the policy objectives of section 612 as expanding the agency's ability
to regulate substitutes under section 608 beyond the authority conveyed
in the text of 608 itself. As explained in Section II above, because
the agency has determined that the 2016 Rule's extension of the leak
repair requirements to appliances using only non-exempt substitute
refrigerant exceeds its statutory authority, it is rescinding that
extension.
    Another commenter states that reading 608 and 609 together
indicates that Congress was capable of clearly indicating when it
intended for ODS and substitutes to be treated the same, and that it
chose not to do so in 608. In support of this argument, the commenter
points out that the definition of refrigerant in section 609 includes
class I and class II substances, as well as any substitute substance
beginning November 15, 1995. The EPA responds that as described in
greater detail in Section II above, it interprets its authority to
address substitutes under section 608 as more limited than its
authority to address ODS, based in part on the inclusion of the term
``substitute'' in section 608(c)(2) but not sections 608(a)(1) and (2).
Section 609 is a distinct provision from section 608 and is highly
specialized, being focused on motor vehicle air conditioners, which
were one of the first uses to transition to substitutes. The EPA
believes this comment provides additional support for the agency's
conclusion that its authority to regulate substitutes under section 608
is not as extensive as its authority to regulate ODS. However, the EPA
does not believe that section 609 should be read to suggest that the
agency has no authority to regulate substitute refrigerants under
section 608, as section 608(c), like section 609, does mention both ODS
and substitute refrigerants and applies the venting prohibition to both
beginning November 15, 1995. Nor does anything in section 609 indicate
whether certain refrigerant management requirements for substitutes
might be necessary to achieve the purposes of section 608(a), which
covers a broad range of uses, with widely varying timelines for the
transition from ODS. For the reasons described further in Section II,
the agency continues to reasonably interpret both section 608(a) and
(c) to provide some authority to regulate substitute refrigerants, to
the extent consistent with the text of those provisions, and this
action appropriately aligns its regulation of substitute refrigerants
with its statutory authority under 608.
    One commenter states that the name of Title VI (Stratospheric Ozone
Protection) indicates that Congress intended to only address
stratospheric ozone depletion, not GHG emissions. The EPA responds that
this action addresses non-exempt substitutes without distinction as to
whether they are GHGs and indeed without distinction as to any other
attribute. Further, the text of 608(c) demonstrates that Congress was
addressing both class I and class II refrigerants and substitute
refrigerants. Congress specifically applied the venting prohibition to
substitutes, and, as indicated by the provision that allows the EPA to
exempt substitute refrigerants from the venting prohibition if it
determines that venting, release, or disposal of such substitute does
not pose a threat to the environment, specifically contemplated that
threats to the environment other than stratospheric ozone depletion
would be considered in implementing the venting prohibition under
section 608(c)(2). In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized the
``wise rule that the title of a statute and the heading of a section
cannot limit the plain meaning of the text''; while they may provide a
``short-hand reference to the general subject matter involved,'' they
are not ``necessarily designed to be a reference guide or a synopsis.''
Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Balt. & O.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 528-29 (1947)
(internal citations omitted). Thus, the EPA does not interpret the
title of Title VI as precluding it from regulating substitute
refrigerants, where such regulation is otherwise authorized under the
Act. Moreover, as described in Section II above, in re-assessing the
scope of its authority for the 2016 Rule's extension of subpart F
provisions to substitute refrigerants, the EPA has considered whether
the extension of those provisions serve the purposes of section 608(a)
by maximizing recyling or recovery of ODS and/or reducing emissions of
ODS to the lowest achievable level and has determined that the
extension of those provisions with the exception of the leak repair
requirements met such purposes.
    Three commenters cite section 602(e) for the proposition that
Congress did not intend to address GHGs in any of Title VI. That
section requires the EPA to publish the global warming potential (GWP)
of class I and class II substances but states that such required
publication ``shall not be construed to be the basis of any additional
regulation under this chapter.'' The EPA responds, as above, that this
action addresses non-exempt substitutes without distinction as to
whether they are GHGs and indeed without distinction as to any other
attribute. Regardless, section 602(e) does not mention substitutes.
Section 602(e) relates to the GWPs of ODS, and neither directs the
publication of GWPs of substitutes nor makes any statement regarding
regulation of such substances. In any event, the EPA is not regulating
either ODS or substitutes on the basis of their GWP in this action.
Furthermore, the EPA did not rely on section 602 as authority for the
extension of subpart F to non-exempt substitutes in 2016, nor is it
relying on section 602 for the action

being taken in this rulemaking. In the 2016 Rule, the EPA extended the
subpart F regulations to all substitute refrigerants that are not
exempt from the venting prohibition irrespective of their GWPs. In this
action, the agency's decision to rescind the 2016 Rule's extension of
the leak repair requirements to equipment containing only non-exempt
substitute refrigerants is based on the conclusion that the extension
exceeded the agency's authority under section 608 because it was based
on an unreasonable interpretation of that authority.

E. Comments Regarding Whether the Agency Has Provided a Reasoned Basis
for This Action

    One commenter states that the EPA's reinterpretation of its legal
authority fits squarely within the authority that supports an agency's
ability to change its policy (citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC,
Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 863-64 (1984)). Some commenters state that the EPA
has not offered an adequate rationale for this action and fault the
agency for not providing substantial evidence for changing its previous
findings. These commenters state that when changing policy, ``a
reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances
that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy'' (citing FCC v.
Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502, 516 (2009)). Another commenter
states that the EPA failed to provide the requisite ``good reasons''
for its change (citing id. at 515). Some of these commenters state that
``an agency changing its course by rescinding a rule is obligated to
supply a reasoned analysis for the change beyond that which may be
required when an agency does not act in the first instance'' (citing
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S.
29, 42 (1983)) and argue that the EPA has failed to provide a
sufficient justification for the change. Other commenters state that
the EPA ignores the fact that harmful emissions would increase under
today's action, arguing that this shows that the EPA has failed to
``examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation
for its action including a rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made'' (citing State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43)).
    The EPA disagrees that the agency has failed to provide an adequate
rationale for this regulatory change. To begin, we note that the agency
``obviously ha[s] broad discretion to reconsider a regulation at any
time,'' Clean Air Council, 862 F.3d at 8-9, as long as it provides a
reasoned explanation for its action. See, e.g., Encino Motorcars, 136
S.Ct. at 2125. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, including in
detail in Section II above, the reason for today's action is not a
change in policy, but rather a determination that the agency exceeded
the scope of its legal authority under the CAA in the 2016 Rule by
extending the leak repair provisions to equipment containing only non-
exempt substitute refrigerants based on an unreasonable interpretation
of its authority. The EPA has provided a reasoned explanation of its
current interpretation of its legal authority in Section II of this
document and explained why that interpretation requires the rescission
of the 2016 extension of the leak repair requirements to substitute
refrigerants. Even if the facts and circumstances that underlay that
extension, or were engendered by it, could be cited to provide a policy
basis for applying the leak repair requirements to non-exempt
substitute refrigerants, the EPA cannot do that because doing so
exceeds its legal authority. An agency may ``justify its policy choice
by explaining why that policy `is more consistent with statutory
language' than alternative policies,'' Encino Motorcars, 136 S.Ct. at
2127 (quoting Long Island Care at Home Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 175
(2007)), as the agency has done here. In addition, the agency does not
agree with the commenters' claim that it needs to provide more
rationale for this change than if it were acting in the first instance.
See Encino Motorcars, 136 S.Ct. at 2126 (``When an agency changes its
existing position, it `need not always provide a more detailed
justification than what would suffice for a new policy created on a
blank slate.' '') (quoting FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556
U.S. 502, 515 (2009)). However, even if it did, the EPA believes that
the detailed description in Section II of this document would satisfy
that standard, especially considering that it is undertaking this
action to rescind a regulatory provision that exceeds its statutory
authority. Accordingly, the EPA agrees with the comments that stated
this action is well within the agency's authority to change existing
regulatory requirements.
    Two commenters state that rescinding the leak repair provision for
non-exempt substitutes is arbitrary and capricious because it would
result in more of the pollution the CAA seeks to limit and then goes on
to discuss the forgone annual GHG emissions reductions. They also state
that the EPA has not explained how the new interpretation ``is
rationally related to the goals of the statute.''
    The EPA does not agree that this action will result in increased
emissions of the pollution that section 608 seeks to limit, nor that
this action is not rationally related to the goals of the statute. With
respect to section 608(a), that section focuses on reducing emissions
of ODS. The EPA has been implementing regulations under section 608(a)
of the CAA for decades and has been appropriately reducing the use and
emission of ODS refrigerants through those regulations. As discussed in
Section II above, the EPA has determined that leak repair provisions as
applied to appliances containing only substitute refrigerants are not
needed to reduce the use and emissions of ODS refrigerants or to
maximize the recapture and recycling of ODS refrigerants, especially if
the other subpart F provisions are in place for non-exempt substitutes.
As explained in Section II of this document, the EPA concludes that
this action is necessary because the 2016 Rule exceeded its statutory
authority. With respect to section 608(c), the agency interprets
section 608(c) to apply only to knowing releases that occur in the
course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of
appliances. Because operational leaks of substitute refrigerants that
would typically trigger the leak repair provisions do not occur during
one of those four activities, the EPA does not agree that this action
will result in increased emissions of the pollution that section 608(c)
seeks to limit.

IV. Extension of the January 1, 2019 Compliance Date for the Appliance
Maintenance and Leak Repair Provisions for Non-Exempt Substitute
Refrigerants

    The 2016 Rule established a January 1, 2019 compliance date for the
leak repair provisions. In establishing that compliance date, the
agency had found that two years was sufficient time for owners and
operators of appliances with 50 or more pounds of refrigerant to learn
about the updated requirements and prepare for compliance. (81 FR
82343). The 2018 proposal for this action explained that the EPA was
evaluating whether that compliance date remained viable or whether it
should be extended. The EPA proposed to take final action to extend the
compliance date in Sec.  82.157(a) for appliances containing only non-
exempt substitute refrigerants if final action on the substantive
portions of the proposed rule would not occur within a reasonable time
before the existing compliance date. At that

time, however, the EPA lacked specific information relating to the
continued viability of the compliance date. The EPA requested comment
on whether facilities would encounter practical difficulties in meeting
the compliance date and stated that it intended to consider such
information in deciding whether a compliance date extension was needed.
The EPA further requested comment on any hardship that owners or
operators of appliances would face if the compliance date was not
extended and on any forgone benefits from such an extension. Finally,
the EPA requested comment on its ability to finalize a compliance date
extension.
    Multiple commenters state that the EPA has the authority and should
finalize an extension of the compliance date for the leak repair
provisions as they apply to non-exempt substitutes. Several commenters
state that the EPA should take a separate action to extend the
compliance deadline. They argue that the extension would help eliminate
the burden of implementing compliance plans that are expected to no
longer be needed when the rule is finalized, and that the separate rule
should be issued as far ahead of December 31, 2018 as is possible to
minimize any burdens. Commenters state that a 6- to 12-month delay in
compliance would provide certainty to the industry. Some suggest that
the extension should be a full twelve months, which would move the
compliance date to January 1, 2020. However, several other commenters
do not support an extension of the compliance date. They state that the
2016 Rule has been in effect since January 1, 2017, and that
responsible regulated entities have planned for, invested in, and
implemented changes necessary to comply with the applicable compliance
deadlines, including January 1, 2019. Commenters state that the EPA has
failed to provide any lawful basis for its proposal to delay the
compliance date for the 2016 Rule.
    The EPA considered the comments received and is not finalizing, in
this rulemaking or separately, an extension to the January 1, 2019
compliance date for the application of the updated leak repair
provisions to non-exempt substitute refrigerants. Even though some
commenters thought an extension would reduce compliance costs,
commenters also said that they were taking steps to comply and did not
suggest that they would be unable to do so by January 1, 2019. With no
information in the record to contradict the EPA's earlier findings that
two years provided sufficient time to prepare for the January 1, 2019
compliance date, this final rule rescinds the leak repair requirements
for appliances that contain non-exempt substitute refrigerants without
any extension of that compliance date.

V. Economic Analysis

    The EPA does not interpret section 608 to require it to consider
costs and benefits or select the option with the best cost-benefit
outcome. Section 608 does not explicitly address whether costs or
benefits should be considered in developing regulations under that
section. Because the statutory language does not dictate a particular
means of taking economic factors into account, if at all, the EPA has
discretion to adopt a reasonable method for doing so. In this rule, the
EPA has focused on the proper scope of the agency's authority to
regulate.
    The EPA is removing the requirement to comply with the leak repair
provisions for appliances containing only non-exempt substitute
refrigerants as the EPA has determined that the 2016 Rule's extension
of those provisions to non-exempt substitute refrigerants exceeded the
agency's statutory authority because it relied on an unreasonable
interpretation of that authority. These provisions include requirements
to repair equipment that is leaking above the regulatory threshold,
along with the associated verification tests, leak inspections, and
recordkeeping.
    Details of the methods used to estimate the costs and benefits of
this rule are discussed in the Analysis of the Economic Impact of the
Proposed 2018 Revisions to the National Recycling and Emission
Reduction Program in the docket. For a complete description of the
methodology used in the EPA's analysis, see Section VI of the 2016 Rule
(81 FR 82344) and the technical support document for the 2016 Rule
which is also available in the docket for this action. While the EPA is
providing this information to help the public understand the
implications of this action compared to those considered in the
economic analysis provided for the 2016 Rule, this action is not based
on consideration of this information. Rather, this action is based on
changes in the agency's legal interpretation of the scope of its
statutory authority, as described in earlier sections of this document.
    The EPA received several comments on the economic analysis included
in the proposal. One commenter states that the EPA has the authority to
take costs into consideration in finalizing the proposed rule even
where the statute is silent, as confirmed by recent Supreme Court
decisions. That commenter, and numerous other commenters, state that
failure to consider a relevant factor such as cost could make the
agency action unlawful. The EPA agrees as a general matter that the
agency has the authority to consider costs and benefits in regulations
promulgated under section 608. (See, e.g., 81 FR 82287). However, the
consideration of costs and benefits described in the technical support
documents in the docket are provided for purposes of transparency and
to inform the public about the implications of this action relative to
those described in the economic analysis provided for the 2016 Rule
following agency guidance on assessing economic costs and benefits.
This action rescinds the extension of requirements that exceeded the
agency's statutory authority. The agency cannot impose obligations that
exceed its statutory authority, irrespective of the costs and benefits
associated with those requirements.
    The EPA received numerous comments on the agency's analysis of the
costs and benefits of the proposed rule. Several commenters state that
it is arbitrary to not monetize the climate damages caused by the
forgone emission reductions resulting from rescinding the extension of
the leak repair provisions to non-exempt substitutes. Commenters also
argue that: Use of the Interagency Working Group's social cost of GHGs
metric would have found that the climate damages of the proposed rule's
forgone emissions reductions outweigh the estimated cost savings; it is
arbitrary for the agency to not use any monetary value for fluorinated
gases; and the EPA has previously found that HFCs endanger public
health and welfare, so the agency cannot ignore GHG emissions which may
result. Commenters also state that the EPA did not consider the effect
that the proposed rule would have on operating costs of leaking
systems, the shortened lifespans and increased equipment failures of
systems allowed to operate with leaks, costs to companies that have
created innovative products to facilitate compliance, and decreased
yields of products generated through IPR processes. Some commenters
also state that rescinding the leak detection and repair program would
result in higher costs for consumers as well as lost jobs in the air
conditioning and refrigeration industry. Others state that compliance
costs will increase as companies will need to ensure compliance with
two different regulatory frameworks.
    The EPA disagrees with the comments suggesting that it has ignored
the increased GHG emissions, as it has quantified the expected increase
in those emissions and reflected them in

its analysis. Today's action is not based on a cost-benefit analysis of
retaining or rescinding various provisions or on any other
consideration of the costs and benefits of various policy options, but
rather is focused solely on whether the agency had the statutory
authority to extend elements of the refrigerant management program to
non-exempt substitute refrigerants in the 2016 Rule. If the agency does
not have legal authority to impose a requirement, it cannot do so, even
if that action would be environmentally or economically beneficial. As
noted above, the technical support documents in the docket are provided
to inform the public about the implications of this action relative to
those described in the economic analysis provided for the 2016 Rule.
The EPA did not monetize the GHG effects in the economic analysis for
the 2016 Rule, nor did it quantify the other types of indirect costs
raised in the comments. The EPA observes that the 2016 Technical
Support Document for the 2016 Rule notes that the final rule, ``may
result in other economic health and environmental benefits that are not
quantified or monetized in this conservative analysis.'' \20\ EPA is
rescinding the 2016 Rule's extension of the leak repair requirements to
equipment containing only non-exempt substitute refrigerants, therefore
the unquantified benefits related to the extension of such requirements
will no longer be attributable to the EPA's refrigerant management
program. Consistent with the agency's overall approach taken in the
2016 Rule, the EPA is not monetizing the GHG effects of this action.
Similarly, the EPA is not quantifying other indirect costs or
distributional effects raised by commenters. While such analyses are
not relevant to the basis for this action, for informational purposes
we observe that estimating distribution effects such as job loss is
very difficult to quantitatively assess: Regulatory employment impacts
can vary across occupations, regions, and industries; by labor demand
and supply elasticities; and in response to other labor market
conditions. Isolating such impacts is a challenge, as they are
difficult to disentangle from employment impacts caused by a wide
variety of ongoing, concurrent economic changes.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Technical Support Document, Analysis of the Economic
Impacts and Benefits of the Final Revisions to the National
Recycling and Emission Reduction Program, September 2, 2016, pgs.
60-63.
    \21\ For a more detailed discussion, see, e.g., Economic
Analysis for Proposed Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and
Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA section 6(h), June 2019; Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the Proposed Oil and Natural Gas Sector:
Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources
Review; EPA-452/R-19-001, August 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states that the agency failed to quantify the extra
ODS emissions that would result from unraveling the uniform regulatory
framework for substitute refrigerants. Another commenter notes that the
EPA's estimated forgone GHG emissions reductions do not consider
appliances' end-of-life emissions. The EPA responds that, aside from
the leak repair provisions, the EPA is retaining the extension of all
the subpart F requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants,
including the service practices, which require specific evacuation
levels before disposing of an appliance or opening it for service, use
of certified recovery equipment, and the technician certification
requirement. In addition, the venting prohibition continues to apply to
any knowing release, venting, or disposal of ODS or non-exempt
substitute refrigerant by any person maintaining, servicing, repairing,
or disposing of an appliance. As such, the EPA believes that end-of-
life emissions of both ODS and non-exempt substitute refrigerant will
not be affected by this final rule and were properly not included in
the agency's analysis. Similarly, the EPA properly did not include any
ODS emissions that would result from rescinding the non-leak repair
subpart F provisions in its analysis for the final rule, as it is not
rescinding the extension of those provisions.
    Several commenters state that the compliance costs of the 2016 Rule
were too great and presented an unnecessary burden. One commenter
states that the $24 million in annual savings likely underestimates the
costs of the 2016 Rule. One commenter states that the EPA has not fully
considered the impacts of the 2016 Rule on companies, institutions like
hospitals and schools, and homeowners. With the transition to HFCs and
HFOs, these entities have made costly investments in systems, but found
higher repair costs. Likewise, this commenter states that the EPA did
not consider the costs to install new IPR using non-ODS refrigerants.
    The EPA responds that the costs of the 2016 Rule are outside the
scope of this action, which is only to rescind the 2016 Rule's
extension of requirements to non-exempt substitute refrigerants that
exceeded the agency's statutory authority.
    The EPA received many comments from the refrigeration and air
conditioning industry that they have spent time and money to comply
with the various provisions of the 2016 Rule. This includes costs
associated with training staff, updating reporting and recordkeeping
software, revising and republishing testing materials, and identifying
affected appliances and individuals responsible to ensure compliance.
    The EPA responds that the consideration of costs, including
reliance interests, is not relevant to this action because the
rescission here is based on the agency's lack of legal authority for
the 2016 Rule's extension of the leak repair provisions, not on a cost/
benefit analysis or policy considerations. As noted above, if the
agency does not have legal authority to impose a requirement, it cannot
do so, even if retaining that requirement would be economically
beneficial to some entities. However, the EPA notes that this action
does not rescind the extension of most of the provisions that the
commenters mention as a concern, including the leak repair provisions
for appliances containing ODS, and therefore those investments will not
be stranded as a result of this action. The EPA is rescinding the 2016
Rule's extension of the leak repair provisions as they apply to
equipment containing only non-exempt substitute refrigerants, but it is
retaining the extension of the other subpart F requirements, such as
those pertaining to reclamation. This rule does not impose any new
reporting or recordkeeping obligations.
    One commenter states that the EPA failed to distinguish between
private and social benefits, and that some costs of this action should
not be counted if the regulated entity had the same or similar options
available to identify and repair refrigerant leaks prior to the
rulemaking. This comment referred specifically to the estimated $15
million in refrigerant purchases that will be made as a result of this
action by owners and operators of equipment with non-exempt
substitutes.
    As explained above, consideration of the costs and benefits of this
action is not part of the rationale for this action and does not inform
the EPA's decision on this rule. Rather, this action is based on the
agency's determination that the 2016 Rule's extension of the leak
repair provisions to non-exempt substitute refrigerants exceeded the
agency's statutory authority. The EPA additionally notes that while it
is true that the costs of purchasing additional refrigerant will fall
on private entities, it is those same private entities that will secure
a reduction in burden from the rescission of the leak repair
requirements of the 2016 Rule as they apply to equipment containing
only

non-exempt substitute refrigerants. To present one of these effects
without the other would fail to recognize the fact that the two effects
are inextricably related. Further, it is standard practice for the EPA,
consistent with the agency's Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses,\22\ to consider increased direct outlays of money by
regulated entities due to an action relative to a baseline without that
action as costs of the action. Any entity that did not repair a leaking
appliance that they would have been required to repair before today's
action would need to allocate some part of its resources to buying
replacement refrigerant that otherwise could have been used for capital
investment, increasing production, or profit. Under the agency's
Guidelines, it is appropriate to consider the replacement refrigerant
costs as opportunity costs when preparing an economic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Guidelines can be found at https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses. See
Chapter 8 titled ``Analyzing Costs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency agrees that the nature of private costs in this case
merits a separate accounting in a discussion of the total benefits and
costs of a rule. We have enumerated the costs of purchasing additional
refrigerant separate from the deregulatory benefits.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the costs and benefits
associated with this action which is available in Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0629.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 1626.17; Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number:
2060-0256. You can find a copy of the ICR and supporting statement in
the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    Through this rule, EPA is revising the leak repair provisions in
Sec.  82.157 so they apply only to equipment using ODS refrigerants or
a blend containing ODS refrigerant.
    Respondents/affected entities: This rule removes reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for owners and operators of appliances
containing 50 or more pounds of a non-exempt substitute refrigerant and
technicians servicing such appliances. Entities required to comply with
reporting and recordkeeping requirements include technicians;
technician certification programs; refrigerant wholesalers; refrigerant
reclaimers; refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment owners and/or
operators; and other establishments that perform refrigerant removal,
service, or disposal.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 82,
subpart F).
    Estimated number of respondents: This rule reduces the estimated
number of respondents from 861,374 under the 2016 Rule to 573,731.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses vary from once a
year to daily. Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to vary from one minute to 9.4 hours per
response, including time for reviewing instructions and gathering,
maintaining, and submitting information.
    Total estimated burden: This rule reduces the estimated annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden from 580,473 hours under the 2016
Rule to 434,359 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: This rule reduces the estimated annual
recordkeeping and reporting cost from $34,627,298 under the 2016 Rule
to $24,625,892. There are no estimated annualized capital or operation
and maintenance costs associated with the reporting or recordkeeping
requirements.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This rule does not impose any new
regulatory requirements. It is deregulatory in that it removes required
leak repair and maintenance practices and associated recordkeeping for
appliances that do not contain any ODS refrigerant. We have therefore
concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for directly
regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. The
EPA has not conducted a separate analysis of

risks to infants and children associated with this rule.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that it is not feasible to quantify any
disproportionately high and adverse effects from this action on
minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples,
as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 26, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 82 as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

0
2. Amend Sec.  82.154 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) to read as
follows:

Sec.  82.154   Prohibitions.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The applicable practices in Sec. Sec.  82.155 and 82.156 are
observed, the applicable practices in Sec.  82.157 are observed for
appliances that contain any class I or class II refrigerant or blend
containing a class I or class II refrigerant, recovery and/or recycling
machines that meet the requirements in Sec.  82.158 are used whenever
refrigerant is removed from an appliance, the technician certification
provisions in Sec.  82.161 are observed, and the reclamation
requirements in Sec.  82.164 are observed; or
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  82.157 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  82.157   Appliance maintenance and leak repair.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies as of January 1, 2019. As
of April 10, 2020, this section applies only to appliances with a full
charge of 50 or more pounds of any class I or class II refrigerant or
blend containing a class I or class II refrigerant. Notwithstanding the
use of the term refrigerant in this section, the requirements of this
section do not apply to appliances containing solely substitute
refrigerants. Unless otherwise specified, the requirements of this
section apply to the owner or operator of the appliance.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-04773 Filed 3-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 46672]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16929]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9949-20-OA]

Notification of a Public Teleconference of a Work Group Under the
Auspices of the Chartered Science Advisory Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a
public teleconference of a Work Group under the auspices of the
Chartered Science Advisory Board to gather and review information on
shipboard ballast water treatment system efficacy and related
conclusions in the 2011 SAB report, Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment
Systems: A Report by the EPA Science Advisory Board.

DATES: The public teleconference for the Work Group of the Chartered
SAB will be conducted on Friday, August 12, 2016, from 12:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).
    Location: The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone
only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing to
obtain information concerning the public teleconference may contact Mr.
Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science
Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by
telephone/voice mail at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
General information about the SAB as well as any updates concerning the
teleconference announced in this notice may be found on the EPA Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB was established pursuant to the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization
Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent
scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical
basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a federal
advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. At the request of the SAB, a Work Group
composed of a subset of SAB members will review the underlying data on
ballast water treatment efficacy to assist the SAB in considering
information regarding conclusions about shipboard treatment efficacy in
the SAB report, Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: A Report
by the Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-11-009). The Work Group will
gather and review information, analyze the report's underlying data and
related conclusions and develop recommendations for deliberation by the
Chartered Science Advisory Board at a future meeting. The SAB is not
seeking new data regarding ballast water treatment system efficacy and
will focus its inquiry on analyzing the data underlying the report and
the related conclusions. The SAB Staff Office notes that neither the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) nor EPA policy requires meetings
of Work Groups under the auspices of a chartered federal advisory
committee to provide notice or conduct public meetings. Public notice
of this meeting of the Work Group is being provided to assist the Work
Group in obtaining public comment from interested parties on the topic
under consideration.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: The agenda and materials in
support of this teleconference will be available on the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/sab in advance of the teleconference.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office.
    Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific
advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the
public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider
as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the SAB will
have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical
information or analysis for SAB panels to consider or if it relates to
the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Oral Statements:
In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a
teleconference will be limited to three minutes. Each person making an
oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as
their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be
expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should contact Mr. Thomas
Carpenter, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact
information noted above, by August 4, 2016 to be placed on the list of
public speakers. Written Statements: Written statements should be
supplied to the DFO, preferably via email, at the contact information
noted above one week before the teleconference so that the information
may be made available to the Board members for their consideration. It
is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the
Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are
requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the
SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web
sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal
contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted
to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without
explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter at
(202) 564-4885 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of
a disability, please contact Mr. Carpenter preferably at least ten days
prior to the teleconference to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

    Dated: July 11, 2016.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2016-16929 Filed 7-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 19915-19918]
[DOCID:fr18ap06-104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-27287; 812-13068]

Special Value Opportunities Fund, LLC, et al.; Notice of
Application

April 11, 2006.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an order under rule 17d-1 under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') to permit certain joint
transactions.

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

Applicants: Special Value Opportunities Fund, LLC (``SVOF''); Special
Value Expansion Fund, LLC (``SVEF''); Tennenbaum Capital Partners, LLC
(``TCP''), on behalf of itself and its successors; Babson Capital
Management LLC (``Babson''), on behalf of itself and its successors;
Special Value Bond Fund II, LLC (``SVBF II''); Special Value Absolute
Return Fund, LLC (``SVARF''); Tennenbaum Multi-Strategy Master Fund
(``MSMF''); Tennenbaum Multi-Strategy Fund I LLC (``MSFI''); and
Tennenbaum Multi-Strategy Fund (Offshore) (``MSFO'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``successor,'' as applied to TCP and Babson, means
an entity that results from a reorganization into another
jurisdiction or a change in the type of business organization.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit certain
registered investment companies to coinvest with certain affiliated
entities.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All existing entities that currently intend to rely on the
requested order have been named as applicants. Any other existing or
future entity that subsequently relies on the order will comply with
the terms and conditions of the application.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 19, 2004, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amended on April 10, 2006.

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 applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on May 8, 2006, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, 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
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549. Applicants: c/o Tennenbaum Capital Partners, LLC, 2951 28th
Street, Suite 1000, Santa Monica, CA 90405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at (202)
942-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment
Company Regulation).

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 (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. TCP, a limited liability company organized under the laws of
Delaware, is an investment adviser registered under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). Babson, an indirect, wholly
owned subsidiary of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
(``MassMutual Life''), is registered as an investment adviser under the
Advisers Act.
    2. SVOF, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered under
the Act as a nondiversified closed-end management investment company.
SVOF has $1.422 billion in total available capital (``Total Available

Capital''), consisting of common equity capital, amounts available
under a senior secured revolving credit facility, and preferred stock.
SVOF's approximate target investment allocations are equity securities
(generally with a view to influencing the governance of the issuers)
(20%), distressed debt (generally with a view to acquiring equity
ownership in restructuring transactions) (20%), mezzanine investments
(20%), and high yielding debt (40%). TCP serves as SVOF's investment
adviser and manages the day-to-day operations of SVOF. TCP and Babson
co-manage SVOF's investments through their joint participation on
SVOF's investment committee.
    3. SVEF, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered under
the Act as a nondiversified closed-end management investment company.
SVEF has $600 million in Total Available Capital, consisting of common
equity capital commitments, amounts available under a revolving credit
facility, and preferred stock. SVEF has the same investment objective
and target investment allocations as SVOF. TCP acts as SVEF's
investment adviser and manages the day-to-day operations of SVEF. From
time to time, TCP may form other registered closed-end management
investment companies (together with SVOF and SVEF, the ``Registered
Funds'') to engage in investment activities similar to those engaged in
by SVOF and SVEF.
    4. TCP currently manages, or co-manages with Babson, five accounts
that are not registered investment companies and that expect to be
actively investing. Two of these, SVBF II and SVARF, are investment
pools that are excepted from the definition of investment company under
section 3(c)(7) of the Act and have investment strategies that are
similar to those of SVOF and SVEF. SVBF II has $450 million in Total
Available Capital, consisting of drawn common equity, notes, and a
revolving credit facility, and SVARF has Total Available Capital of
$884.5 million, consisting of drawn common equity, notes, and a
revolving credit facility. The other three unregistered accounts, MSMF,
MSFI, and MSFO (collectively, the ``Hedge Fund''), are a set of private
investment funds, organized as a master fund with separate domestic and
offshore feeders, that are excepted from the definition of investment
company under section 3(c)(7) of the Act. The Hedge Fund, which had net
assets of $82 million as of September 30, 2005, invests primarily in
publicly traded securities and related hedges and probably will not
coinvest in private securities on more than an occasional basis. From
time to time, TCP or another Adviser may manage other accounts that are
not registered investment companies in reliance on section 3(c)(1) or
3(c)(7) of the Act (such accounts, together with SVBF II, SVARF, MSMF,
MSFI, and MSFO, the ``Unregistered Accounts'').
    5. Applicants seek an order under rule 17d-1 under the Act to
permit SVOF, SVEF, and any other Registered Fund that is managed by TCP
or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with
TCP (collectively with TCP, the ``Adviser'') and the Unregistered
Accounts to coinvest in private placement securities, make follow-on
investments in the issuers of private placement securities (``Follow-On
Investments''), and exercise warrants, conversion privileges, and other
rights associated with private placement securities.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act generally
prohibit any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or
affiliated person of an affiliated person, when acting as principal,
from effecting any joint transaction in which the company participates
unless the transaction is approved by the Commission. Rule 17d-1 under
the Act provides that in passing upon applications under section 17(d),
the Commission will consider whether the participation of a registered
investment company in a joint enterprise on the basis proposed is
consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and
the extent to which the company's participation is on a basis different
from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
    2. SVOF, SVEF, and the Unregistered Accounts have been sponsored
and managed by TCP and, accordingly, may be deemed to be affiliated
persons of each other and of TCP because TCP may be deemed to control
each of them. TCP may be deemed to be an affiliated person of SVOF and
SVEF because it acts as their investment adviser and may be deemed to
control them. TCP also may be deemed to be an affiliated person of the
Unregistered Accounts because it may control them. Babson may be deemed
to be an affiliated person of SVOF because it acts as an investment
adviser to SVOF. Babson may also be a second-tier affiliated person of
SVOF because MassMutual Life owns 5% or more of the voting securities
of SVOF. In addition, Babson may in certain circumstances be deemed to
be an affiliated person of SVBF II and SVARF.
    3. Applicants state that the ability to participate in proposed
coinvestments will benefit the Registered Funds and their shareholders
by increasing the favorable investment opportunities available to them.
Applicants represent that the Registered Funds will be able to (i) have
a larger pool of capital available for investment, thereby obtaining
access to a greater number and variety of potential investments than
any Registered Fund could obtain on its own, and (ii) increase their
bargaining power to negotiate more favorable terms.
    4. Applicants believe that the terms and conditions contained in
the application ensure that the proposed coinvestments are consistent
with the protection of each Registered Fund's investors and with the
purposes intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Specifically, all participants will invest at the same time for the
same price and with the same terms, conditions, class, registration
rights, and any other rights, so that no participant receives terms
more favorable than any other participant. In addition, the decision to
participate in a proposed coinvestment must be approved by the
Independent Directors of each Registered Fund to ensure that the terms
of the proposed coinvestment are fair and reasonable, do not involve
overreaching, and are consistent with the investment objectives and
policies of the Registered Fund.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief shall
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Each time that an Unregistered Account or a Registered Fund
proposes to acquire private placement securities, the acquisition of
which would be consistent with the investment objectives and policies
of another Registered Fund, the Adviser will offer the other Registered
Fund the opportunity to acquire a pro rata amount (based on the amounts
available for investment by such Registered Fund and the applicable
Unregistered Account or Registered Fund) of such private placement
securities up to the entire amount being offered to it. If one
Registered Fund declines the offer or accepts a portion of the private
placement securities offered to it, but one or more other Registered
Funds accepts the private placement securities offered, that portion of
the private placement securities declined by the Registered Fund may be
allocated to the other Registered Fund or Unregistered Account, based
on their amounts available for investment. For purposes

of the foregoing, the phrase ``amounts available for investment'' means
the Total Available Capital, which includes available leverage so long
as such leverage is able to be drawn.
    2. (a) Prior to any coinvestment by a Registered Fund, the Adviser
will make an initial determination of whether the acquisition of the
private placement security is consistent with the investment objectives
and policies of the Registered Fund. If the Adviser determines that the
acquisition of the private placement securities would be consistent
with the investment objectives and policies of the Registered Fund, the
Adviser will then determine whether participation in the investment
opportunity is appropriate for the Registered Fund and, if so, the
appropriate amount that the Registered Fund should invest. If the
aggregate of the amount to be invested by the Registered Fund in such
proposed coinvestment and the amount proposed to be invested by any
other Registered Fund and any Unregistered Accounts in the same
transaction exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the
amount invested by each such party will be allocated among them pro
rata based on the amount available for investment by the Registered
Funds and the Unregistered Accounts participating in the transaction.
The Adviser will provide the Independent Directors of the Registered
Fund's Board (``Joint Transactions Committee'') with information
concerning the amount of capital the Registered Funds and the
Unregistered Accounts have available for investment in order to assist
the Joint Transactions Committee with its review of the Registered
Fund's investments for compliance with these allocation features.
    (b) After making the determinations required in (a) above, the
Adviser will submit written information concerning the proposed
coinvestment, including the amount proposed to be acquired by the
Registered Fund, any other Registered Funds, and any Unregistered
Account, to the members of the Joint Transactions Committee. A
Registered Fund may coinvest in a private placement security only if a
majority of the members of the Joint Transactions Committee who have no
direct or indirect financial interest in the transaction (``Required
Majority'') determine that:
    i. The terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be
paid, are reasonable and fair to the Registered Fund and its
shareholders and do not involve overreaching of the Registered Fund or
its shareholders on the part of any person concerned;
    ii. the transaction is consistent with the Registered Fund's
investment objectives and policies as recited in its registration
statement and its reports to shareholders; and
    iii. the coinvestment by another Registered Fund or an Unregistered
Account would not disadvantage the Registered Fund, and participation
by the Registered Fund would not be on a basis different from or less
advantageous than that of the other participants.
    3. If the Adviser determines that a Registered Fund should not
acquire any private placement securities offered to it pursuant to
condition 1 above, the Adviser will submit its determination to the
Joint Transactions Committee for approval.
    4. The Registered Funds and any Unregistered Account shall acquire
private placement securities in reliance on the order only if the
terms, conditions, price, class of securities being purchased,
registration rights, if any, and other rights are the same for each
Registered Fund and any Unregistered Account participating in the
coinvestment. When more than one Registered Fund proposes to coinvest
in the same private placement securities, the Joint Transactions
Committee of each Registered Fund shall review the transaction and make
the determinations set forth in condition 2 above, on or about the same
time.
    5. Except as described below, no Registered Fund may make a Follow-
On Investment or exercise warrants, conversion privileges, or other
rights unless each Unregistered Account and any other Registered Fund
make such Follow-On Investments or exercise such warrants, conversion
rights, or other rights at the same time and in amounts proportionate
to their respective holdings of such private placement securities. If
an Unregistered Account or another Registered Fund anticipates
participating in a Follow-On Investment or exercising warrants,
conversion rights, or other rights in an amount disproportionate to its
holding, the Adviser will formulate a recommendation as to the proposed
Follow-On Investment or exercise of rights by each Registered Fund and
submit the recommendation to each Registered Fund's Joint Transactions
Committee. That recommendation will include an explanation why an
Unregistered Account is not participating to the extent of, or
exercising, its proportionate amount. Prior to any such
disproportionate Follow-On Investment or exercise, a Registered Fund
must obtain approval for the transaction as set forth in condition 2
above. Transactions pursuant to this condition 5 will be subject to the
other conditions set forth in the application.
    6. No Unregistered Account or Registered Fund will sell, exchange,
or otherwise dispose of any interest in any private placement
securities acquired pursuant to the order unless each Registered Fund
has the opportunity to dispose of the interests at the same time, for
the same unit consideration, on the same terms and conditions, and in
amounts proportionate to their holdings of the private placement
securities. With respect to any such transaction, the Adviser will
formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation by a
Registered Fund and submit the recommendation to such Registered Fund's
Joint Transactions Committee. The Registered Fund will dispose of such
private placement securities to the extent the Joint Transactions
Committee, upon the affirmative vote of the Required Majority,
determines that the disposition is in the best interests of the
Registered Fund, is fair and reasonable, and does not involve
overreaching of the Registered Fund or its shareholders by any person
concerned.
    7. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding, or
disposing of any private placement securities (including, without
limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any private placement
securities registered for sale under the Securities Act of 1933) shall,
to the extent not payable solely by the Adviser under its investment
management agreements with the Registered Funds and the Unregistered
Accounts, be shared by the Registered Funds and the Unregistered
Accounts in proportion to the relative amounts of such private
placement securities held or being acquired or disposed of, as the case
may be, by the Registered Funds and the Unregistered Accounts.
    8. The Joint Transactions Committee of each Registered Fund will be
provided quarterly for its review all information concerning
coinvestments made by the Registered Fund and the Unregistered Accounts
and other Registered Funds, including investments made by the
Unregistered Accounts in which the Registered Fund declined to
participate, so that the Joint Transactions Committee may determine
whether all investments made during the preceding quarter, including
those investments in which the Registered Fund declined to participate,
comply with the conditions of the order. In addition, the Joint
Transactions Committee will consider at least annually the continued
appropriateness

of the standards established for coinvestment by the Registered Fund,
including whether the use of the standards continues to be in the best
interests of the Registered Fund and its shareholders and does not
involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned.
    9. Except for a Follow-On Investment made pursuant to condition 5
above, no investment will be made by a Registered Fund in reliance on
the order in private placement securities of any entity if the Adviser
knows or reasonably should know that another Registered Fund or
Unregistered Account or any affiliated person of such Registered Fund
or Unregistered Account then currently holds a security issued by that
entity.
    10. Any transaction fee (including break-up or commitment fees but
excluding brokerage fees contemplated by section 17(e)(2) of the Act)
received by the applicants in connection with a transaction entered
into in reliance on the requested order will be distributed to the
participants on a pro rata basis based on the amounts they invested or
committed, as the case may be, in such transaction. If any transaction
fee is to be held by the Adviser pending consummation of the
transaction, the fee will be deposited into an account maintained by
the Adviser at a bank or banks having the qualifications prescribed in
section 26(a) of the Act, and the account will earn a competitive rate
of interest that also will be divided pro rata among the participants
based on the amounts they invested or committed, as the case may be, in
such transaction. The Adviser will receive no additional compensation
or remuneration of any kind as a result of or in connection with a
coinvestment, or compensation for its services in sponsoring,
structuring, or providing managerial assistance to an issuer of private
placement securities that is not shared pro rata with the coinvesting
Registered Funds and Unregistered Accounts.
    11. Each Registered Fund will comply with the fund governance
standards as defined in Rule 0-1(a)(7) under the Act. The Registered
Funds will not have common Independent Directors.
    12. Each applicant will maintain and preserve all records required
by section 31 of the Act and any other provisions of the Act and the
rules and regulations under the Act applicable to such applicant. The
Registered Funds will maintain records required by section 57(f)(3) of
the Act as if each of the Registered Funds were a business development
company and the coinvestments and any Follow-On Investments (or
exercise of warrants, conversion rights or other rights) were approved
under section 57(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-5709 Filed 4-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 57134]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-48-000]

Gridflex Generation, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Gridflex Generation, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 27, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 7, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22373 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15067-15068]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07215]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0226]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City,
NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Route 1 & 9 (Lincoln Highway)
Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 1.8, at Jersey City, New
Jersey. The deviation is necessary to limit and control bridge openings
during the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Pulaski Skyway
Bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from April 9,
2018 through 11:59 p.m. on July 31, 2018. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on April 2,
2018, until April 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0226, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Bridge Management
Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
212-514-4336, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The owner of the bridge, the New Jersey
Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation in order
to complete the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the adjacent
Pulaski Skyway Bridge. The Route 1 & 9 Bridge across the Hackensack
River, mile 1.8, at Jersey City, New Jersey is a vertical lift bridge
with a vertical clearance of 35 feet at mean high water and 40 feet at
mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge
operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5.
    This temporary deviation will allow the Route 1 & 9 Bridge to open
on signal from April 2, 2018 to July 31, 2018, except that the draw
will not open to vessel traffic, Monday through Friday, between 6 a.m.
and 9:30 a.m. and between 2:30 p.m. and 6 p.m., except holidays. On
Federal holidays, the Route 1 & 9 Bridge will open on signal. Tide
dependent deep draft vessels may request bridge openings during the
rush hour closure periods, provided that at least a six hour advance
notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
    The waterway is transited by recreational vessels and commercial
vessels. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections
to the proposed closure of the draw. Vessels able to pass through the
bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. There is no
alternate route for vessels to pass, but the bridge will be able to
open

for emergencies. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the
waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the
change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators may
arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 2, 2018.
Christopher J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-07215 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46315]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21274]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81746; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-69]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To List and Trade Shares of ProShares QuadPro Funds Under
Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200

September 28, 2017.
    On July 31, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the
ProShares QuadPro U.S. Large Cap Futures Long Fund, ProShares QuadPro
U.S. Large Cap Futures Short Fund, ProShares QuadPro U.S. Small Cap
Futures Long Fund, and ProShares QuadPro U.S. Small Cap Futures Short
Fund under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on August 18, 2017.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81388 (August 14,
2017), 82 FR 39477.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is October 2, 2017. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates November 16, 2017, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File
Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-69).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21274 Filed 10-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P