[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 105 (Friday, June 2, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25523-25529]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10934]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0583; FRL-9962-27-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation;
GA; Redesignation of the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 18, 2016, the State of Georgia, through the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) of the Department of Natural
Resources, submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to redesignate the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the ``Atlanta Area'' or
``Area'') to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Area. EPA is
approving the State's maintenance plan, including the motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the years 2014 and 2030 for the
Area, and redesignating the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds the 2014 and 2030 MVEBs for the
Atlanta Area adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity.

DATES: This rule will be effective June 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0583. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Spann can be
reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background for Final Actions

    Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/
attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was
promulgated on March 27, 2008. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). The
Atlanta Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and classified as a marginal nonattainment area.\1\ On July 14,
2016, EPA issued a determination that the Area had attained the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (81 FR 45419). On July 18, 2016, Georgia requested
that EPA redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and submitted a SIP revision containing the State's plan
for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the
Area, including 2014 and 2030 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the
Atlanta Area. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on
December 23, 2016 (81 FR 94283), EPA proposed to approve the
maintenance plan, including the 2014 and 2030 MVEBs for NOX
and VOC, and incorporate the plan into the Georgia SIP and to
redesignate the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In
that notice, EPA also notified the public of the status of the Agency's
adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for the
Atlanta Area. The details of Georgia's submittal and the rationale for
EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Atlanta Area consists of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton,
Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett,
Henry, Newton, Paulding and Rockdale Counties in Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received one set of comments on its December 23, 2016, proposed
rulemaking actions. Specifically, EPA received adverse comments from
the Sierra Club (``Commenter''). These

comments are provided in the docket for this final action. See Docket
number EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0583. A summary of the adverse comments and
EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter contends that EPA may not approve
Georgia's request to redesignate the Atlanta Area to attainment
because, according to the Commenter, the Atlanta Area failed to attain
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Commenter believes that the Area
failed to attain this NAAQS ``by law'' because the Cobb County ozone
monitor did not meet the 75 percent data completeness requirement for
2014 or the 90 percent data completeness requirement for the 2013-2015
period.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the Area has not
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA issued a final determination
of attainment on July 14, 2016, based on the same 2013-2015 air quality
data it is using as the basis of this redesignation action. See 81 FR
45419. EPA took notice and comment on its determination of attainment
and the Commenter could have raised its concern to the Agency regarding
data from the Kennesaw National Guard monitor (also known as the Cobb
County monitor) at that time, but failed to do so. In any case, EPA
does not find reason to alter its conclusion that the Area has attained
the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on concerns raised in the comment, and the
most recent available data and information continues to support this
finding. With regard to the Commenter's concern regarding the 2014
ozone season data from the Kennesaw National Guard monitor, EPA's
technical analysis, available in a technical support document located
in the docket for this rulemaking, demonstrates that the 2013-2015
design value would not have violated the standard even assuming the
most conservative estimates for the missing data from that monitor.
    As described in greater detail in the technical support document,
in EPA's technical judgment, the Area has attained the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. In making its determination, EPA evaluated all valid
certified monitoring data collected during 2013-2015 by monitors in or
near the nonattainment area.\2\ EPA also conducted the additional
technical analysis described in the technical support document for the
Kennesaw National Guard monitor, which did not collect complete data
during 2014. The results of this technical analysis indicate that even
under the most conservative estimates, it is very unlikely that the
monitor would have violated the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA retrieved data for the monitors in the Atlanta Area and
the Georgia Station CASTNET monitoring site in Pike County near the
Atlanta Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following publication of the proposed redesignation, Georgia
certified its 2016 data for the Atlanta Area which shows that the Area
continues to attain the NAAQS with a 2014-2016 design value of 75
ppb.\3\ Incomplete data for the Kennesaw National Guard monitor in 2014
does not affect this conclusion because, as discussed above, EPA
conducted an analysis and has concluded that it is very unlikely that
the monitor would have violated the NAAQS if it had collected completed
data.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The air quality data is located at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data.
    \4\ The fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average value for
2016 at the Kennesaw National Guard monitor is 70 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The Commenter argues that the interstate transport
provision at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is an applicable
requirement for the purposes of redesignation. Therefore, the Commenter
does not believe that EPA can redesignate a nonattainment area to
attainment unless the state has submitted, and EPA has approved, a SIP
revision that contains adequate provisions prohibiting any source
located in the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which
will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with respect to any NAAQS. Because
Georgia did not submit a SIP revision satisfying the good neighbor
provision for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Commenter contends that
Georgia has not met all applicable requirements for redesignation of
the Area under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) (requiring the State to have
met all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D) and
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) (requiring the State to have a fully approved
applicable SIP under section 110(k)).
    Response 2: As discussed in the NPRM and in numerous other
redesignation actions, EPA has long interpreted the section
110(a)(2)(D) interstate transport requirements as not applicable for
the purposes of redesignation. See, e.g., 81 FR 94283 (December 23,
2016), 78 FR 43096 (July 19, 2013), 76 FR 79579 (December 22, 2011), 74
FR 53198 (October 16, 2009), 72 FR 56312 (October 3, 2007). The Agency
has consistently distinguished the section 110 and part D requirements
that apply regardless of an area's attainment designation--such as
110(a)(2)(D) interstate transport requirements, 176(c) conformity
requirements, section 184 ozone transport region measures, and section
211(m) oxygenated fuels requirements--from those requirements in
section 110 and part D that are linked to the nonattainment designation
of an area and thus no longer need be complied with upon redesignation
to attainment status. If a requirement applies to an area regardless of
whether its designation is nonattainment, maintenance, or attainment,
and thus other parts of the CAA will continue to obligate the area to
meet the requirement after redesignation, EPA has interpreted the
requirement as not ``applicable'' for purposes of section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) or (v). See, e.g., 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 2001), 65
FR 37879 (June 19, 2000), 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997), 61 FR 53174
(October 10, 1996), 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996), 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995). Courts have upheld EPA's authority to interpret what constitutes
an ``applicable'' requirement under section 107(d)(3)(E), and have
deferred to EPA's interpretation that requirements that continue to
apply after a redesignation are not ``applicable'' for purposes of
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001).
    We note that EPA has acted consistently with this interpretation by
issuing a number of actions outside the context of area redesignations
to address CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'s transport provision. On October 26,
2016, EPA issued a final rulemaking (CSAPR Update) updating the
regional NOx ozone season trading program established under the
original 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. See 81 FR 74504. As
described in more detail in the CSAPR Update, EPA conducted air quality
modeling and concluded that Georgia did not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in other states. Therefore, even though, as the Commenter points
out, EPA did issue a finding of failure to submit a 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
transport SIP to Georgia, the Agency later determined that the State
had no substantive obligation to reduce its emissions to meet its
transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Comment 3: The Commenter claims that neither Georgia nor EPA have
sufficiently shown that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions rather than to temporary

fluctuations in weather or the economy, from decreased electricity
production in the Area, or from impermanent and unenforceable measures.
The Commenter believes that EPA did nothing more than cite to and
summarize certain applicable pollutant control regulations and that EPA
must estimate the percent reduction achieved from each of the cited
measures ``in order to clearly show that the air quality improvements
are indeed the result of implemented permanent and enforceable
controls.'' The Commenter also states that the Utility Mercury Air
Toxics Standards (MATS), listed in the section of the NPRM discussing
permanent and enforceable measures, cannot have improved air quality
during the relevant time period and that MATS does not have any
relevance for ozone.
    Response 3: EPA does not agree with the Commenter that the Agency
has not properly determined that the Area's attainment is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions, as required by CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). EPA's approach in this action is consistent
with its long-standing interpretation that to satisfy that provision,
as set forth in the Calcagni Memorandum cited by the Commenter, EPA
must show that the improvement in air quality necessary for an area to
attain the relevant NAAQS is reasonably attributable to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions.\5\ As recently affirmed by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, EPA's approach to
demonstrating that section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) has been met is a
reasonable and appropriate method of meeting the CAA's requirements.
See Sierra Club v. EPA, 774 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2014). As noted by the
court, it is not necessary for EPA to ``prove causation to an absolute
certainty,'' and the Agency is entitled to deference when using its
``experience, expertise, and professional judgment'' in determining
whether the improvement in air quality is reasonably attributable to
permanent and enforceable measures. See Sierra Club, 774 F.3d at 395-96
(agreeing with EPA that its approach sufficed, and that an ``elaborate
analytical exercise is not required by the CAA''). In this case, the
Commenter claims that EPA's demonstration is inadequate and charges
that the Agency must estimate the percent reduction achieved from each
of the permanent and enforceable measures in order for the Agency to
redesignate an area. In fact, for the measures that were primarily
responsible for the improvement in ozone concentrations in the Area,
EPA did estimate the percentage reduction in emissions. The majority of
ozone precursor emissions in the Area are generated by mobile sources,
and the vast majority of emission reductions in the Area are similarly
associated with the permanent and enforceable mobile source measures
identified in the NPRM.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to EPA regional air directors re: Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment
(September 4, 1992), p.4.
    \6\ In 2011, mobile sources accounted for approximately 84
percent of NOX emissions and 53 percent of VOC emissions
in the Area. See 80 FR 48036 (August 11, 2015). In 2014, mobile
sources accounted for approximately 87 percent of NOX
emissions and 51 percent of VOC emissions. See 81 FR 94283. The
comparison of the 2011 and 2014 emissions inventories in Table 2,
below, shows that mobile source NOX emissions decreased
by approximately 60 tons per summer day (tpsd) (equating to 72
percent of the total NOX emissions reductions) and mobile
source VOC emissions decreased by approximately 34 tpsd (equating to
68 percent of the total VOC emissions reductions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Calcagni Memorandum, Georgia and EPA also took
steps in the analysis, as outlined in the NPRM, to ensure that the
improvement in air quality was not due to temporary weather conditions.
Georgia provided and EPA evaluated ozone season temperature and
precipitation data for the Area from 1930 through 2015. See 81 FR
94288. This data shows that the average temperature and precipitation
in 2013 fluctuates around the average meteorological conditions; the
years 2014 and 2015 were hotter than the 1930-2000 average temperature;
and precipitation in 2014 was less than the 1930-2000 average.
Therefore, EPA proposed to determine that the improvement in ozone air
quality was not the result of unusually favorable weather conditions.
The Commenter did not provide any climatological data to refute this
proposed determination. Although the Commenter claims that EPA and the
State must also demonstrate that the improvement in air quality was not
due to the economy or decreased electricity production, EPA does not
have any information indicating that the improvement was due to these
factors and the Commenter has not provided any such information.
    Consistent with EPA's long-standing practice and policy, a
comparison of nonattainment period emissions with attainment period
emissions is relevant in demonstrating permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions. EPA has evaluated the ozone precursor emissions
data in the Area and found that there were significant reductions in
these emissions in multiple source categories from 2011 (a
nonattainment year) to 2014 (an attainment year). During this time
period, the emissions data show that non-road NOX and VOC
emissions decreased, point source NOX emissions decreased,
and mobile NOX and VOC emissions decreased. During this time
period, mobile source emissions provided the greatest reductions, with
NOX emissions decreasing by approximately 60 tons per summer
day (tpsd) (equating to 72 percent of the total NOX
emissions reductions) and mobile source VOC emissions decreased by
approximately 34 tpsd (equating to 68 percent of the total VOC
emissions reductions). It is not necessary for every change in
emissions between the nonattainment year and the attainment year to be
permanent and enforceable. Rather, as discussed above, the CAA requires
that improvement in air quality necessary for an area to attain the
relevant NAAQS must be reasonably attributable to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions in emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For 2011, Georgia also reported 3.45 tpsd of biogenic
emissions not included in this total; for 2014, the area source
emissions total includes 0.01 tons per summer day of wild and
prescribed fires.

                Table 1--NOX Emissions for the Atlanta 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area
                                            [Tons per summer day] \7\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                 Point source     Area source       On-road        Non-road          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................           54.63            4.63          214.98           91.92          366.16
2014............................           31.36            4.88          170.15           76.69          283.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Table 2--VOC Emissions for the Atlanta 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area
                                            [Tons per summer day] \8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                 Point source     Area source       On-road        Non-road          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................           10.36          137.06          108.62           60.56          316.60
2014............................           11.24          119.88           81.76           53.38          266.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State calculated the on-road and non-road mobile source
emissions summarized in Tables 2 and 3 using EPA-approved models and
procedures that account for fleet turnover, increased population, and
the federal mobile source measures identified as permanent and
enforceable measures in the NPRM such as the Tier 2 vehicle and fuel
standards, the large non-road diesel engines rule,\9\ heavy-duty
gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards,\10\ medium and heavy
duty vehicle fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards,\11\
non-road spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards,\12\
and the national program for GHG emissions and fuel economy
standards.13 14 These mobile source measures have resulted
in, and continue to result in, large reductions in NOX
emissions over time due to fleet turnover (i.e., the replacement of
older vehicles that predate the standards with newer vehicles that meet
the standards). For example, implementation of the Tier 2 standards
began in 2004, and as newer, cleaner cars enter the national fleet,
these standards continue to significantly reduce NOX
emissions. As discussed in the NPRM, EPA expects that these standards
will reduce NOX emissions from vehicles by approximately 74
percent by 2030, translating to nearly 3 million tons annually by
2030.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For 2011, Georgia also reported 914.88 tpsd of biogenic
emissions that are not included in this total; for 2014, the area
source emissions total includes 0.02 tpsd of wild and prescribed
fires.
    \9\ EPA estimated that compliance with this rule will cut
NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90
percent nationwide.
    \10\ EPA projects a 2.6 million ton reduction in NOX
emissions by 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely
replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these
emission standards. 66 FR 5002, 5012 (January 18, 2001).
    \11\ When fully implemented in 2018, this rule is expected to
reduce NOX emissions from the covered vehicles by 20
percent.
    \12\ When fully implemented, the standards will result in an 80
percent reduction in NOX by 2020.
    \13\ Georgia used EPA's MOVES2010b and MOVES2014a model to
calculate on-road emissions factors and used the NEI2011 and
MOVES2014a for non-road emissions.
    \14\ Georgia used the interagency consultation process required
by 40 CFR part 93 (known as the Transportation Conformity Rule)
which requires EPA, the United States Department of Transportation,
metropolitan planning organizations, state departments of
transportation, and State and local air quality agencies to work
together to develop applicable implementation plans. The on-road
emissions were generated by an aggregate of the vehicle activity
(generated from the travel demand model) on individual roadways
multiplied by the appropriate emissions factor from MOVES2014. The
assumptions which are included in the travel demand model, such as
population, were reviewed through the interagency consultation
process.
    \15\ EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA420-F-99-051 (December
1999), available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-greenhouse-gas-emissions-passenger-cars-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding MATS, EPA acknowledges that it inadvertently included
this rule as a permanent and enforceable measure. As the Commenter
correctly notes, MATS did not result in permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions in the Area during the relevant time period
because the State extended the compliance date for the relevant sources
in the Area to April 2016.
    The SIP-approved state measures resulting in permanent and
enforceable emission reductions include Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(yy)--Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides, Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(jjj)--NOX from EGUs, Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(lll)--NOX from Fuel Burning Equipment, Georgia Rule
391-3-1-.02(2)(nnn)--NOX from Stationary Gas Turbines,
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rrr)--NOX from Small Fuel
Burning Equipment, and Georgia Rule Chapter 391-3-20--Enhanced
Inspection and Maintenance. The federal measures resulting in permanent
and enforceable emission reductions include the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR)/Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Tier 2 vehicle and
fuel standards, large non-road diesel engines rule, medium and heavy-
duty vehicle fuel consumption and GHG standards, heavy-duty gasoline
and diesel highway vehicle standards, nonroad spark-ignition engines
and recreational engines standards, national program for GHG emissions
and fuel economy standards, and Boiler and Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engine (RICE) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP).
    The inadvertent inclusion of the MATS Rule in the NPRM does not
affect EPA's conclusion that the improvement in ozone air quality is
reasonably attributable to the remaining measures identified in the
NPRM. Although MATS did not result in permanent and enforceable
reductions until April 2016, it is expected to result in further
reductions in NOx emissions during the maintenance period.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Regulatory Impact Analysis for Final Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards, EPA-452/R-11-011/December 2011. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/matsriafinal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: The Commenter asserts that Georgia's maintenance plan is
inadequate to ensure maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in
the Area over the next ten years. The specific arguments offered by the
Commenter in support of its assertion are summarized in Comments 4(a)
through 4(c), below.
    Comment 4a: The Commenter states that neither Georgia nor EPA can
be sure that the attainment inventory for 2014, the attainment year
used by the State to demonstrate maintenance throughout the first 10-
year maintenance period, is sufficient to attain the standard because
``2014 is the year that the ozone season monitoring data for the Cobb
County monitor failed to meet either of the statutory completeness
requirements for an attainment designation.''
    Response 4a: As discussed above in response to Comment 1, EPA
determined that the Area is attaining the standard and has conducted
technical analyses to support this determination. For NAAQS based on a
three-year averaging period, EPA allows states to develop attainment
emissions inventories in their section 175A maintenance plans using any
of the three years on which an attainment determination is based. See,
e.g., 80 FR 54577 (July 30, 2015), 79 FR 16734 (March 26, 2014), 78 FR
72040 (December 2, 2013), 78 FR 38648 (June 27, 2013). This approach is
consistent with the guidance provided to states in preparing attainment
inventories for 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality
Strategies and Standards Division, to Air Division Directors, re:
Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas under
Section 110(a)(1) of

Clean Air Act (May 20, 2005), p. 4. Therefore, it is appropriate to use
2014 as the attainment year in the maintenance demonstration for the
Atlanta Area. Also, the Commenter has not raised any issues regarding
the accuracy of the emissions inventory that was developed for 2014.
    Comment 4b: The Commenter claims that the implementation schedules
in the maintenance plan for the Tier I and Tier II contingency
measures, allowing for up to 24 months for implementation, are
``unacceptably long and fail to satisfy the prompt response timing
required by CAA Section 175A'' to correct ``potential monitored
violations.'' The Commenter believes that Georgia should commit to
selecting and implementing Tier I and Tier II contingency measures
within 12 months of a trigger. The Commenter also states that ``[t]his
issue is compounded by the fact that Georgia's most recent ozone
monitoring data from 2016 demonstrate that a number of the Atlanta Area
monitors continues to record annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations above the NAAQS.''
    Response 4b: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that the
maintenance plan's implementation schedules for contingency measures
fail to satisfy the ``prompt response'' requirement in CAA section
175A(d). This section of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of an area. Thus, Congress
gave EPA discretion to evaluate and determine the contingency measures
that EPA ``deems necessary'' to assure that the state will promptly
correct any subsequent violation.
    Section 175A does not establish any deadlines for implementation of
contingency measures after redesignation to attainment. It also
provides far more latitude than does section 172(c)(9), which applies
to a different set of contingency measures applicable to nonattainment
areas. Section 172(c)(9) contingency measures must ``take effect . . .
without further action by the State or [EPA].'' By contrast, section
175A(d) allows EPA to take into account the need of a state to assess,
adopt, and implement contingency measures if and when a violation
occurs after an area's redesignation to attainment. As noted by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Greenbaum v. EPA, 370
F.3d 527, 540 (6th Cir. 2004), EPA ``has been granted broad discretion
by Congress in determining what is `necessary to assure' prompt
correction'' under section 175A, and ``no pre-determined schedule for
adoption of the measures is necessary in each specific case.'' In
making this determination, EPA accounts for the time that is required
for states to analyze data and address the causes and appropriate means
of remedying a violation. EPA also considers the time required to adopt
and implement appropriate measures in assessing what ``promptly'' means
in this context.
    In the case of the Atlanta Area, EPA believes that the contingency
measures set forth in the submittal, combined with the State's
commitment to implement contingency measures as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than 24 months of a trigger, provide assurance
that the State will promptly correct a future violation. Given the
uncertainty regarding the nature of the contingency measures required
to address a violation, the State may need up to 24 months to enact new
statutes; develop new or modified regulations and complete notice and
comment rulemaking; or take actions authorized by current state law
that require the purchase and installation of equipment (e.g., diesel
retrofits) or the development and implementation of new programs. In
addition, EPA has previously approved implementation of contingency
measures within 24 months of a violation to comply with the
requirements of section 175A in several instances. See, e.g., 81 FR
76891 (November 4, 2016), 80 FR 61775 (October 14, 2015), 79 FR 67120
(November 12, 2014), 78 FR 44494 (July 24, 2013), 77 FR 34819 (June 12,
2012), 76 FR 59512 (Sept. 27, 2011), 75 FR 2091 (January 14, 2010). EPA
also notes that the Commenter did not provide any rationale for
concluding that a 12-month implementation period is necessary to
satisfy section 175A and that the Tier I response is not subject to
section 175A(d) because it is triggered before any violation has
occurred.
    The Commenter's statement that ``this issue is compounded by''
fourth-highest daily maximum 2016 ozone concentrations ``above the
NAAQS'' is unclear. In accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the
determination as to whether the Area meets the NAAQS is based on the
three-year average of the annual fourth-highest readings at a monitor,
not on a monitor's fourth-highest ozone value in a single year. No
monitored value in a single year can itself be a violation. The Area
has attained the NAAQS, as discussed in the response to Comment 1, and
met the other criteria necessary for redesignation. Once the
redesignation is effective, the State will follow its maintenance plan
and implement contingency measures pursuant to that plan. If Georgia
observes a fourth highest value of 0.076 ppm or greater at a single
monitor for which the previous ozone season had a fourth highest value
of 0.076 ppm or greater, a Tier 1 trigger will be activated and the
State will take action consistent with the Tier I procedure described
in the maintenance plan.
    Comment 4c: The Commenter believes that the maintenance plan is
``likely inadequate'' to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because,
according to the Commenter, the assumptions underlying Georgia's
maintenance determination ``likely underestimate the level of ozone
reductions actually required to maintain the standard in light of
increasingly warming temperatures to come.''
    Response 4c: EPA does not agree that the maintenance plan is
inadequate because it does not specifically consider the impacts of
climate change on future ozone concentrations. EPA believes that the
broad range of potential future climate outcomes and variability of
projected response to these outcomes limits EPA's ability to develop
specific actionable SIP policies for any specific location.
Additionally, EPA generally believes that the natural variability in
meteorological patterns will have a larger influence on ozone
concentrations than climate influences over the relatively short-term
SIP maintenance period. Thus, EPA believes it is appropriate to rely
upon the existing technical guidance and applicable CAA provisions to
ensure that ozone maintenance areas do not violate the NAAQS.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking two separate, but related, final actions. First, EPA
is approving the maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area, including the
NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2030, and incorporating it
into the Georgia SIP. The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area
will continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the MVEBs
meet all of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and
(5).
    Second, EPA is approving Georgia's redesignation request for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. Approval of the
redesignation request changes the official designation of Bartow
County, Cherokee County, Clayton County, Cobb County, Coweta County,
DeKalb County, Douglas County, Fayette County, Forsyth

County, Fulton County, Gwinnett County, Henry County, Newton County,
Paulding County, and Rockdale County in the Atlanta Area for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40 CFR
part 81.
    EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-
established NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Atlanta Area adequate
for the purpose of transportation conformity. Within 24 months from
this final rule, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate
conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR
93.104(e).
    EPA has determined that these actions are effective immediately
upon publication under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3).
The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d)
is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior
and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Section 553(d)(1)
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication if a
substantive rule ``relieves a restriction.'' These actions qualify for
the exception under section 553(d)(1) because they relieve the State of
various requirements for the Area. Furthermore, section 553(d)(3)
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published
with the rule.'' EPA finds good cause to make these actions effective
immediately pursuant to section 553(d)(3) because they do not create
any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need
time to prepare before the actions take effect.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these actions merely approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For this reason, these actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 1, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: April 27, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. In Sec.  52.570, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry ``2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the Atlanta Area'' at
the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                       Applicable         submittal
   Name of  nonregulatory  SIP       geographic or          date/      EPA approval  date       Explanation
            provision             nonattainment  area     effective
                                                            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance     Bartow, Cherokee,         7/18/2016  6/2/2017, [insert
 Plan for the Atlanta Area.        Clayton, Cobb,                       Federal Register
                                   Coweta, DeKalb,                      citation].
                                   Douglas, Fayette,
                                   Forsyth, Fulton,
                                   Gwinnett, Henry,
                                   Newton, Paulding
                                   and Rockdale
                                   Counties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.311, the table entitled ``Georgia--2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' is amended by revising the entry for
``Atlanta, GA: \2\'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.311   Georgia.

* * * * *

                                        Georgia--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation                           Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Date \1\              Type              Date \1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA: \2\................        6/2/2017  Attainment............
    Bartow County...............  ..............  Attainment............
    Cherokee County.............  ..............  Attainment............
    Clayton County..............  ..............  Attainment............
    Cobb County.................  ..............  Attainment............
    Coweta County...............  ..............  Attainment............
    DeKalb County...............  ..............  Attainment............
    Douglas County..............  ..............  Attainment............
    Fayette County..............  ..............  Attainment............
    Forsyth County..............  ..............  Attainment............
    Fulton County...............  ..............  Attainment............
    Gwinnett County.............  ..............  Attainment............
    Henry County................  ..............  Attainment............
    Newton County...............  ..............  Attainment............
    Paulding County.............  ..............  Attainment............
    Rockdale County.............  ..............  Attainment............

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-10934 Filed 6-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 3835-3836]
[DOCID:fr26ja07-101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-429-000]

Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed St. Petersburg Relay
Replacement Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

January 19, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the St. Petersburg Relay Project,
involving construction and operation of facilities by Florida Gas
Transmission Company (FGT).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FGT's original proposal to construct the St. Petersburg
Lateral Replacement Project was filed as a prior notice application
under Section 157.208(b) of the Commission's regulations. It is now
being processed as an application for construction under Section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act due to the filing of a protest that was
not resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FGT proposes to replace a total of about 6.6 miles of its St.
Petersburg 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline in east-central Pinellas
County, Florida. Testing of the 12-inch St. Petersburg Lateral
identified stress erosion cracking anomalies reflective of the age and
condition of the pipeline. Replacement of the pipeline sections and
valve assemblies described below are necessary to comply with United
States Department of Transportation requirements for a high consequence
Class 3 area under Title 49 CFR, Pipeline Integrity Management, Subpart
O (Section 192). The pipeline is located in a highly developed,
urbanized area that includes residential subdivisions, shopping malls
and existing county and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
road rights-of-way.
    The sections of pipeline to be replaced are described as follows:
     Relay 1--3.6 miles of pipeline,
     Relay 2--0.09 mile of pipeline,
     Relay 3--0.40 mile of pipeline,
     Relay 4--2.1 miles of pipeline, and
     Relay 5--0.5 mile of pipeline.
    FGT also proposes to install a 12-inch pig launcher and receiver
and replace two 8-inch block valves with 10-inch block valves to allow
passage for a pipeline integrity tool to be run after the segments have
been replaced. The general location of the project is shown on the map
attached as Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendix referenced in this notice is not being printed
in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendix (maps) are available
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies of the appendix
will be sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No change in the maximum allowable operating pressure of the
pipeline would occur as a result of the proposed replacements.
Therefore, there would be no impact to FGT's peak day or annual gas
deliveries.
    The proposed project would disturb up to 63.6 acres of land, 14.5
acres of which are within FGT's permanent easement and 49.1 acres of
which are proposed temporary workspace and extra temporary workspace.
Temporary workspace and extra temporary workspace would be required at
public road and waterbody crossings, hydrostatic test locations,
crossovers, tie-ins, staging/fabrication of pipeline sections, and drag
sections.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' addresses a number
of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and
how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received will be considered during the preparation of
the EA.
    The Commission's staff will prepare an EA that will describe the
potential environmental impacts that could result from construction and
operation of the proposed project under the general headings:
     Water resources, wetlands, and waterbodies.
     Vegetation and wildlife.
     Threatened and endangered species.
     Cultural resources.
     Geology and soils.
     Land use and residences.
     Air quality and noise.
     Reliability and safety.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or
portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or
avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the
EA may be published and mailed to Federal, State, and local government
agencies; public interest groups; Native American tribes; interested
individuals; affected landowners; newspapers; libraries; and the
Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A 30-day
comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We
will consider all comments submitted in any Commission Order that is
issued for the project.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific

comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Generally, comments are submitted regarding the potential environmental
effects, reasonable alternatives and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact.
    This notice and request for environmental comments is being sent to
affected landowners; Federal, State and local government
representatives and agencies; environmental and public interest groups;
other interested parties in this proceeding; and local libraries and
newspapers. We encourage government representatives to notify their
constituents of this notice and to encourage their comments concerning
this proposed project.
    To ensure that your comments are properly recorded, please mail
them to our office on or before February 19, 2007. When filing comments
please:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 2; DG2E; and Reference Docket No. CP06-429-000 on the original
and both copies.
    Please note that the Commission strongly encourages the electronic
filing (``eFiling'') of comments, interventions or protests to this
proceeding. Instructions on how to ``eFile'' comments can be found on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``Documents

and Filings'' link.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor''. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process.
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors.
Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the
Commission's e-Filing system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the
Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all
other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If
you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene
according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    This notice has been sent to all known individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are potential
right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for
project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

    To access information via the FERC Web site click on the
``eLibrary'' link then click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be
sure you have selected an appropriate date range. The ``eLibrary'' link
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. For assistance

TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Public meetings and/or site visits along with other Project related
information will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-1173 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57087-57088]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23604]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 29784; File No. 812-13931]

Stone Harbor Investment Partners LP, et al.; Notice of
Application

September 7, 2011.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a)
under the Act.

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

    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit open-
end management investment companies relying on rule 12d1-2 under the
Act to invest in certain financial instruments.
    Applicants: Stone Harbor Investment Partners LP (``Stone Harbor'')
and Stone Harbor Investment Funds (the ``Trust'')
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 29, 2011, and
amended on August 31, 2011, and September 7, 2011.
    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 October 3, 2011, 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, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: 31 West 52nd Street, 16th
Floor, New York, NY 10019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6876, or Dalia Osman Blass, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(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 via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company.
Stone Harbor, the Trust's investment adviser, is organized as a
Delaware limited partnership and is a registered investment adviser
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''), as
amended.
    2. Applicants request the exemption to the extent necessary to
permit any existing or future series of the Trust and any other
registered open-end management investment company or series thereof
that (i) is advised by Stone Harbor or any person controlling,
controlled by or under common control with Stone Harbor (any such
adviser or Stone Harbor, an ``Adviser'');\1\ (ii) is in the same group
of investment companies as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act;
(iii) invests in other registered open-end management investment
companies (``Underlying Funds'') in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(G) of
the Act; and (iv) is also eligible to invest in securities (as defined
in section 2(a)(36) of the Act) in reliance on rule 12d1-2 under the
Act (each a ``Fund of Funds,'' and together with the Underlying Funds,
the ``Funds''), to also invest, to the extent consistent with its
investment objectives, policies, strategies and limitations, in
financial instruments that may not be securities within the meaning of
section 2(a)(36) of the Act (``Other Investments'').\2\ Applicants also
request that the order exempt any entity, including any entity
controlled by or under common control with an Adviser, that now or in
the future acts as principal underwriter, or broker or dealer (if
registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended), with
respect to the transactions described in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Any other Adviser will also be registered under the Advisers
Act.
    \2\ Every existing entity that currently intends to rely on the
requested order is named as an applicant. Any entity that relies on
the order in the future will do so only in accordance with the terms
and the condition in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Consistent with its fiduciary obligations under the Act, each
Fund of

Funds' board of trustees will review the advisory fees charged by the
Fund of Funds' Adviser to ensure that they are based on services
provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services
provided pursuant to the advisory agreement of any investment company
in which the Fund of Funds may invest.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act provides that no registered
investment company (``acquiring company'') may acquire securities of
another investment company (``acquired company'') if such securities
represent more than 3% of the acquired company's outstanding voting
stock or more than 5% of the acquiring company's total assets, or if
such securities, together with the securities of other investment
companies, represent more than 10% of the acquiring company's total
assets. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act provides that no registered
open-end investment company may sell its securities to another
investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own
more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or cause more than
10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment
companies and companies controlled by them.
    2. Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act provides, in part, that section
12(d)(1) will not apply to securities of an acquired company purchased
by an acquiring company if: (i) The acquired company and acquiring
company are part of the same group of investment companies; (ii) the
acquiring company holds only securities of acquired companies that are
part of the same group of investment companies, government securities,
and short-term paper; (iii) the aggregate sales loads and distribution-
related fees of the acquiring company and the acquired company are not
excessive under rules adopted pursuant to section 22(b) or section
22(c) of the Act by a securities association registered under section
15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or by the Commission; and
(iv) the acquired company has a policy that prohibits it from acquiring
securities of registered open-end investment companies or registered
unit investment trusts in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the
Act.
    3. Rule 12d1-2 under the Act permits a registered open-end
investment company or a registered unit investment trust that relies on
section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act to acquire, in addition to securities
issued by another registered investment company in the same group of
investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper: (i)
Securities issued by an investment company that is not in the same
group of investment companies, when the acquisition is in reliance on
section 12(d)(1)(A) or 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act; (ii) securities (other
than securities issued by an investment company); and (iii) securities
issued by a money market fund, when the investment is in reliance on
rule 12d1-1 under the Act. For the purposes of rule 12d1-2,
``securities'' means any security as defined in section 2(a)(36) of the
Act.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction from any provision of the Act, or
from any rule under the Act, if such exemption is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and
provisions of the Act.
    5. Applicants state that the Funds of Funds will comply with rule
12d1-2 under the Act, but for the fact that the Funds of Funds may
invest a portion of their assets in Other Investments. Applicants
request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from
rule 12d1-2(a) to allow the Funds of Funds to invest in Other
Investments while investing in Underlying Funds. Applicants assert that
permitting the Funds of Funds to invest in Other Investments as
described in the application would not raise any of the concerns that
the requirements of section 12(d)(1) were designed to address.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    Applicants will comply with all provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the
Act, except for paragraph (a)(2) to the extent that it restricts any
Fund of Funds from investing in Other Investments as described in the
application.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23604 Filed 9-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75153-75155]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30614]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0390; FRL-9372-5]

Notice of Receipt of Pesticide Products; Registration
Applications To Register New Uses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register new
uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active
ingredients pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. This
notice provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the
applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the EPA Registration Number or EPA File Symbol for the
product of interest to you as shown in the body of this document, by
one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A contact person is listed at the end
of each registration application summary and may be contacted by
telephone, email, or mail. Mail correspondence to the Registration
Division (RD) (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.

    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide
products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant
to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4), EPA is hereby providing
notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by
the Agency on these applications. For actions being evaluated under the
Agency's public participation process for registration actions, there
will be an additional opportunity for a 30-day public comment period on
the proposed decision. Please see the Agency's public participation Web
site for additional information on this process (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/registration-public-involvement.html). EPA
received the following applications to register new uses for pesticide
products containing currently registered active ingredients:
    1. EPA File Symbol: 100-RUUU. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0575. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300,
Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Active Ingredient: Difenoconazole-1[2-[2-
chloro-4(4-clorophenoxy)] phenyl-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-
1,2,4,-triazole Difenoconazole-1[2-[2-chloro-4(4-clorophenoxy)]phenyl-
4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4,-triazole. Product Type:
Fungicide. Proposed Uses: Vegetables, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C.
Contact: Rosemary Kearns,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. EPA Registration Number: 100-1363. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0215. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300,
Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Active Ingredient: Acibenzolar-S-Methyl.
Product Type: Fungicide. Proposed Use: Sunflower. Contact: Rosemary
Kearns,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-1374 and 100-1381. Docket ID
Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0885. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Active Ingredient: Sedaxane.
Product Type: Fungicide. Proposed Uses: Seed treatment for use on
potato; and potato, wet peel. Contact: Heather Garvie, RD, (703) 308-
0034, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. EPA Registration Numbers: 400-512 and 400-544. Docket ID Number:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0796. Applicant: Chemtura Corporation, 199 Benson Road,
Middlebury, CT 06749. Active Ingredient: Ipconazole. Product Type:
Fungicide. Proposed Uses: Legume vegetables, crop group 6. Contact:
Dominic Schuler,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. EPA Registration Number: 524-582. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0841. Applicant: Monsanto Company, 1300 I (Eye) Street NW., Suite
450 East, Washington, DC 20005. Active Ingredient: Diglycolamine salt
of dicamba. Product Type: Herbicide. Proposed Use: Dicamba glufosinate
tolerant MON 88701 cotton. Contact: Michael Walsh,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. EPA Registration Numbers: 2724-791 and 2724-807. Docket ID
Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0905. Applicant: Wellmark International, 1501
E. Woodfield Road, Suite 200 West, Schaumberg, IL 60173. Active
Ingredient: Etofenprox. Product Type: Insecticide. Proposed Uses: All
food and feed commodities to support applications to control adult
mosquitoes. Contact: Kevin Sweeney,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    7. EPA Registration Numbers: 7969-306 and 7969-309. Docket ID
Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0637. Applicant: BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active
Ingredient: Fluxapyroxad. Product Type: Fungicide. Proposed Uses:
Berries and small fruits, brassica leafy vegetables, bulb vegetables,
cucurbit vegetables, grapes, leafy vegetables (except brassica), rice,
root vegetables, sorghum, millet, strawberry, sugarcane, and tree nuts.
Contact: Olga Odiott,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    8. EPA Registration Numbers: 7969-307 and 7969-308. Docket ID
Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0637. Applicant: BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active
Ingredient: Fluxapyroxad. Product Type: Fungicide. Proposed Uses: Seed
treatment use on Brassica vegetables, bulb vegetables, cucurbit
vegetables, leafy vegetables, rapeseed, rice, root vegetables, and
tuber vegetables. Contact: Olga Odiott,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    9. EPA Registration Number: 7969-310. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0637. Applicant: BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 13528, 26 Davis Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active Ingredient: Fluxapyroxad.
Product Type: Fungicide. Proposed Uses: Berries and small fruits,
Brassica leafy vegetables, bulb vegetables, cucurbit vegetables,
grapes, leafy vegetables (except Brassica), root vegetables,
strawberry, and tree nuts. Contact: Olga Odiott,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    10. EPA Registration Number: 7969-311. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2012-0637. Applicant: BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 13528, 26 Davis
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active Ingredient:
Fluxapyroxad. Product Type: Fungicide. Proposed Uses: Berries and small
fruits, Brassica leafy vegetables, bulb vegetables, cucurbit
vegetables, grapes, leafy vegetables (except Brassica), root
vegetables, sorghum, millet, strawberry, sugarcane, and tree nuts.
Contact: Olga Odiott,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    11. EPA Registration Number: 7969-312. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2012-0637. Applicant: BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 13528, 26 Davis
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active Ingredient:
Fluxapyroxad. Product Type: Fungicide. Proposed Use: For formulation
into a fungicide for use on turfgrass. Contact: Olga Odiott, (703) 308-
9369, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    12. EPA Registration Number: 11678-57. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2012-0854. Applicant: Makhteshim Chemical Works, Ltd., Makhteshim-
Agan of North America, Inc., 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh,
NC 27604. Active Ingredient: Novaluron. Product Type: Insecticide.
Proposed Use: Technical product for formulation uses only. Contact:
Jennifer Gaines,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    13. EPA File Symbol: 53883-GNA. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0845. Applicant: Control Solutions, Inc., 5903 Genoa-Red Bluff Road,
Pasadena, TX 77507-1041. Active Ingredient: Novaluron. Product Type:
Insecticide. Proposed Uses: Control of stable fly larvae in cattle
barns and horse barns; control of litter beetles in poultry operations.
Contact: Jennifer Gaines,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    14. EPA Registration Number: 66222-35. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2012-0854. Applicant: Makhteshim-

Agan of North America, Inc., 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh,
NC 27604. Active Ingredient: Novaluron. Product Type: Insecticide.
Proposed Use: Peanuts and soybean seeds. Contact: Jennifer Gaines,
(703) 305-5967, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    15. EPA Registration Numbers; EPA File Symbol: 71711-30 and 71711-
31; 71711-GA. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0909. Applicant:
Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Road, Suite 501,
Wilmington, DE 19808. Active Ingredient: Tolfenpyrad. Product Type:
Insecticide. Proposed Use: Lettuce (head and leaf); leaf petioles
subgroup 4B; spinach; Brassica head and stem subgroup 5A; Brassica
leafy subgroup 5B; vegetable, fruiting group 8; potato; nut, tree group
14 (including pistachio); almond hulls; fruit, pome group 11; apple,
wet pomace; vegetable, cucurbit group 9; fruit, stone group 12;
pomegranate; persimmon; citrus group 10; citrus (dried pulp and oil);
grapes; raisins; cotton (seed and gin byproducts); tea; milk; cattle,
sheep, goat, horse (meat, meat byproducts, fat, kidney, and liver).
Contact: Driss Benmhend,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    16. EPA Registration Numbers: 75753-1 and 75753-2. Docket ID
Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0722. Applicant: Agriguard Company, LLC, 186
North Ave. East, Centennial Plaza, Suite 100, P.O. Box 630, Cranford,
NJ 07016. Active Ingredient: Furfural. Product Type: Fungicide.
Proposed Use: Non-food use (by use of an outdoors preplant treatment on
bare soil) on crop groups 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Contact: Tamue
L. Gibson,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    17. EPA File Symbol: 85721-R. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0838. Applicant: METBRO Distributing, L.P., 246W Shaw Avenue, Fresno,
CA 93704. Active Ingredient: Hydrogen Cyanamide. Product Type:
Fungicide. Proposed Use: Non-food preplant soil treatment. Contact:
Dominic Schuler,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    18. EPA File Symbol: 85721-E. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0839. Applicant: METBRO Distributing, L.P., 246W Shaw Avenue, Fresno,
CA 93704. Active Ingredient: Propionic Acid. Product Type: Fungicide.
Proposed Use: Non-food preplant soil treatment. Contact: Dominic
Schuler,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    19. EPA Registration Number: 86203-4. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2011-0905. Applicant: Mitsui Chemicals Agro Inc., P.O. Box 5126,
Valdosta, GA 31603-5126. Active Ingredient: Etofenprox. Product Type:
Insecticide. Proposed Uses: All food and feed commodities to support
applications to control adult mosquitoes. Contact: Kevin Sweeney, (703)
305-5063, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
III. Correction to Previously Published Registration Application

    EPA is republishing the following application to show the correct
docket number and to be certain that persons interested in commenting
are assured that their comments will be delivered to the correct
docket. This application was originally published in the Federal
Register of Wednesday, November 7, 2012 (77 FR 66833) (FRL-9367-3), as
application number 4 under Unit II. Registration Applications. The
incorrect docket number that was shown in the November 7, 2012
application notice was EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0713. With this republication
there is also a new comment period, which ends on January 18, 2013. All
submitted comments will be considered before EPA makes any decisions
regarding this application. The corrected registration application is
as follows:
    EPA Registration Numbers: 7969-197, 7969-198 and 7969-199. Docket
ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0710. Applicant: BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. Active
Ingredient: Boscalid. Product Type: Fungicide. Proposed Uses:
Artichoke; Belgium endive; persimmon; bulb vegetable group 3-07;
fruiting vegetable group 8-10; citrus fruit group 10-10; pome fruit
group 11-10; berry subgroups 13-07 A, B, F, and G; oilseed group 20;
turnip greens, and root vegetable subgroup 1B. Contact: Heather Garvie,
(703) 308-0034, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

    Dated: December 11, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-30614 Filed 12-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


conduct a review of the cost-based fees subject to this proposal one
year after the date of the proposal, and annually thereafter.\95\ In
light of the impact that the number of connections and ports purchased
has on profit margins, and

the potential for costs to decrease (or increase) over time, what are
commenters' views on the need for exchanges to commit to reevaluate, on
an ongoing and periodic basis, their cost-based fees to ensure that the
fees stay in line with their stated profitability projections and do
not become unreasonable over time, for example, by failing to adjust
for efficiency gains, cost increases or decreases, and changes in
amounts purchased? How formal should that process be, how often should
that reevaluation occur, and what metrics and thresholds should be
considered? How soon after a new fee change is implemented should an
exchange assess whether its revenue and/or cost estimates were accurate
and at what threshold should an exchange commit to file a fee change if
its estimates were inaccurate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Tiered Structure for Additional Limited Service MEI Ports. The
Exchange states that the proposed tiered fee structure is equitably
allocated among users of the network connectivity alternatives, because
users of Limited Service MEI Ports ``consume the most bandwidth and
resources of the network.'' \96\ The Exchange states that users of the
``maximum amount of Limited Service MEI Ports'' account for
approximately greater than 99% of message traffic over the network,
while users of ``fewer Limited Service MEI Ports'' account for
approximately less than 1% of message traffic over the network.\97\
Specifically, the Exchange states that Market Makers who utilize 1-2,
3-4, or 7 or more Limited Service MEI ports submit an average of
375,821,358 quotes per day, 533,527,402 quotes per day, and
1,056,292,513 quotes per day, respectively, for the month of April
2022.\98\ According to the Exchange, these billions of messages per day
consume the Exchange's resources and significantly contribute to the
overall network connectivity expense for storage and network transport
capabilities.\99\ Given this difference in network utilization rate,
the Exchange believes that its tiered structure is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.\100\ Do commenters believe
that the fees for each tier (including the intermediary tiers), as well
as the fee differences between the tiers, are supported by the
Exchange's assertions? If not, is there an alternative basis on which
increased demand by a market-making firm on the Exchange's resources
would justify a tiered fee structure for additional Limited Service MEI
Ports?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See id.
    \97\ See id.
    \98\ See id.
    \99\ See id.
    \100\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the
[SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \101\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\102\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\103\
Moreover, ``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's representations in a
proposed rule change would not be sufficient to justify Commission
approval of a proposed rule change.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \102\ See id.
    \103\ See id.
    \104\ See Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 446-47 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
(rejecting the Commission's reliance on an SRO's own determinations
without sufficient evidence of the basis for such determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings
to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised
herein, including as to whether the proposal is consistent with the
Act, any potential comments or supplemental information provided by the
Exchange, and any additional independent analysis by the Commission.

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of
interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with
Sections 6(b)(4), 6(b)(5), and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the
Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that
commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's
statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants
the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--
either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is
appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO.
See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249,
S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by June 7, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by June 21,
2022.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-19. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change.

Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-19 and should be
submitted on or before June 7, 2022. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by June 21, 2022.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\106\ that File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-19 be, and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10519 Filed 5-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 31039-31040]
[DOCID:fr29jn09-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3301-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Arkansas; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Arkansas (FEMA-3301-EM), dated January 28, 2009, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 20, 2009.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gerard M.
Stolar, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this emergency.
    This action terminates the appointment of W. Michael Moore as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA);

97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing
Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared
Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-15356 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 62511]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13528-001]

Soule Hydro LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On September 1, 2012, Soule Hydro LLC, filed an application for a
successive preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal
Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Soule River
Hydroelectric Project (project) to be located on the Soule River near
Hyder within the Ketchikan Recording District in Alaska. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 265-
foot-high, 903-foot-long Main dam; (2) a 265-foot-high, 2,024 feet-long
Saddle dam adjacent to the main dam; (3) a storage reservoir with a
surface area of 1,072 acres and active storage capacity of 91,800 acre-
feet; (4) a 16-foot-diameter, 11,400-foot-long conduit tunnel; (5) a
powerhouse with approximate dimensions of 80 feet wide by 160 feet long
containing three Francis-type turbines with total installed capacity of
77 megawatts; (6) a marine access facilities including staging area,
boat ramp, barge basin, float, and access road; (7) a 138-kilovolt
buried transmission line extending 700 feet from the powerhouse across
the Soule River, 10 miles submarine cable across the Portland Canal,
then 2.5 miles overhead to the point of interconnection at the existing
BC Hydro substation near Stewart; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The
estimated annual generation of the project would be 200 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Bob Grimm, Alaska Power & Telephone Company,
P.O. Box 3222, 193 Otto Street, Port Townsend, Washington 98368; phone:
(360) 385-1733 ext. 120.
    FERC Contact: Kim A. Nguyen; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13528) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 5, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25208 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P