereafter also referred to as the
``Maintenance Plan Areas'') during the high-ozone season. The State
included a technical demonstration with the August 15, 2013, SIP
revision demonstrating that the less-stringent RVP in these Areas would
not interfere with continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
or any other applicable standard. Approval of the State's August 15,
2013, SIP revision is a prerequisite for EPA's consideration of an
amendment to the regulations to remove the Maintenance Plan Areas from
the list of areas that are currently subject to the Federal 7.8 psi RVP
requirements. EPA has determined that Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP
revision with respect to the revised modeling and associated technical
demonstration, and with respect to the use of updated models, is
consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act). Should EPA decide to remove the subject portions of the
Maintenance Plan Areas from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi Federal
RVP requirements, such action will occur in a subsequent rulemaking.
Also, on November 29, 2012, Florida requested removal of the existing
SIP references to the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance
programs in the Maintenance Plan Areas. Based upon a noninterference
demonstration provided by the State, EPA previously approved revisions
to remove the emission reduction credits associated with this program
from the SIP. Through this action, EPA is now removing the specific SIP
references to the defunct inspection and maintenance program based upon
the State's earlier demonstration of noninterference.

DATES: This rule is effective February 5, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0564. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the 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. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, 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. The

telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background of the Areas
II. What is the history of the gasoline volatility requirement?
III. Background of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Program
IV. This Action
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background of the Areas

    On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), EPA designated the Southeast
Florida area (i.e., Broward, Dade and Palm Beach counties) as Moderate;
the Jacksonville area (i.e., Duval County) as Transitional; and the
Tampa area (i.e., Hillsborough and Pinellas counties) as Marginal
nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Among the requirements
applicable to nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the
requirement to meet certain volatility standards (known as Reid Vapor
Pressure or RVP) for gasoline sold commercially. See 55 FR 23658 (June
11, 1990). As discussed in greater detail below, as part of the RVP
requirements associated with these nonattainment designations, gasoline
sold in the 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas could not exceed 7.8 psi
RVP during the high-ozone season months.
    Following implementation of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement in the
Southeast Florida, Jacksonville and Tampa areas, each area was
redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (60 FR 41
(January 3, 1995); 60 FR 10326 (February 24, 1995); and 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995), respectively).
    Included with Florida's redesignation requests, the State submitted
the required 1-hour ozone monitoring data and maintenance plans
ensuring that these areas would remain in attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard for at least a period of 10 years (consistent with CAA
section 175A(a)). The maintenance plans submitted by Florida followed
EPA guidance for maintenance areas subject to section 175A of the CAA.
Florida later updated all three maintenance plans in accordance with
section 175(A)(b) to extend the maintenance plans to cover additional
years such that the entire maintenance period extended at least 20
years after the initial redesignation of these areas to attainment for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    These 1-hour ozone maintenance plan requirements remained in place
for the Maintenance Plan Areas when they were subsequently designated
unclassifiable/attainment for the subsequent 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
\1\ and then designated unclassifiable/attainment for the revised 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012. However, the
Maintenance Plan Areas were required to submit a 10-year maintenance
plan under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.\2\ As required, these 110(a)(1) maintenance plans provide for
continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
at least 10 years from the effective date of these areas' designation
as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These plans also include
components demonstrating how each area will continue to attain the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS, and provide contingency measures should the area
violate the NAAQS. Florida's ozone redesignation requests and
maintenance plans for the Maintenance Plan Areas did not seek removal
of the 7.8 psi RVP standard, and as such, these areas remain subject to
the 7.8 psi RVP standard per the terms of their approved respective
110(a)(1) maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Effective June 15, 2004, Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough,
Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties in Florida were designated
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR
23857. The same counties were designated as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088.
    \2\ As noted above, maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone
standard designated attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard are required to submit a maintenance plan under
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA demonstrating maintenance out to 10
years after designation. See 69 FR 23996 (Apr. 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the history of the gasoline volatility requirement?

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment.
Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as VOC, are precursors
to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's
ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce
lung function (thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory
conditions), increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may
contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in
evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Pursuant to section
211(c) of the CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR
11868), that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the
high-ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase
nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of
commercial gasoline during the high-ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55
FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase
II of the volatility control program. These requirements established
maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the State,
the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with
respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high-ozone season).
    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to
address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high-ozone
season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility
standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that
EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone
nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA.
The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP
above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning
in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations
retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55
FR 23658).
    As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and
reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published
in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to EPA's
volatility program that they believe will enhance local air quality
and/or increase the economic efficiency of the program within the
limits of CAA section 211(h).\3\ In those rulemakings, EPA explained
that the Governor of a State may petition EPA to set a volatility
standard less stringent than 7.8 psi for some month or months in a
nonattainment area. The petition must demonstrate such a change is
appropriate because of a particular local economic impact and that
sufficient alternative programs are available to achieve attainment and
maintenance of

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. A current listing of the RVP requirements for
states can be found on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990), 56 FR 24242 (May 29, 1991)
and 56 FR 64704 (Dec. 12, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II
rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard
in a nonattainment area is best accomplished in conjunction with the
redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be
redesignated as an attainment area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act
requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to section 175A of the
Act, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone
NAAQS for a period of ten years after redesignation. Depending on the
Area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate
that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years
without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more
stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain
its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a
request for redesignation, EPA will not relax the volatility standard
unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan
demonstrates, to the satisfaction of EPA, that the area will maintain
attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent
volatility standard. As noted above, however, Florida did not request
relaxation of the applicable 7.8 psi RVP standard when the
Jacksonville, Southeast Florida and Tampa Areas were redesignated to
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Rather, Florida is now seeking
to relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard after these Areas have been
redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, the
original modeling and maintenance demonstration supporting the section
110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plans must be revised to reflect continued
attainment under the relaxed 9.0 psi RVP standard that the State has
requested.

III. Background of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Program

    The State of Florida previously implemented a motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance program in the Jacksonville, Southeast
Florida and Tampa areas as part of the State's strategy to meet the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. This program was referred to as the Motor Vehicle
Inspection Program (MVIP). On July 1, 2000, the Florida legislature
terminated the MVIP for Jacksonville, Southeast Florida and Tampa, and
removed the program's statutory authority. As a consequence of this
repeal, FDEP developed and submitted SIP revisions to remove the
emissions reductions attributable to this program in the aforementioned
areas from the Florida SIP. Specifically, on December 10, 1999, FDEP
submitted a revision to the SIP for the ozone air quality maintenance
plans for the Jacksonville and Southeast Florida areas, and on August
29, 2000, for the Tampa, Florida area. FDEP's submissions requested the
removal of the emission reduction credits attributable to the MVIP from
the future year emission projections contained in the maintenance plans
and provided a demonstration that removal of the emission reductions
associated with the MVIP would not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA. At the time, however,
Florida did not also explicitly request removal from its SIP of the
regulatory references to the MVIP program. Subsequently, in EPA's final
rulemakings, published August 2, 2001 (66 FR 40137), and August 15,
2002 (67 FR 53314), the Agency approved the SIP revisions removing the
emissions reductions that were attributable to the inspection and
maintenance program in the Maintenance Plan Areas, but the regulatory
references to the MVIP program remained.
    Florida's December 10, 1999, and August 29, 2000, SIP revisions
demonstrated that the Maintenance Plan Areas could maintain the ozone
NAAQS without the implementation of the MVIP. EPA reviewed the State's
emissions inventory and modeling analyses and found that they met the
applicable guidance and requirements. Therefore, the State made the
necessary demonstration that the MVIP was not necessary to maintain the
ozone NAAQS and that attainment of the NAAQS for any other pollutant
would not be affected by removing the MVIP from the SIP. However,
because EPA did not remove Florida Code Annotated Section 62-242 from
the table of EPA-approved rules at 40 CFR 52.520, on November 29, 2012,
FDEP submitted a letter to EPA requesting that EPA remove these now-
defunct rules from the Florida SIP. In its letter, the State noted that
these rules relate to the defunct MVIP, and also noted EPA's previous
rulemakings to remove the emissions reductions attributable to this
program in its SIP. The portion of today's action related to removal of
the MVIP rules from the SIP is being taken in response to the State's
November 29, 2012, request, and is based upon the previously approved
non-interference demonstration provided by Florida to support the
removal of the emission reduction credits associated with the now-
defunct inspection and maintenance program in the Southeast Florida,
Tampa Bay and Jacksonville areas.
    EPA notes that the section 110(l) non-interference demonstration
submitted by Florida in support of its requested RVP revisions is also
premised upon the continued non-implementation of the now-discontinued
MVIP in these areas.

IV. This Action

    On November 8, 2013 (78 FR 67090), EPA proposed approval of
Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision to the State's approved
maintenance plans addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Southeast Florida, Tampa Bay and Jacksonville areas. Specifically,
Florida's revision, including updated modeling, shows that these areas
would continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard if the
currently applicable Federal RVP standard for gasoline of 7.8 psi was
modified to a less stringent standard of 9.0 psi for Broward, Dade,
Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties during the high-
ozone season. Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision, includes updated
mobile source emissions modeling using EPA's approved models--Motor
Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) and NONROAD2008--to support the
request to modify the RVP gasoline requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
    Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that a revision to the SIP not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. EPA's criterion for determining the
approvability of Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision is whether the
requested action complies with section 110(l) of the CAA. Because the
modeling associated with the current maintenance plans for Florida are
premised in part upon the 7.8 psi RVP requirement, a request to revise
the maintenance plan modeling to no longer rely on the 7.8 psi RVP
requirement is subject to the requirements of CAA section 110(l).
Therefore, the State must demonstrate that its August 15, 2013, SIP
revision will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any
of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA also
notes that Florida's technical demonstration in its August 15, 2013,
SIP revision accounts for the

absence of the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance
programs in the Maintenance Plan Areas.
    The section 110(l) non-interference demonstration is a case-by-case
determination based upon the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA
interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect,
including those that have been promulgated, but for which the EPA has
not yet made designations. The specific elements of the 110(l) analysis
contained in the SIP revision depend on the circumstances and emissions
analyses associated with that revision. EPA's analysis of Florida's
August 15, 2013, SIP revision, including review of section 110(l)
requirements, can be found in the proposed rule published on November
8, 2013 (78 FR 67090). The specific revisions to the maintenance plan
modeling that EPA is approving are the ozone maintenance plan
attainment inventories, emissions projections and air quality
monitoring data. The revised modeling also utilizes updated models to
calculate the mobile source emissions.
    Also, based on a request by the State on November 29, 2012, EPA is
removing the existing SIP references related to the previously-
implemented inspection and maintenance programs in the Maintenance Plan
Areas. As discussed above, Florida discontinued this program and
submitted SIP revisions in 1999 and 2000 to remove the emissions
reduction credits associated with the MVIP program from its SIP. See 66
FR 40137; 67 FR 53314. At the time, Florida demonstrated that removal
of these emission credits would not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the
Act. In addition, the State's technical demonstration provided with the
August 15, 2013, RVP-related SIP revision also demonstrates that the
less-stringent RVP standard and the absence of an inspection and
maintenance program in these areas would not interfere with continued
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or any other applicable
standard.
    EPA received no adverse comments on its proposed action and is
therefore finalizing the proposed action.

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving the State of Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP
revision to its 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans for
the Maintenance Plan Areas. Specifically, EPA is approving the State's
showing that the Maintenance Plan Areas can continue to maintain the
1997 ozone standard without the emissions reductions associated with
both the previously-implemented MVIP, and the use of gasoline with an
RVP of 7.8 psi during the high-ozone season--June 1 through September
15 in the Maintenance Plan Areas. Also, EPA is approving the updated
attainment inventories, emissions projections and air quality
monitoring which are associated with the updated and revised modeling
related to the change in the applicable RVP standard, and the absence
of the previously-implemented inspection and maintenance programs for
the Maintenance Plan Areas. Additionally, EPA is removing Florida Code
Annotated Section 62-242, which pertains to the now-defunct MVIP, from
the Florida SIP.
    EPA has determined that Florida's August 15, 2013 SIP revision,
including the technical demonstration associated with the State's
request for the removal of the Federal RVP requirements, and the
updated attainment inventory, emissions projections and air quality
monitoring data, and the removal of the MVIP-related sections of the
Florida SIP are consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA.
Should EPA decide to remove the subject portions of the Maintenance
Plan Areas from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi Federal RVP
requirements, such action will occur in a separate rulemaking.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submittal 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, 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, October 7, 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 March 7, 2014. 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 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, Incorporation by
Reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements and Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: December 19, 2013.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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 K--Florida

0
2. In Sec.  52.520:
0
a. Amend paragraph (c) by removing the heading and all entries for
``Chapter 62-242 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Test
Procedures,''; and
0
b. Amend paragraph (e) by adding a new entry for ``RVP Update for
Florida 1997 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plans'' at the end of the table.
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   State effective                        Federal Register
            Provision                    date        EPA approval date         notice            Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
RVP Update for Florida 1997 8-              8/15/13             1/6/14  [Insert citation of
 hour Ozone Maintenance Plans.                                           publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-31557 Filed 1-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29716-29717]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1152]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Petition To Request
an Exemption From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients:
Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging,
Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by June
22, 2015.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0608.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Road, COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Petition To Request an Exemption From 100 Percent Identity Testing of
Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing Practice in
Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary
Supplements--21 CFR 111.75(a)(1)(ii) (OMB Control Number 0910-0608)--
Reinstatement

    The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) (Pub. L.
103-417) added section 402(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342(g)), which provides, in part, that
the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) may, by
regulation, prescribe good manufacturing practices for dietary
supplements. Section 402(g)(1) of the FD&C Act states that a dietary
supplement is adulterated if ``it has been prepared, packed, or held
under conditions that do not meet current good manufacturing practice
regulations.'' Section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) gives
us the authority to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of
the FD&C Act.

    Part 111 (21 CFR part 111) establishes the minimum Current Good
Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) necessary for activities related to
manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding dietary supplements to
ensure the quality of the dietary supplement. Section 111.75(a)(1) (21
CFR 111.75(a)(1)) establishes a procedure for a petition to request an
exemption from 100 percent identity testing of dietary ingredients.
Under Sec.  111.75(a)(1)(ii), manufacturers may request an exemption
from the requirements set forth in Sec.  111.75(a)(1)(i) when the
dietary ingredient is obtained from one or more suppliers identified in
the petition. The regulation clarifies that we are willing to consider,
on a case-by-case basis, a manufacturer's conclusion, supported by
appropriate data and information in the petition submission, that it
has developed a system that it would implement as a sound, consistent
means of establishing, with no material diminution of assurance
compared to the assurance provided by 100 percent identity testing, the
identity of the dietary ingredient before use.
    Section 111.75(a)(1) reflects our determination that manufacturers
that test or examine 100 percent of the incoming dietary ingredients
for identity can be assured of the identity of the ingredient. However,
we recognize that it may be possible for a manufacturer to demonstrate,
through various methods and processes in use over time for its
particular operation, that a system of less than 100 percent identity
testing would result in no material diminution of assurance of the
identity of the dietary ingredient as compared to the assurance
provided by 100 percent identity testing. To provide an opportunity for
a manufacturer to make such a showing and reduce the frequency of
identity testing of components that are dietary ingredients from 100
percent to some lower frequency, we added to Sec.  111.75(a)(1) an
exemption from the requirement of 100 percent identity testing when a
manufacturer petitions the Agency for such an exemption to 100 percent
identity testing under Sec.  10.30 (21 CFR 10.30)and the Agency grants
such exemption. Such a procedure would be consistent with our stated
goal, as described in the CGMP final rule, of providing flexibility in
the CGMP requirements. Section 111.75(a)(1)(ii) sets forth the
information a manufacturer is required to submit in such a petition.
The regulation also contains a requirement to ensure that the
manufacturer keeps our response to a petition submitted under Sec.
111.75(a)(1)(ii) as a record under Sec.  111.95. The collection of
information in Sec.  111.95 has been approved under OMB control number
0910-0606.
    Description of Respondents: The respondents to this collection of
information are firms in the dietary supplement industry, including
dietary supplement manufacturers, packagers and re-packagers, holders,
labelers and re-labelers, distributors, warehouses, exporters,
importers, large businesses, and small businesses.
    In the Federal Register of March 9, 2015 (80 FR 12491), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. One comment was received, but was not
responsive to the four collection of information topics solicited in
the notice and, therefore, is not discussed in this document.
    We estimate the annual burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
     21 CFR section; CGMP requirements for dietary supplements          Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111.75(a)(1)(ii)...................................................               1                1                1                8                8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    In the last 3 years, we have not received any new petitions to
request an exemption from 100 percent identity testing of dietary
ingredients; therefore, the Agency estimates that one or fewer
petitions will be submitted annually. Based on our experience with
petition processes, we estimate it will take a requestor about 8 hours
to prepare the factual and legal information necessary to support a
petition for exemption and to prepare the petition. Although we have
not received any new petitions to request an exemption from 100 percent
identity testing of dietary ingredients in the last 3 years, we believe
that OMB approval of these information collection provisions should be
extended to provide for the potential future need of a firm in the
dietary supplement industry to petition for an exemption from 100
percent identity testing of dietary ingredients.

    Dated: May 18, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-12398 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


For the Docket

Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters

Docket ID No. OW-2009-0596

Meeting with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)

	November 4, 2010

In Attendance:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Ephraim King, OST

					       Jim Keating, OST

					       Jim Giattina, Region 4

					       Carol Baschon, Region 4

					       Joanne Benante, Region 4

					       Annie Godfrey, Region 4

Florida Department of Environmental Protection – Jerry Brooks

						          Drew Bartlett

Summary:

EPA chose to meet with FDEP to discuss the upcoming promulgation of final Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters.  Specifically, FDEP and EPA discussed:

The lakes modified criteria procedure

Duration and frequency for the springs criterion

Expression of downstream protection values

Exclusion of sites with Dissolved Oxygen impairments from the stream benchmark distribution

The frequency component of the streams criteria

No documents were shared between EPA and FDEP.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61887-61888]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24481]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0025; OMB No. 1660-0130]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of
Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Room 7NE, Washington, DC
20472-3100, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback
on Agency Service Delivery.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    Form Titles and Numbers: None.
    Abstract: The information collection activity will garner
qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely
manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving
service delivery. By qualitative feedback, we mean information that
provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not
statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be
generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide
insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and
expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus
attention on areas where communication, training or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. These
collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable
communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders.
It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement
of program management.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful
information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such
data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target
population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame,
the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the
precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed
sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing
potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any
testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding
the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely
to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for
other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative
results.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 326,207.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 54,436.
    Estimated Cost: There are no annual start-up or capital costs.

Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2014-24481 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P