Published 60 Day Federal Register Notice (FRN)

39356

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
[Docket ID: FEMA–2018–0006; OMB No.
1660–0103]

Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Property
Acquisition and Relocation for Open
Space
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

The Federal Emergency
Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
and respondent burden, invites the
general public and other Federal
agencies to take this opportunity to
comment on a reinstatement, with
change, of a previously approved
information collection for which
approval has expired. In accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, this notice seeks comments
concerning the property acquisition and
relocation for open space process as part
of the administration of FEMA’s
mitigation grant programs, and the
withdrawal of three previously
proposed forms (FEMA Form 086–0–
31a, FEMA Form 086–0–31b, and FEMA
Form 086–0–31c) from the Information
Collection included in the initial 60-day
public comment period regarding the
Severe Risk Property Acquisition
(SRPA) direct grant to property owners
for acquisition and demolition of severe
repetitive loss structures. After
reviewing all the comments submitted,
FEMA has determined there is no need
for SRPA direct grant-related forms at
this time. At this time, FEMA has
decided not to implement the SRPA
direct to property owners grant.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before October 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate
submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to
submit comments:
(1) Online. Submit comments at
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA–2018–0006. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to
Docket Manager, Office of Chief
Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW,
8NE, Washington, DC 20472–3100.
All submissions received must
include the agency name and Docket ID.
Regardless of the method used for
submitting comments or material, all

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:34 Aug 08, 2019

Jkt 247001

submissions will be posted, without
change, to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov,
and will include any personal
information you provide. Therefore,
submitting this information makes it
public. You may wish to read the
Privacy Act notice that is available via
the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennie Orenstein, Grants Policy Branch
Chief, FIMA, FEMA, (202) 212–4071.
You may contact the Records
Management Division for copies of the
proposed collection of information at
email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations at 44 CFR part 80 govern
property acquisitions for the creation of
open space under FEMA’s three hazard
mitigation assistance (HMA) grant
programs: The Pre-Disaster Mitigation
program (PDM) and Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP), authorized
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5207; and the
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
(FMA) authorized under the National
Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.
Acquisition and relocation of property
for open space use is a popular
mitigation activity eligible under PDM,
HMGP, and FMA. These programs
require any property acquired with
FEMA funds to be deed restricted and
maintained as open space in perpetuity
to ensure against future risk from
hazards to life and property, and to
reduce the need for disaster assistance
or insurance payments for damages to
property. This proposed information
collection previously published in the
Federal Register on February 27, 2018
at 83 FR 8493 with a 60-day public
comment period. The comment period
closed on April 30, 2018. FEMA
received ninety-two comments in
response to Information Collection
1660–0103, including comments that
express both support and opposition to
different parts of the Collection. Many
comments were similar, but they will be
recorded as 102 distinct comments since
they addressed multiple parts of the
Collection. Of the 102 comments
received, 67 comments were opposed to
language in the three new forms
pertaining to the Severe Risk Property
Acquisition (SRPA) direct grants to
property owners that included an option
identified as ‘‘Pathway 2: Demolition of
Structure(s) Only, Property Owner(s)
Retains Ownership.’’ The Pathway
allowed property owners to build new

PO 00000

Frm 00098

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

structures on the land after the existing
structures were acquired and
demolished by FEMA. A commitment to
use the property as open space in
perpetuity was not required. The new
structures were required to meet current
community flood management building
codes, which presumably would be to a
higher standard than the damaged
structure was built to. Mitigation would
thus be accomplished by reducing the
long-term risk to a natural hazard. In
comparison, the other Pathway SRPA
offered was that the subrecipient (local
community) could acquire the property
and commit the property to open space
use in perpetuity. With either Pathway,
the choice was up to the property
owner, assuming the community was
interested in acquisition if the property
owner chose that option. A SRPA grant
would only be offered under FEMA’s
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
program.
Eleven (11) comments were
supportive of SRPA and the three new
related forms. 3 comments were neutral
and recommended changes to provide
support to SRPA. 3 comments opposed
using the public comment period for
discussing the feasibility of SRPA. 6
comments were beyond the scope of the
Information Collection and 12
comments were not germane.
The 67 comments submitted in
opposition to SRPA’s Pathway 2:
Demolition of Structure(s) Only,
Property Owner(s) Retains Ownership
option came from a variety of sources,
including State and local government,
non-profit organizations, individuals,
and anonymous sources. Commenters
listed primary reasons for opposition
such as:
• Inconsistency under the National
Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 42
U.S.C. 4104c since the forms only
offered property owners one mitigation
option, acquisition, and no other
mitigation activities such as relocation,
structure elevation, or mitigation
reconstruction
• Inconsistency under 44 CFR part 80
Property Acquisition and Relocation for
Open Space, which restricts postacquisition land use to outdoor
recreational activities, wetlands
management, nature reserves, farming
(i.e., cultivation, grazing), camping and
other uses FEMA determines are
compatible with open space and limits
the type of new structures that can be
built on the property
• Inconsistency with current Hazard
Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Guidance
for acquisition of properties, and
inconsistency with the way FEMA has
implemented acquisition projects for the
past 30 years, which require the

E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM

09AUN1

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Notices
acquired property to be dedicated and
maintained in perpetuity as open space
for the conservation of natural
floodplain functions
Several comments cited additional
reasons for opposition to the SRPA
forms for Pathway 2: Demolition of
Structure(s) Only, Property Owner(s)
Retains Ownership, including:
• New structures would endanger first
responders in the flood prone area
• Direct grants discourage conversion of
developed land to open space
• Direct grants fail to reduce the risk
posed to property and human lives
• Lack of robust codes in many
communities would not guarantee a
rebuild to a higher standard
• Lack of information justifying how
Pathway 2 would be cost-effective (an
eligibility requirement for all HMA
projects), and demonstrate savings
over alternative mitigation options
• Propose limitation to ensure direct
grants would not be abused to spur
coastal development
Commenters also noted that the new
forms were not clear on who would be
responsible for monitoring these
properties post-acquisition to ensure
that new structures and improvements
conform to grant requirements. Without
clear identification of responsibilities,
there was concern that new structures
would not be constructed to meet
community flood building standards.
The 11 comments in support of SRPA
also came from a variety of sources,
including local government, a non-profit
organization and individuals.
Commenters in support of SRPA
provided the following reasons:
• Expedited access to funding that will
help survivors recover more quickly
• Reduced risk of experiencing another
flood at the same property in the
short-term
• Increase in or maintenance of a
community’s tax base
• SRPA would result in reconstruction
to a higher building code
• Provides a good alternative when a
state does not prioritize substantially
damaged homes, or does not expedite
an acquisition project
Of the comments that expressed
support, several of them had
reservations. For example, one
commenter expressed strong support for
the property owner to retain land after
a demolition but expressed concern
regarding what would happen if the
local government did not want the
property owner to do this. Additionally,
the commenter was unsure how the
property would be maintained in
perpetuity and reported every three
years. The comment reflects a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:34 Aug 08, 2019

Jkt 247001

misconception about a SRPA direct
grant as the property owner who retains
ownership would not be required to
commit the property to open space in
perpetuity. Another commenter
supported SRPA but opined that a
property owner should only be eligible
when neither the local jurisdiction nor
state have a flood mitigation plan in
place. One association supported SRPA
but only if elevation is included in the
eligible project list.
Three (3) comments neutral to SRPA
came from individuals. The commenters
offered recommendations that if
followed would make SRPA acceptable
to them. One commenter wanted the
added option of elevation, in addition to
the demolition and property owner
retention option. According to the
commenter, elevations would address
the removal of tax bases and provide
more flexibility in areas impacted by
flooding.
One individual recommended that to
make NFIP more fiscally secure,
individuals should be denied NFIP
insurance if they reject the options for
a buyout, elevation, and mitigation
reconstruction project after flooding
multiple times in a set number of years
and once flood insurance payments total
the value of the house. While FEMA
recognizes that denying flood insurance
to property owners who reject the
option to mitigate may incentivize
mitigation, FEMA does not have
statutory authority to implement such a
measure.
Another commenter indicated a
spelling error in the header of a form,
recommended language change in the
Statement of Voluntary Participation
form to align more with what is written
in the FEMA FORM 086–0–31C and
inquired about why the acquisition and
demolition process must be done by
FEMA and not by the local community.
The form with the spelling error is no
longer an instrument of this Information
Collection.
Three (3) comments opposed using
the public comment period for
discussing the feasibility of SRPA. One
commenter expressed concern about
making a fundamental change to buyout
programs through ‘‘the obscure context
and mechanism of reinstating and
changing a series of federal forms.’’ The
comment reflects a misconception that
adding the forms to the Information
Collection alone would be enough to
implement this new type of grant.
Adding the forms was a means of FEMA
preparing to implement the SRPA grant
if FEMA received an appropriation for
it. However, FEMA did not receive an
appropriation to implement a SRPA

PO 00000

Frm 00099

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

39357

grant and has no plans to implement a
SRPA grant currently.
Another commenter felt the
Information Collection lacked
‘‘explanatory material for the
assumptions and procedures in which
the proposed forms are expected to be
used . . .’’ Specifically, the commenter
wanted access to the proposed forms.
FEMA is not able to publicly post the
forms because they have not yet been
approved by OMB. However, if the
commenter reaches out to HMA’s Point
of Contact for this Information
Collection (Jennie Orenstein), they will
be provided access to the forms.
Lastly, one commentator wanted to
‘‘extend and expand the public
comment period to allow more
knowledgeable evaluation.’’ A standard
Paperwork Reduction Act Information
Collection requires both a 60-day public
comment period, followed by a 30-day
public comment period. The program
office is responsible for responding to
all comments during these two
comment periods. The commenter’s
remark was part of the 60-day comment
period and, thus, there will be another
30-day comment period following
adjudication of responses and potential
changes to forms.
Six (6) comments were beyond the
scope of the Information Collection and
involved the following topics:
• Inquire into specific mechanisms
used to compel local governments to
participate in SRPA grants
• Inquire about funding streams, which
do not currently exist for SRPA grants
• Inquire about how to determine if a
State and/or community would not
have the capacity to manage direct
grants
• Inquire about addressing urban
flooding by redefining flood zones
and providing a socially equitable
solution to low to middle income
communities when experiencing
flooding
• Express a belief that current
floodplains are based on best guesses
and anecdotal evidence, which leads
to inaccuracies
Following Hurricane Harvey, to
address the dire circumstances of
property owners with substantially
damaged homes, FEMA explored
implementing a statutory provision in
the National Flood Insurance Act, 42
U.S.C. 4104c(a)(3), which authorizes
FEMA to provide direct grants to
property owners with severe repetitive
loss (SRL) properties under FMA. After
considering the 102 comments
submitted mostly in opposition to SRPA
but also supporting it, in some cases
with reservations, FEMA has decided

E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM

09AUN1

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

39358

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Notices

not to implement SRPA and to
withdraw the three forms related to the
SRPA grant, consisting of FEMA Form
086–0–31a, FEMA Form 086–0–31b,
and FEMA Form 086–0–31c from the
Information Collection.
FEMA appreciated the input
provided, and felt the commenters
raised many worthy issues for
discussion concerning a direct grant to
property owners. Consequently, FEMA
intends to pursue an ongoing dialogue
with stakeholders, non-governmental
organizations, and other entities or
individuals, as appropriate, to address
the merits and problems with
implementing this type of grant.
In response to comments, FEMA has
withdrawn three previously proposed
forms (FEMA Form 086–0–31a, FEMA
Form 086–0–31b, and FEMA Form 086–
0–31c) from the Information Collection
included in the initial 60-day public
comment period regarding the Severe
Risk Property Acquisition (SRPA) direct
grant to property owners for acquisition
and demolition of severe repetitive loss
structures. After reviewing all the
comments submitted, FEMA has
determined there is no need for SRPA
direct grant-related forms at this time.
At this time, FEMA has decided not to
implement the SRPA direct to property
owners grant.
With the withdrawal of the three
SRPA-related forms, the Information
Collection contains only three new
forms necessary to obtain information
for HMA’s usual grants: Real Property
Status Report, SF–429, Declaration and
Release (Declaracion Y Autorizacion)
(FEMA Form 009–0–3 or 009–0–4
(Spanish)), and FEMA Form 086–035a
(Pages 9–10) NFIP Repetitive Loss
Update Worksheet. The fourth form, the
Property Owners’ Voluntary
Participation Statement (FEMA Form
86–0–31) is necessary for FEMA to
ensure compliance with regulatory
requirements that the property owner’s
participation in an acquisition is
voluntary. See 44 CFR 80.13. This form
was published in previous information
collections.
The Real Property Status Report, SF–
429 is a standard, OMB-approved form
under OMB Collection 4040–0016, with
a current expiration date of 02/28/2022.
It is used to certify that the subrecipient
has inspected properties to ensure
consistency with the terms of the deed
restrictions committing the properties to
open space in perpetuity. The SF–429 is
an addition to this collection as part of
the 2 CFR 200.311 requirements for
property management and disposition.
While FEMA has always collected
property management reports every
three years for acquired properties, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:34 Aug 08, 2019

Jkt 247001

SF–429 form was not included in
previous collections. Historically, some
recipients and subrecipients used the
SF–429 forms, and others used their
own formats. FEMA is now proposing to
use the SF–429 to have a uniform and
consistent format.
FEMA collects Declaration and
Release, FEMA Form 009–0–3 or
Declaracion Y Autorizacion FEMA Form
009–0–4 (Spanish) (OMB No. 1660–
0002), to certify an individual’s
information and eligibility. FEMA will
be adding this form to this information
collection to obtain necessary
information for its eligibility
determinations. This form is already
approved under OMB Collection 1660–
0002, Disaster Assistance Registration
which expires on July 31, 2019 and is
currently pending OMB’s approval.
FEMA Form 086–0–35a (Pages 9–10)
NFIP Repetitive Loss Update Worksheet,
is a form used by the State, Tribe or
local community when acquiring a
property to update the status of
properties classified as NFIP repetitive
loss to indicate if they have been
previously acquired, retrofitted or
mitigated through a different eligible
project type. These pages are included
in an already approved OMB Collection
No.1660–0022, Community Rating
System (CRS) Program—Application
Letter and CRS Quick Check,
Community Annual Recertification and
Environmental and Historic
Preservation Certifications, which
expires on March 31, 2020. This form is
necessary to keep records for flood
insurance purposes, which allows the
NFIP to modify their flood insurance
policies.
This information collection, OMB No.
1660–0103, expired on January 31,
2018. FEMA is requesting a
reinstatement, with change, of a
previously approved information
collection for which approval has
expired. The purpose of this 60-day
notice is to notify the public of the
changes FEMA has made to the
originally proposed Information
Collection in the previous 60-day notice
and allow for a new 60-day period for
comments on the updated Information
Collection.
Collection of Information
Title: Property Acquisition and
Relocation for Open Space.
Type of Information Collection:
Reinstatement, with change, of a
previously approved information
collection for which approval has
expired.
OMB Number: 1660–0103.
Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA
Form 086–0–31, Statement of Voluntary

PO 00000

Frm 00100

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Participation for Acquisition of Property
for Purpose of Open Space, (OMB
No.1660–0103); 009–0–3 (English) and
009–0–4 (Spanish), Declaration and
Release, (OMB No. 1660–0002); 086–0–
35a (Pages 9–10), NFIP Repetitive Loss
Update Worksheet (OMB No. 1660–
0022); SF–429, Real Property Status
Report (OMB No. 4040–0016).
Abstract: FEMA and State, Tribal and
local recipients of FEMA mitigation
grant programs will use the information
collected to meet the Property
Acquisition requirements to implement
acquisition activities under the terms of
grant agreements for acquisition and
relocation activities. FEMA and State/
local grant recipients will also use the
information to monitor and enforce the
open space requirements for all
properties acquired with FEMA
mitigation grants.
Affected Public: State, local or Tribal
Government; Individuals or
Households.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
2,773.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 11,528.
Estimated Cost: The estimated annual
cost to respondents for the hour burden
is $520,710.
Estimated Respondents’ Operation
and Maintenance Costs: There are no
annual costs to respondents’ operations
and maintenance costs for technical
services.
Estimated Respondents’ Capital and
Start-Up Costs: There is no annual startup or capital costs.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to the
Federal Government: The cost to the
Federal Government is $687,687.
Comments: Comments may be
submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES
caption above. Comments are solicited
to (a) evaluate whether the proposed
data collection is necessary for the
proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through
the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,

E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM

09AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Notices
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Maile Arthur,
Acting Records Management Branch Chief,
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer,
Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2019–17102 Filed 8–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–47–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services
[OMB Control Number 1615–0095]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection: Notice of Appeal
or Motion
U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security.
ACTION: 60-Day notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration (USCIS) invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
comment upon this proposed revision of
a currently approved collection of
information or new collection of
information. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of
1995, the information collection notice
is published in the Federal Register to
obtain comments regarding the nature of
the information collection, the
categories of respondents, the estimated
burden (i.e. the time, effort, and
resources used by the respondents to
respond), the estimated cost to the
respondent, and the actual information
collection instruments.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until
October 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: All submissions received
must include the OMB Control Number
1615–0095 in the body of the letter, the
agency name and Docket ID USCIS–
2008–0027. To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the
following methods to submit comments:
(1) Online. Submit comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
http://www.regulations.gov under eDocket ID number USCIS–2008–0027;
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to
DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and
Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination
Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20529–2140.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy,

khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:34 Aug 08, 2019

Jkt 247001

Regulatory Coordination Division,
Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20
Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20529–2140, telephone
number 202–272–8377 (This is not a
toll-free number. Comments are not
accepted via telephone message). Please
note contact information provided here
is solely for questions regarding this
notice. It is not for individual case
status inquiries. Applicants seeking
information about the status of their
individual cases can check Case Status
Online, available at the USCIS website
at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the
USCIS Contact Center at 800–375–5283
(TTY 800–767–1833).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments
You may access the information
collection instrument with instructions,
or additional information by visiting the
Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
http://www.regulations.gov and enter
USCIS–2008–0027 in the search box.
Regardless of the method used for
submitting comments or material, all
submissions will be posted, without
change, to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov,
and will include any personal
information you provide. Therefore,
submitting this information makes it
public. You may wish to consider
limiting the amount of personal
information that you provide in any
voluntary submission you make to DHS.
DHS may withhold information
provided in comments from public
viewing that it determines may impact
the privacy of an individual or is
offensive. For additional information,
please read the Privacy Act notice that
is available via the link in the footer of
http://www.regulations.gov.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
should address one or more of the
following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other

PO 00000

Frm 00101

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

39359

technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Revision of a Currently Approved
Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Notice of Appeal or Motion.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the DHS
sponsoring the collection: I–290B;
USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Individuals or
households. Form I–290B standardizes
requests for appeals and motions and
ensures that the basic information
required to adjudicate appeals and
motions is provided by applicants and
petitioners, or their attorneys or
representatives. USCIS uses the data
collected on Form I–290B to determine
whether an applicant or petitioner is
eligible to file an appeal or motion,
whether the requirements of an appeal
or motion have been met, and whether
the applicant or petitioner is eligible for
the requested immigration benefit. Form
I–290B can also be filed with ICE by
schools appealing decisions on Form I–
17 filings for certification to ICE’s
Student and Exchange Visitor Program
(SEVP).
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: The estimated total number of
respondents for the information
collection I–290B is 28,000 and the
estimated hour burden per response is
1.5 hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The total estimated annual
hour burden associated with this
collection is 42,000 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public
burden (in cost) associated with the
collection: The estimated total annual
cost burden associated with this
collection of information is $8,652,000.
Dated: August 5, 2019.
Jerry L. Rigdon,
Deputy Chief, Regulatory Coordination
Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2019–17031 Filed 8–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–97–P

E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM

09AUN1