[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 2504]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00441]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property
Release at Columbia Metropolitan Airport, Columbia, South Carolina

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47151(d), notice is
being given that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is
considering a request from the Richland-Lexington Airport District to
waive the requirement that a 6.63-acre parcel of surplus property,
located at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport be used for aeronautical
purposes. Currently, ownership of the property provides for protection
of FAR Part 77 surfaces and compatible land use which would continue to
be protected with deed restrictions required in the transfer of land
ownership.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by prior appointment at
the following location: Atlanta Airports District Office, Attn: Rob
Rau, South Carolina Planner, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2-260, College
Park, Georgia 30337-2747, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to
the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports District Office,
Attn: Rob Rau, South Carolina Planner, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2-260,
College Park, Georgia 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Dan Mann, A.A.E., Executive Director, Richland-
Lexington Airport District at the following address: Columbia
Metropolitan Airport, 125 A Summer Lake Drive, West Columbia, South
Carolina 29170.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Rau, South Carolina Planner,
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2-260,
College Park, Georgia 30337-2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may
be reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the
Richland-Lexington Airport District to release 6.63 acres of surplus
property at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport. This property was
originally conveyed to the County of Lexington on April 7, 1947 under
the powers and authority contained in the provisions of the Surplus
Property Act of 1944 and subsequently transferred to the Richland-
Lextington Airport District on July 12, 1962. Currently, the surplus
property is being used by the Lexington School District Two.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any
person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other
documents germane to the request in person at the Columbia Metropolitan
Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 7, 2014.
Larry F. Clark,
Assistant Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-00441 Filed 1-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7949-7951]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1025 Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-055-AD;
Amendment 39-16204; AD 2010-04-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Extra Flugzeugproduktions- und
Vertriebs- GmbH Models EA-300/200 and EA-300/L Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    The manufacturer has advised that the combination of a
redesigned tail spring support with a stiffer tail spring and rough
field operations has led to cracks in the tail spring support
mounting base. Cracks have also been reported on aeroplanes already
compliant with Part II of Extra Service Bulletin No. SB-300-2-97
issue A, as mandated by the LBA AD D-1998-001, dated 15 January
1998.

    We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 30, 2010.
    On March 30, 2010, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2009 (74
FR 56748). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    The manufacturer has advised that the combination of a
redesigned tail spring support with a stiffer tail spring and rough
field operations has led to cracks in the tail spring support
mounting base. Cracks have also been reported on aeroplanes already
compliant with Part II of Extra Service Bulletin No. SB-300-2-97
issue A, as mandated by the LBA AD D-1998-001, dated 15 January
1998.
    For the reasons stated above, this new AD mandates instructions
for recurring inspections and modification in the area of the tail
spring support in order to prevent separation of the tail landing
gear which could result in serious damage to the airplane during
landing.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 184 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-

hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S.
operators to be $31,280 or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 20 work-hours and require parts costing $460, for a cost of
$2,160 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-04-11 Extra Flugzeugproduktions- und Vertriebs- GmbH: Amendment
39-16204; Docket No. FAA-2009-1025; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-
055-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March
30, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the following model and serial number
airplanes, certificated in any category:
    (1) Model EA-300/200 airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) 01 through
31, and 1032 through 1043; and
    (2) Model EA-300/L airplanes, S/N 01 through 170, 172, 173,
1171, and 1174 through 1299.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53:
Fuselage.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    The manufacturer has advised that the combination of a
redesigned tail spring support with a stiffer tail spring and rough
field operations has led to cracks in the tail spring support
mounting base. Cracks have also been reported on aeroplanes already
compliant with Part II of Extra Service Bulletin No. SB-300-2-97
issue A, as mandated by the LBA AD D-1998-001, dated 15 January
1998.
    For the reasons stated above, this new AD mandates instructions
for recurring inspections and modification in the area of the tail
spring support in order to prevent separation of the tail landing
gear which could result in serious damage to the airplane during
landing.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Before further flight after March 30, 2010 (the effective
date of this AD) and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 50 hours time-in-service, inspect the tail spring support for
cracks in accordance with PART I of Extra Flugzeugproduktions- und
Vertriebs- GmbH EXTRA Service Bulletin No. SB-300-2-97, Issue: C,
dated September 24, 2009.
    (2) If any crack is found as a result of the inspections
required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight,
modify the tail spring support structure as instructed in PART II of
Extra Flugzeugproduktions- und Vertriebs- GmbH EXTRA Service
Bulletin No. SB-300-2-97, Issue: C, dated September 24, 2009.
Modification of the tail spring support structure terminates the
repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (3) You may at any time modify the tail spring support structure
as instructed in PART II of Extra Flugzeugproduktions- und
Vertriebs- GmbH EXTRA Service Bulletin No. SB-300-2-97, Issue: C,
dated September 24, 2009, to terminate the repetitive inspections
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD No.: 2009-
0160, July 21, 2009 (corrected on July 28, 2009); and Extra
Flugzeugproduktions- und Vertriebs- GmbH EXTRA Service Bulletin No.
SB-300-2-97, Issue: C, dated September 24, 2009, for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Extra Flugzeugproduktions- und Vertriebs- GmbH
EXTRA Service Bulletin No. SB-300-2-97, Issue: C, dated September
24, 2009, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Extra
Flugzeugproduktions- und Vertriebs- GmbH, Engineering Department/
Office of Airworthiness/Quality Assurance, Schwarze Heide 21, 46569
H[uuml]nxe, Germany; Fax: +49 (0) 2858-9137-30; E-Mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
Central Region, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 10, 2010.
Steven W. Thompson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-3120 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52743-52744]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21425]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0001]

Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on November 9, 2012, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Washington DC/Silver Spring,
The Ballrooms, 8727 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD 20910. The
hotel's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Person: Glendolynn S. Johnson, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring,

MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-
741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), to find out further
information regarding FDA advisory committee information. A notice in
the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss data submitted by MSD Consumer
Care, Inc. to support new drug application (NDA) 202211, for the
partial switch from prescription to over-the-counter (OTC) of the
oxybutynin transdermal system (proposed trade name OXYTROL FOR WOMEN).
The proposed OTC use is ``treats overactive bladder in women.'' The
data to be discussed will include a summary of the postmarketing
experience with the oxybutynin transdermal system, and the results of
consumer studies, including label comprehension studies, self-selection
studies, and an actual use study. The committee will be asked to
consider whether the data support the appropriate and safe use of
oxybutynin transdermal system by OTC consumers.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
October 26, 2012. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before October 18, 2012. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by October 19, 2012.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Glendolynn S.
Johnson at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 24, 2012.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-21425 Filed 8-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: May 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 25794]
[DOCID:fr07my08-135]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-28260; 812-13496]

The RBB Fund, Inc. and Abundance Technologies, Inc.; Notice of
Application

April 30, 2008.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application to amend a prior order under section
12(d)(1)(J) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') granting an
exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act and under
sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from section
17(a) of the Act.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order (``Amended Order'')
that would amend a prior order that permits certain series of a
registered open-end management investment company advised by Abundance
Technologies, Inc. (the ``Funds of Funds'') to acquire shares of other
registered open-end management investment companies and unit investment
trusts (``UITs'') (collectively, the ``Underlying Funds'') that are
outside the same group of investment companies as the Funds of Funds
(``Prior Order'').\1\ The Amended Order would amend a condition of the
Prior Order to permit Funds of Funds to invest in Underlying Funds that
serve as feeder funds in a master-feeder structure in reliance on
section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RBB Fund, Inc. and Abundance Technologies, Inc.,
Investment Company Act Release Nos. 27749 (Mar. 8, 2007) (notice)
and 27775 (Apr. 3, 2007) (order).

Applicants: The RBB Fund, Inc. (the ``Company'') and Abundance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technologies, Inc. (the ``Adviser'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 7, 2008. Applicants
have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the
substance of which is reflected in this notice.

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 27, 2008, 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, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, The RBB Fund, Inc.,
103 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809 and Abundance Technologies,
Inc., 3700 Park 42 Drive, Suite 105A, Cincinnati, OH 42141.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6811, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-
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
Public Reference Desk, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington DC 20549-1520 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. On April 3, 2007, the Commission issued the Prior Order to the
Company, a registered open-end management investment company, and the
Adviser, a registered investment adviser, under section 12(d)(1)(J) of
the Act granting an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the
Act and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption
from section 17(a) of the Act. The Prior Order permits the Funds of
Funds to acquire shares of Underlying Funds that are not part of the
same ``group of investment companies'' as defined in section
12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act as the Funds of Funds (the ``Underlying
Funds'') and the Underlying Funds to sell such shares to the Funds of
Funds.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All Funds of Funds that currently intend to rely on the
Amended Order are named as applicants. Any other investment company
that relies on the Amended Order in the future will comply with the
terms and conditions of the Amended Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Condition 12 in the Prior Order provides that an Underlying Fund
will not acquire securities of any investment company or company
relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the
limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, subject to certain
exceptions relating to reorganizations of portfolio companies, cash
management and interfund lending. Applicants seek to modify condition
12 to permit the Funds of Funds to acquire shares of Underlying Funds
that operate as feeder funds in a master-feeder structure in reliance
on section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act and are in the same ``group of
investment companies'' as their corresponding master funds. Applicants
argue that a master-feeder arrangement would not result in an overly
complex structure because it is entirely transparent. Applicants submit
that an investment in an Underlying Fund that operates as a feeder fund
would be no different than investing in one that does not use a master-
feeder arrangement.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the conditions in the Prior Order except that Condition
12 of the Prior Order will be modified to read as follows:
    12. No Underlying Fund will acquire securities of any other
investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of
the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the
Act, except to the extent that such Underlying Fund: (a) Acquires such
securities in compliance with section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act; (b)
receives securities of another investment company as a dividend or as a
result of a plan of reorganization of a company (other than a plan
devised for the purpose of evading section 12(d)(1) of the Act); or (c)
acquires (or is deemed to have acquired) securities of another
investment company pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission
permitting such Underlying Fund to: (i) Acquire securities of one or
more investment companies for short-term cash management purposes, or
(ii) engage in interfund borrowing and lending transactions.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-10015 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51175-51177]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19734]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2163]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect

in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2163, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

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

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Broward County, Florida and Incorporated Areas
  Project: 15-04-4157S Preliminary Date: December 31, 2019 and February
                                25, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Coconut Creek..................  Utilities and Engineering
                                          Building, 5295 Johnson Road,
                                          Coconut Creek, FL 33073.
City of Cooper City....................  Building Department, 9090
                                          Southwest 50th Place, Cooper
                                          City, FL 33328.
City of Dania Beach....................  City Hall, 100 West Dania Beach
                                          Boulevard, Dania Beach, FL
                                          33004.
City of Deerfield Beach................  Engineering Department, 200
                                          Goolsby Boulevard, Deerfield
                                          Beach, FL 33442.
City of Fort Lauderdale................  Department of Sustainable
                                          Development, 700 Northwest
                                          19th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale,
                                          FL 33311.
City of Hallandale Beach...............  Public Works Department, 630
                                          Northwest 2nd Street,
                                          Hallandale Beach, FL 33009.
City of Hollywood......................  Public Utilities Department,
                                          1621 North 14th Avenue,
                                          Hollywood, FL 33022.
City of Lauderdale Lakes...............  Development Services
                                          Department, 3521 Northwest
                                          43rd Avenue, Lauderdale Lakes,
                                          FL 33319.
City of Lauderhill.....................  Engineering/GIS Division, 5581
                                          West Oakland Park Boulevard,
                                          Lauderhill, FL 33313.
City of Lighthouse Point...............  Public Works Department, 4730
                                          Northeast 21st Terrace,
                                          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064.
City of Margate........................  Department of Environmental and
                                          Engineering Services, 901
                                          Northwest 66th Avenue, Suite
                                          A, Margate, FL 33063.

City of Miramar........................  Public Works Department, 13900
                                          Pembroke Road, Building L,
                                          Miramar, FL 33027.
City of Oakland Park...................  Planning and Zoning Division,
                                          5399 North Dixie Highway,
                                          Suite 3, Oakland Park, FL
                                          33334.
City of Pembroke Pines.................  Engineering Division, 8300
                                          South Palm Drive, Pembroke
                                          Pines, FL 33025.
City of Plantation.....................  Engineering Department, 401
                                          Northwest 70th Terrace,
                                          Plantation, FL 33317.
City of Pompano Beach..................  Building Department, 100 West
                                          Atlantic Boulevard, 3rd Floor,
                                          Pompano Beach, FL 33060.
City of Sunrise........................  Engineering Division, 1601
                                          Northwest 136th Avenue,
                                          Building A, Sunrise, FL 33323.
City of Tamarac........................  Public Works and Engineering
                                          Building Department, 6011 Nob
                                          Hill Road, 1st Floor, Tamarac,
                                          FL 33321.
City of West Park......................  City Hall, 1965 South State
                                          Road 7, West Park, FL 33023.
City of Weston.........................  Public Works Department, 2599
                                          South Post Road, Weston, FL
                                          33327.
City of Wilton Manors..................  Community Development Services,
                                          2020 Wilton Drive, 2nd Floor,
                                          Wilton Manors, FL 33305.
Seminole Tribe of Florida..............  Seminole Tribe of Florida
                                          Headquarters, 6300 Stirling
                                          Road, Hollywood, FL 33024.
Town of Davie..........................  Building and Zoning Division,
                                          6591 Orange Drive, Davie, FL
                                          33314.
Town of Hillsboro Beach................  Town Hall, 1210 Hillsboro Mile,
                                          Hillsboro Beach, FL 33062.
Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea..........  Public Works Department, 4501
                                          North Ocean Drive, Lauderdale-
                                          By-The-Sea, FL 33308.
Town of Pembroke Park..................  Engineering Department, 3150
                                          Southwest 52nd Avenue,
                                          Pembroke Park, FL 33023.
Town of Southwest Ranches..............  Public Works Department, 13400
                                          Griffin Road, Southwest
                                          Ranches, FL 33330.
Unincorporated Areas of Broward County.  Broward County Government
                                          Center West, 1 North
                                          University Drive, Plantation,
                                          FL 33324.
Village of Lazy Lake...................  Village Hall, 2250 Lazy Lane,
                                          Lazy Lake, FL 33305.
Village of Sea Ranch Lakes.............  Village Hall, 1 Gatehouse Road,
                                          Sea Ranch Lakes, FL 33308.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-19734 Filed 9-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 190)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50930-50935]
[DOCID:fr02oc09-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002-200913; FRL-8959-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Alabama:
Proposed Approval of Revisions to the Visible Emissions Rule and
Alternative Proposed Disapproval of Revisions to the Visible Emissions
Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 3, 2009, EPA granted a February 25, 2009, petition
seeking reconsideration of an October 15, 2008, final action approving
a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision regarding the State of
Alabama's visible emissions rules. As part of its reconsideration
process, EPA is now proposing to either affirm the previous rulemaking
(which approved the revisions) or, alternatively, amend its previous
rulemaking (i.e., disapproving the revisions). EPA is seeking public
comment on the issues raised in the petition for reconsideration as
well as the actions proposed in this notice. EPA is also seeking public
comment on the relationship between opacity and particulate matter mass
emissions. Following its evaluation of the issues raised in the
petition for reconsideration, and any information submitted during the
public comment process, EPA will take final action either affirming the
previous rulemaking or amending the previous rulemaking and
disapproving the revisions to the visible emissions portion of
Alabama's SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2005-AL-0002, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002,'' Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2005-AL-0002.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002. All documents in the
docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that, if
at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Benjamin can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding the Alabama SIP, contact Mr. Zuri Farngalo at the same
address listed above. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr.
Farngalo can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for This Action?
II. What Are EPA's Current Proposals?
    A. Proposal to Affirm the October 15, 2008, Action and Approve
the 2003/2008 Submittals
    B. Proposal To Amend the October 15, 2008, Action and Disapprove
the 2003/2008 Submittals
III. What Additional Information Would EPA Like To Receive?
IV. Proposed Actions
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On September 11, 2003, the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) submitted a request for EPA approval of a SIP
submittal (2003 Submittal) containing proposed revisions to the visible
emissions portion of the Alabama SIP, found at ADEM Administrative Code
Chapter 335-3-4-.01, ``Visible Emissions,'' and pertaining to sources
of particulate matter (PM) emissions. In an action published on April
12, 2007 (72 FR 18428), EPA proposed to approve the proposed revisions
contingent upon Alabama submitting a revised SIP submittal addressing
EPA's concerns regarding impacts of the rule changes on attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as set forth in 72
FR 18428-18434. EPA's proposal notice explained that the State would
have to provide EPA with a revised SIP submittal consistent with
certain changes described by EPA in our April 12, 2007, notice of
proposed rulemaking before EPA would approve the revisions.
    EPA provided the public with 60 days to submit comments on the
April 12, 2007, proposed rule and the specific changes needed to make
the Alabama submittal approvable into the Alabama SIP. At the request
of a commenter, EPA extended the public comment period by 30 days to
July 11, 2007. EPA received four comment letters from industry
representatives and one from the State air pollution control agency,
all of which were in favor of the rulemaking. EPA received one comment
letter, submitted on behalf of four environmental groups, opposed to
the approval. In general, comments received that were adverse to the
proposed rulemaking expressed concerns related to air quality impacts
(particularly on the PM NAAQS), modeling analyses, EPA's technical
assessment of the relationship between opacity and PM mass emissions,
and application of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). These
comments, and EPA's responses to them, are discussed in more detail in
EPA's final action on Alabama's SIP revisions taken on October 15, 2008
(73 FR 60957).
    Following the close of the comment period, EPA and ADEM discussed
some of the issues raised by the commenters, including comments
regarding the potential impact of a revised visible emissions rule on
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in Alabama. Documents
memorializing these conversations are part of the docket for EPA's
final action. As a result of these discussions, ADEM decided to submit
the necessary revisions proposed by EPA in the April 2007 Federal
Register notice to support final approval. These revisions, submitted
to EPA on August 22, 2008 (2008 Submittal), and the 2003 Submittal
amend the requirements for units that are required to operate
continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) and that are not subject
to any opacity limits other than those of the Alabama SIP. ADEM also
decided to include an additional limitation on opacity based on public
comments on EPA's proposal. This additional provision limits subject
sources to a daily opacity average of no more than 22 percent,
excluding periods of startup, shutdown, load change and rate change (or
other short intermittent periods upon terms approved by ADEM's Director
and included in a State-issued

permit).\1\ For further information about the technical details
regarding the SIP revisions, see EPA's October 15, 2008, final action
(73 FR 60957). The 2003 Submittal and the 2008 Submittal are referred
to collectively in this notice as the ``2003/2008 Submittals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The director's discretion provisions under Alabama rule 335-
3-4-.01(1)(c) and (d) would be unchanged by this SIP revision, so
periods of excess emissions allowed in a permit pursuant to those
provisions would continue to be allowed, as noted here. EPA notes
that, as the director's discretion provisions are not being revised
by ADEM or reviewed by EPA at present, nothing in this notice should
be considered as endorsing those previously approved provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 15, 2008, EPA took final action to incorporate into the
Alabama SIP, Alabama's revisions to its visible emissions rule (the
rule changes included in the 2003/2008 Submittals). 73 FR 60957. This
final action was effective on November 14, 2008. By its terms, the
Alabama state rule change became effective (and thus applicable to
sources) on May 14, 2009.
    Following the October 2008 final action, EPA received two petitions
for reconsideration submitted on behalf of the Alabama Environmental
Council and other parties (Petitioners). The first petition for
reconsideration, dated December 12, 2008, raised procedural and
substantive concerns with EPA's October 15, 2008, final action, and was
denied by EPA via letter on January 15, 2009. The second petition,
dated February 25, 2009, raised additional procedural and substantive
issues. EPA granted the second petition via letter on April 3, 2009.
The main issues raised by the February 25, 2009, petition can be
summarized as follows: (1) That EPA ignored Petitioners' December 31,
2008, comments regarding the DC Circuit's vacatur of the 40 CFR part 63
provisions pertaining to startup, shutdown, and malfunction and its
impact on the opacity SIP revision; (2) that a new comment period was
required because the 2007 proposal was not approvable ``as is''; (3)
that EPA's conclusion that greater opacity does not necessarily mean
greater PM emissions was irrational; (4) that EPA failed to make an
``appropriate inquiry'' under section 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.112 to
protect the NAAQS--there was no equivalency determination, only
reliance on uncertainty; (5) that documents received as part of a
Freedom of Information Act request indicate that some groups were given
more access to the rulemaking than others, thus supporting the
reopening of the public comment period; (6) that if the public comment
period were reopened, EPA would be presented with information that
would compel EPA to disapprove the SIP revisions; and (7) that the
petition also incorporated the original petition issues.\2\ Both
petitions are included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The original petition raised approximately eight issues
summarized as follows: (1) EPA was arbitrary and capricious in
failing to reopen the public comment period when ADEM made changes
to the rule after the close of the public comment period; (2) EPA
was arbitrary and capricious in deviating from rulemaking policy
regarding documentation of post-comment period meetings between EPA
and ADEM and failing to meet with Petitioners in addition to ADEM;
(3) EPA was arbitrary and capricious in proposing to approve a SIP
revision before the rule had even been developed at the State level;
(4) EPA failed to comply with rulemaking procedures by failing to
complete the docket prior to finalizing the rulemaking action; (5)
the rule does not represent reasonably available control technology
(RACT) which is required because Alabama has PM2.5
nonattainment areas; (6) EPA's approval was not consistent with
either section 110(l) or 193 due to likely increases in short-term
PM emissions; (7) EPA's final action was not consistent with EPA
policies on excess emissions and director's discretion; and (8) the
final rule does not comply with 40 CFR Part 51 because it is not an
``appropriate'' visible emission limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the letter granting the February 2009 petition for
reconsideration, EPA committed to conduct this reconsideration through
a new rulemaking process. Through this process, which begins with this
public notice, EPA is allowing for public comment and will make a
determination either affirming its previous action and approving the
revisions or amending the previous action and disapproving the
revisions.

II. What Are EPA's Current Proposals?

A. Proposal To Affirm the October 15, 2008, Action and Approve the
2003/2008 Submittals

    As was discussed in EPA's October 15, 2008, rulemaking, EPA
believes that the primary issue in considering whether these SIP
revisions were approvable was determining whether the approval of the
revisions was consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA. In particular,
determination of consistency with section 110(l) depends upon whether
the proposed revisions would interfere with attainment of the NAAQS by
increasing emissions of PM2.5.\3\ Section 110(l) of the CAA
provides in part that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's view has been that if the SIP revision does not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM2.5
NAAQS, then it is unlikely to interfere with other applicable
requirements. For example, if EPA concludes that actual emissions of
PM2.5 allowed under the SIP are not increasing as a
result of the SIP revision, then no additional control requirements
would be required under section 193 (assuming it otherwise applies
to this action). Similarly, EPA anticipates that if the opacity
standard is consistent with attainment of the NAAQS, then it would
be an ``appropriate'' standard for purposes of Part 51, and would
not interfere with other applicable requirements such as RACT. EPA
solicits comment on these issues and whether there are other
applicable requirements that require independent analysis under
section 110(l) or other portions of the CAA.

    The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a [SIP] if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of this title), or any other applicable requirement of [the Act].

    In evaluating whether a SIP revision would interfere with
attainment or maintenance, as required by section 110(l), EPA generally
considers whether the SIP revision will allow for an increase in actual
emissions to the air over what is allowed under the existing federally-
approved SIP.\4\ EPA has concluded that preservation of the status quo
air quality during the time new attainment or maintenance
demonstrations are being prepared will prevent interference with CAA
requirements, including the States' obligations to develop timely
demonstrations. EPA does not believe that areas must produce a complete
demonstration to make any revisions to the SIP, provided the status quo
air quality is preserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA also accepts modeling demonstrations, as when an area is
seeking approval of a maintenance plan, and in some cases (for areas
designated attainment) EPA has accepted an analysis demonstrating
that the SIP revision will not interfere with maintenance or other
CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2003/2008 Submittals at issue were the subject of extensive
consideration because the question of whether they were expected to
result in an increase in emissions of criteria pollutants, particularly
PM2.5, was a difficult issue to analyze technically. Opacity
itself is not a criteria pollutant. Rather, opacity may be defined as
the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission of light and
obscure the view of an object in the background. (See 40 CFR 60.2.)
Opacity requirements are significant environmentally for many reasons,
including that they may be used as an indicator of the effectiveness of
emission controls for PM emissions. Opacity may also be used to assist
with implementation and enforcement of PM emission standards.
    EPA's prior approval notice provides extensive discussion of the
reasons why EPA concluded in that notice that section 110(l) had been
satisfied. 73 FR 60957 (October 15, 2008).\5\ In particular, EPA stated
as grounds for this conclusion that: ``(1) The revision would not
increase the allowable

average opacity levels; and (2) the relationship between changes in
opacity and increases or decreases in ambient PM2.5 levels
cannot be quantified readily for the sources subject to this SIP
revision, and is particularly uncertain for short-term analyses.'' 73
FR 60959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In addition, the Response to Comment document prepared by
EPA for the final rule also addressed several issues raised by
Petitioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the issues raised in the February 2009 petition for
reconsideration, including Petitioners' arguments regarding the need to
complete an equivalency determination under section 110(l), and the
concerns about the nature of the relationship between opacity and PM,
EPA is reconsidering and soliciting comment on its conclusion that the
SIP revisions satisfied the requirements of section 110(l). If EPA
concludes, following public comment on this reconsideration notice,
that these two grounds remain an appropriate basis for approving the
SIP revisions as meeting the requirements of section 110(l), and
concludes that Petitioners have not identified other issues that lead
to the conclusion that the SIP revisions interfere with any applicable
requirement of the CAA, then EPA anticipates that it would affirm its
prior approval of the SIP revisions.
    Thus, EPA is now accepting comment on our previously articulated
basis for approving the 2003/2008 Submittals, on the issues raised in
the February 2009 petition for reconsideration, and how the issues
raised in the February 2009 petition may impact EPA's previous basis
for approving the 2003/2008 Submittals.

B. Proposal To Amend the October 15, 2008, Action and Disapprove the
2003/2008 Submittals

    In the February 25, 2009, petition for reconsideration, Petitioners
lay out their rationale for why EPA should amend the October 2008
rulemaking and disapprove for the 2003/2008 Submittals. As part of the
current reconsideration process, EPA is (1) outlining the following
rationale, which could form the basis for amending the October
rulemaking action; (2) proposing to amend the October rulemaking and
disapprove the 2003/2008 Submittals based on the discussion below, and
any other issues that may come to light as part of the public comment
received through this notice; and (3) taking comment on this proposed
alternate disapproval action and rationale.
Rationale for Proposed Disapproval
    The most significant issue raised by petitioners in the February
25, 2009, petition is that approval of the 2003/2008 Submittals was not
consistent with Section 110(l) because, petitioners explain, the
``bundling of high opacity periods'' would result in increases in PM
mass emissions, thus ``interfering'' with attainment and maintenance of
the PM NAAQS.
    The 2003/2008 Submittals allow for higher maximum opacity levels
from the applicable facilities that were not previously authorized. In
some cases, these increases may be up to 100 percent opacity. These
visible emissions of up to 100 percent opacity for a certain period of
time will be considered lawful--a distinct difference between the 2003/
2008 SIP proposal and the previous SIP-approved rule. These types of
emissions will be allowed from approximately 19 facilities affected by
the rule change, including older coal-fired utilities, cement
manufacturing facilities, and pulp and paper facilities, among others.
Some of the affected facilities are located in or near the Birmingham,
Alabama, area, which is currently designated as nonattainment for
PM2.5. Alabama also has a partial county that is part of the
Chattanooga, Tennessee, PM2.5 nonattainment area, and one of
the affected facilities is located near that area. In addition, the
Birmingham area currently has a monitor that has registered design
values above the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and is considered in
violation of that NAAQS. As a result of the ozone violation, Alabama
submitted a SIP revision, which was approved in a July 30, 2009,
rulemaking (74 FR 37977) to adopt contingency measures for the
Birmingham area.
    As was discussed earlier in this notice, both Alabama's previous
visible emissions rule and the revised rule allow for opacity of 100
percent for periods of startup, shutdown, load change and rate change
(or other short intermittent periods upon terms approved by ADEM's
Director and included in a State-issued permit). The previous rule,
however, did not otherwise allow for opacity of 100 percent and
allowed, instead, for opacity of up to 40 percent for one six-minute
period per hour. Thus, in addition to periods of startup, shutdown,
load change and rate change (or other short intermittent periods), the
revised Alabama rule allows the same maximum time of excess opacity in
a single day (up to 144 minutes per day) as the previous SIP-approved
rule. The revised rule allows for an increase in the upper limit from
40 percent opacity to 100 percent opacity. Further, the revised rule
allows for a daily aggregate of the 24 six-minute periods per day as
opposed to 24 hourly periods per day.
    The petition for reconsideration outlines several reasons why
petitioners believe the 2003/2008 Submittals are not approvable,
including (in paraphrase): (1) The 22 percent average daily opacity cap
is illegal because it incorporates automatic exemptions, as does the
rest of the opacity rule, making it illegal under the DC Circuit's
decision in Sierra Club v.  EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008) (vacating
certain provisions in 40 CFR part 63 regarding periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction); (2) the 22 percent average daily opacity
cap provision does not represent RACT; (3) approval of the 22 percent
average daily opacity cap provision was illegal because there is no
support for the proposition that allowing bundling of high opacity
periods would allow no more particulate than the old regulatory scheme
which allowed 40 percent opacity once per hour; and (4) the 22 percent
average daily opacity cap provision would still allow the bundling of
high opacity periods, thereby failing to ensure compliance with three-
hour mass emission limitations.
    Based on the information received to date, EPA believes that
increases or decreases in PM2.5 emissions based on short-
term increases in opacity cannot be quantified readily for the sources
subject to this SIP revision. There are several contributors to the
uncertainties associated with relating mass emissions to increases in
opacity, including: (1) Differences between combustion technology
characteristics and fuel components, (2) differences in control
technology types, temperatures at which they operate, and load
characteristics, (3) the recognition that both opacity and mass
emissions are subject to significant variability over short periods of
time and fluctuations such that one may act independently of the other,
and (4) differences between the mass of particles that exists at the
point of opacity measurement by the COMS (e.g., in the stack) and the
direct PM2.5 that forms immediately upon exiting the stack
(that are related to fuel components more than to control technology).
    A significant issue for these SIP revisions is the degree of
uncertainty that exists, and how to apply section 110(l) in the event
EPA determines there is extreme uncertainty based on currently
available data. Alabama has not provided EPA with an affirmative
demonstration that the 2003/2008 Submittals will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress,
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA--particularly for
facilities located

in or near PM nonattainment areas. Petitioners argue that in order to
preserve the integrity of the SIP revision process, section 110(l)
requires more than mere uncertainty, i.e., an inability to predict with
confidence, based on current data, the effect of changes on the opacity
standard with respect to attainment of the NAAQS. Rather, section
110(l) requires an affirmative conclusion that the revision at issue
will not interfere with any NAAQS or applicable requirement. Thus, one
possible approach suggested by the petition would be to conclude that
the SIP revisions could not be approved until additional data and
analysis (e.g., source-specific testing) was submitted that provided a
reasonable basis for concluding that the revision would not interfere
with applicable requirements. This approach would provide protection
for the NAAQS, consistent with the overall goals of the CAA. EPA
solicits comment on this approach, particularly if the uncertainty
(based on the available record) is too great to provide a basis for
concluding that the SIP revisions are likely to interfere with timely
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, as a basis to amend and
disapprove of the 2003/2008 Submittals.

III. What Additional Information Would EPA Like To Receive?

    The relationship between opacity and PM mass emissions is a key
component to evaluating the October 2008 rulemaking under Section
110(l). Thus, in addition to soliciting comments on the above
proposals, EPA is also seeking comment on the relationship between
opacity and the NAAQS (the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS
in particular). This information will help EPA gather additional
information regarding petitioners' claims and Section 110(l). EPA
specifically seeks public comment on the nature of the relationship
between opacity and PM mass emissions over both the short and long term
and when the opacity and PM mass emissions may have a predictable
relationship to one another (e.g., when an opacity level of a certain
amount would predict a PM mass emission of another certain amount). The
public is encouraged to provide the following types of data and
analyses to assist with EPA's reconsideration of its action on the
2003/2008 Submittals. Source-specific data from Alabama facilities
affected by the 2003/2008 Submittals would provide particularly
pertinent information; however, the following list of data/information
would assist EPA in its analysis of the submittals:
     Concurrent measurements from COMS and PM continuous
emission monitoring systems, along with fuel analyses, process data,
control device descriptions, and operational data;
     Concurrent opacity and PM emissions measurements, along
with fuel analyses, process data, control device descriptions, and
operational data;
     Information on relationships, empirical or modeled,
between opacity and PM emissions (both filterable and condensable),
such as statistical analyses that attempt to relate or correlate
opacity with PM emissions (both filterable and condensable);
     Data on conditions--such as those associated with fuel,
source, combustion, load, control, or particle characteristics--under
which relationships exist between opacity and PM emissions;
     Other parameters that can be measured and related to PM
emissions;
     Relationships between opacity and particle size,
especially for fine PM;
     Benefit and/or cost information on compliance methods that
measure PM on a direct, continuous basis and methods that rely on
indicators, such as opacity, and/or rely on ongoing but infrequent PM
emissions testing; and
     Any data supporting the particular issues raised in the
petition for reconsideration.
    EPA is now accepting public comment on the various bases identified
in the petition for reconsideration, or that otherwise may be
articulated, for amending the October rulemaking and disapproving the
2003/2008 Submittals.

IV. Proposed Actions

    This rulemaking is part of EPA's reconsideration process on our
October 15, 2008, final action approving Alabama's visible emissions
SIP revisions. EPA is seeking public comment on proposals to affirm our
prior action, which approved the SIP revisions, or amend and disapprove
the revisions to Alabama SIP rule 335-3-4-.01 (``Visible Emissions''),
submitted initially in 2003 and significantly revised and re-submitted
on August 22, 2008.
    The public is encouraged to submit any comments that it would like
EPA to specifically respond to as part of this reopening of the public
comment period. The October 15, 2008, final action remains in effect at
this time. The Docket for this reopening has been populated with all
the relevant information and is available electronically and in
hardcopy in the Region 4 Office.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for ``answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP proposals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply propose approval of requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval or disapproval
proposals do not create any new requirements, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v.  U.S.
EPA, 427 US 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must
prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final
rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs
to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval or disapproval action proposed
does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action
proposes to approve or disapprove pre-existing requirements under State
or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely proposes to approve or disapprove a State rule implementing a
federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This
proposed rule 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. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials.

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

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 10, 2009.
Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9-23793 Filed 10-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32155-32156]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11441]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR22-40-000.
    Applicants: Hope Gas, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: HGI--2021 PREP Filing to
be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/20/22.
    Accession Number: 20220520-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/10/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-928-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--GDF Suez Mexico
Comercializadora, S. de R.L. de C.V SP361338 to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 5/20/22.
    Accession Number: 20220520-5154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-929-000.
    Applicants: Roaring Fork Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 587-Z Compliance Filing
to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/20/22.
    Accession Number: 20220520-5157.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-930-000.
    Applicants: BBT AlaTenn, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: BBT Ala-Tenn Refiling of RP20-
508 tariff records to be effective 3/11/2020.
    Filed Date: 5/20/22.
    Accession Number: 20220520-5163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-931-000.
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.
    Description: Annual Fuel Gas Reimbursement Report of White River
Hub, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/20/22.
    Accession Number: 20220520-5259.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 23, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11441 Filed 5-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P