[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43477-43479]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14367]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 130 / Monday, July 10, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1402; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00324-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900, FALCON 900EX,
FALCON 2000, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted
by reports of the wing anti-icing (WAI) system leaking in the wing
leading edge. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of
the WAI system, and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for
incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 24,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1402; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email: [email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu.
You may find this material on the EASA website: ad.easa.europa.eu. It
is also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1402.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1402; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00324-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Tom
Rodriguez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0041, dated February 21, 2023
(EASA AD 2023-0041) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON
900, FALCON 900EX, FALCON 2000, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI
states the WAI system was reported leaking in the wing leading edge.
The leaks were either from an incorrect installation of the Wiggins
coupling on the WAI system, or detachment of the pressure switch line
from the WAI pipe (only found on the Falcon 2000 and Falcon 2000EX
airplanes). This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead
to a loss of performance of WAI protection system, possibly resulting
in reduced control of the airplane.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1402.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2023-0041 specifies procedures for a one-time general
visual inspection of the WAI system for discrepancies, including
incorrect installation, deformation, leakage or signs of overheating,
and lack of free rotation of the clamp around the two ferrules, and,
depending on findings, corrective actions. Corrective actions include
replacement or re-installation of the affected WAI Wiggins coupling
with new seals and couplings. For the Falcon 2000 and Falcon 2000EX
airplanes, there is an additional one-time general visual inspection of
the WAI pipes for traces of abnormal leakage, overheating, or
degradation of the thermal lagging, and depending on findings,
corrective actions. Corrective actions are for replacement of the
affected WAI pipes. This material is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2023-0041 described previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2023-0041 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2023-0041 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0041 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2023-
0041. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0041 for compliance
will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1402
after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 820 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 work-hours x $85 per hour = $595...........................              $0             $595         $487,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost               Parts cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 2 work-hours x $85 per                $517  Up to $687.
 hour = $170.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:

    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2023-1402; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00324-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by August 24, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900,
FALCON 900EX, FALCON 2000, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes, certificated
in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0041, dated February 21, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-
0041).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 30, Ice and
Rain Protection.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of the wing anti-icing (WAI)
system leaking in the wing leading edge. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address leaks in the WAI system. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could lead to a loss of performance of the WAI protection
system, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2023-0041.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0041

    (1) Where EASA AD 2023-0041 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2023-0041 specifies actions
if ``any discrepancy [as defined in the applicable inspection SB] is
found,'' for this AD, discrepancies are defined as incorrect
installation, deformation, leakage, signs of overheating, and lack
of free rotation of the clamp around the two ferrules.
    (3) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0041.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0041,
dated February 21, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2023-0041, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website: ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 3, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14367 Filed 7-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 44 (Friday, March 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12238-12239]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05216]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-31490]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

February 27, 2015.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
February 2015. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each
application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the
SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant
with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on March 24, 2015, and
should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of
an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to
Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, 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: The Commission: Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane L. Titus at<PHONE_NUMBER>, SEC,
Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-8010.

Gottex Multi-Asset Endowment Fund--II [File No. 811-22412]; Gottex
Multi-Asset Endowment Fund--I [File No. 811-22413]; Gottex Multi-Asset
Endowment Master Fund [File No. 811-22415]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On
February 2, 2015, each applicant made a final liquidating distribution
to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Applicants have retained
approximately $144,877, $80,148 and $271,414, respectively, to pay
shareholders their remaining balances and to pay applicants' remaining
expenses. Expenses of $2,300, $2,300 and $9,900, respectively, incurred
in connection with the liquidations were paid by applicants.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on February 4, 2015.
    Applicants' Address: One Boston Place, Ste. 2600, 201 Washington
St., Boston, MA 02109.

Highland Special Situations Fund [File No. 811-21769]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant
transferred its assets to Highland Opportunistic Credit Fund, a series
of Highland Funds I, and on July 1, 2014, made a distribution to its
shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately
$312,224 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on February 2, 2015.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Crescent Court, Ste. 700, Dallas, TX
75201.

Invesco Municipal Income Opportunities Trust II [File No. 811-5793];
Invesco Municipal Income Opportunities Trust III [File No. 811-6052]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company.
Applicants transferred their assets to Invesco Municipal Income
Opportunities Trust, and on August 27, 2012, made distributions to
their shareholders Income Opportunities Trust, and on August 27, 2012,
made distributions to their shareholders based on net asset value.
Expenses of $199,316, and $183,131, respectively, incurred in
connection with the reorganizations were paid by Invesco Advisers,
Inc., applicants' investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on February 4, 2015.
    Applicants' Address: 1555 Peachtree St. NE., Ste. 1800, Atlanta, GA
30309.

Invesco Municipal Premium Income Trust [File No. 811-5688]; Invesco Van
Kampen Trust for Value Municipals [File No. 811-6472]; Invesco Van
Kampen Select Sector Municipal Trust [File No. 811-8000]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company.
Applicants transferred their assets to Invesco Van Kampen Municipal
Opportunity Trust (now known as Invesco Municipal Opportunity Trust),
and on October 15, 2012, made distributions to their shareholders based
on net asset value. Expenses of $194,646, $203,231, and $203,911,
respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations were paid
by Invesco Advisers, Inc., applicants' investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on February 4, 2015.
    Applicants' Address: 1555 Peachtree St. NE., Ste. 1800, Atlanta, GA
30309.

Invesco Value Municipal Trust [File No. 811-6434]; Invesco Value
Municipal Securities [File No. 811-7109]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company.
Applicants transferred their assets to Invesco Value Municipal Income
Trust, and on October 15, 2012, made distributions to their
shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $175,385 and
$152,464, respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations
were paid by Invesco Advisers, Inc., applicants' investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on February 4, 2015.
    Applicants' Address: 1555 Peachtree St. NE., Ste. 1800, Atlanta, GA
30309.

Invesco Value Municipal Bond Trust [File No. 811-6053]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant
transferred its assets to Invesco Value Municipal Income Trust, and on
October 15, 2012, made a distribution to its shareholders based on net
asset value. Expenses of $148,082 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on February 4, 2015.

    Applicant's Address: 1555 Peachtree St. NE., Ste. 1800, Atlanta, GA
30309.

Invesco New York Quality Municipal Securities [File No. 811-7562]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant
transferred its assets to Invesco Van Kampen Trust for Investment Grade
New York Municipals (now known as Invesco Trust for Investment Grade
New York Municipals), and on August 27, 2012, made a distribution to
its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $259,706,
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by Invesco
Advisers, Inc., applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on February 4, 2015.
    Applicant's Address: 1555 Peachtree St. NE., Ste. 1800, Atlanta, GA
30309.

Invesco Quality Municipal Investment Trust [File No. 811-6346]; Invesco
Quality Municipal Securities [File No. 811-7560]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company.
Applicants transferred their assets to Invesco Quality Municipal Income
Trust, and on October 15, 2012, made distributions to their
shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $197,200 and
$202,100, respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations
were paid by Invesco Advisers, Inc., applicants' investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on February 4, 2015.
    Applicants' Address: 1555 Peachtree St. NE., Ste. 1800, Atlanta, GA
30309.

Invesco High Yield Investments Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-8044]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant
transferred its assets to Invesco Van Kampen High Income Trust II (now
known as Invesco High Income Trust II), and on August 27, 2012, made
distributions to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of
$275,566 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
Invesco Advisers, Inc., applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on February 4, 2015.
    Applicant's Address: 1555 Peachtree St. NE., Ste. 1800, Atlanta, GA
30309.

Invesco California Municipal Securities [File No. 811-7111]; Invesco
California Municipal Income Trust [File No. 811-7344]; Invesco
California Quality Municipal Securities [File No. 811-7564]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company.
Applicants transferred their assets to Invesco Van Kampen California
Value Municipal Income Trust (now known as Invesco California Value
Municipal Income Trust), and on August 27, 2012, made distributions to
their shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $179,549,
$192,823, and $179,549, respectively, incurred in connection with the
reorganizations were paid by Invesco Advisers, Inc., applicants'
investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on February 4, 2015.
    Applicants' Address: 1555 Peachtree St. NE., Ste. 1800, Atlanta, GA
30309.

Invesco Van Kampen Ohio Quality Municipal Trust [File No. 811-6364];
Invesco Van Kampen Trust for Investment Grade New Jersey Municipals
[File No. 811-6536]; Invesco Van Kampen Massachusetts Value Municipal
Income Trust [File No. 811-7088]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company.
Applicants transferred their assets to Invesco Van Kampen Municipal
Trust (now known as Invesco Municipal Trust), and on October 15, 2012,
made distributions to their shareholders based on net asset value.
Expenses of $188,271, $186,904 and $183,827, respectively, incurred in
connection with the reorganizations were paid by Invesco Advisers,
Inc., applicants' investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on February 4, 2015.
    Applicants' Address: 1555 Peachtree St. NE., Ste. 1800, Atlanta, GA
30309.

Munder Series Trust [File No. 811-21294]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant transferred its assets to
corresponding series of The Victory Portfolios, and on October 31,
2014, made a distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value.
Expenses of $3,896,437 incurred in connection with the reorganization
were paid by Munder Capital Management, applicant's investment adviser,
and Victory Capital Management Inc.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on January 27, 2015.
    Applicant's Address: Victory Capital Management Inc., 4900 Tiedeman
Rd. 4th Floor, Brooklyn, OH 44144.

iShares MSCI Russia Capped ETF, Inc. [File No. 811-22421]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant transferred its assets to iShares
MSCI Russia Capped ETF, a series of iShares, Inc., and on January 26,
2015, made a distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value.
BlackRock Fund Advisors, applicant's investment adviser, paid the
expenses incurred in connection with the reorganization.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on January 26, 2015.
    Applicant's Address: c/o State Street Bank and Trust Company, 1
Iron St., Boston, MA 02210.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05216 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (40 CFR Part
63, Subpart GGGG) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (40 CFR Part
63, Subpart GGGG)

(Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1947.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0471.

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production, 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG,
were proposed on May 26, 2000, (65 FR 34252) and promulgated on April
21, 2001.  Respondents are owners or operators of any existing,
reconstructed, or new vegetable oil production process, which is defined
as a group of continuous process equipment used to remove oil from
oilseeds through direct contact with an organic solvent such as
n-hexane.  The term “oilseed” refers to the following agricultural
products: corn germ, cottonseed, flax, peanut, safflower, soybean,
sunflower and rapeseed (source of canola oil).

A vegetable oil production process is only subject to the regulation if
it is a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions, or is
collocated with other sources that are individually or collectively a
major source of HAP emissions.  “Major source” means that the
process equipment used to produce the vegetable oil and any other
operations or equipment at a facility emit or have the potential to emit
10 tons per year or more of a single HAP or 25 tons per year or more of
any combination of HAP.  Owners or operators of a new vegetable oil
production process using solvent extraction must submit an application
for construction, notification of construction commencement,
notification of anticipated startup date and notification of actual
startup.

The standard requires each source to develop by the startup date a plan
for demonstrating compliance.  The source must follow this plan each
month to measure and record extraction solvent, HAP content of the
extraction solvent, and oilseed inventories.  Sources will also develop
a startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan to be followed during
each SSM event.

As required by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), each
source must submit initial or startup notifications.  Sources must
submit a compliance status notification twelve operating months after
the compliance date and an annual compliance certification every
subsequent twelve calendar months.  An operating month is defined as any
calendar month in which a source processes any quantity of listed
oilseed, excluding any entire calendar month in which the source
operated under an initial startup period or a malfunction period.
Sources must submit SSM reports following SSM events occurring during
each qualifying malfunction period.  All existing sources must develop
plans for demonstrating compliance and SSM plans.  The majority of
burden items are one-time-only requirements; the only recurring burden
consists of the annual compliance certification and periodic SSM reports
which require recordkeeping and monthly compliance determinations.
Owners or operators are required to submit after the initial
notification(s report: (1) annual compliance certifications; (2) a
deviation notification report; (3) a periodic startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report; and (4) immediate SSM reports.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part will
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
five years, following the date of such measurements, maintenance
reports, and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or
local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated
authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.

Approximately 101 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and
it is estimated that no additional new sources will become subject to
the regulation in the next three years.  It is further assumed that one
additional source per year will become subject to the standard due to
the reconstruction of an existing affected facility.

There are approximately 101 solvent extractors for vegetable oil
production facilities in the United States, which are owned and operated
by the solvent extraction for vegetable oil production industry.  None
of the 101 facilities in the United States are owned by either state,
local, tribal or the Federal government.  They are all owned and
operated by privately owned for-profit businesses.  The burden to the
“Affected Public” listed below in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden
and Cost - NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production
(40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGGG).  The Federal government burden does not
include work performed by Federal employees.  The burden refers only to
work performed by contractors, which could be found listed below in
Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for
Vegetable Oil Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGGG).

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the currently active
Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of
Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory
of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and
shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.  In addition,
section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or
operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C)
install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit
procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with
such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during
such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);
(E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables
or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with
Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from solvent extraction
for vegetable oil cause or contribute to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
Therefore, the NESHAP was promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart GGGG.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations which where promulgated in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information is also
used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected
facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.
Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the
standard at all times.  During the performance tests, a record of the
operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded
and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission
monitor.

The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency
or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements
of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source
to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and
operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the
standards are being met.  The performance test may also be observed.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part
63, subpart GGGG.

3(a)  Nonduplication

If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If
a state or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to
implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the
state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the
report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication
exists.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 10736) on March 9, 2007.
No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal
Register.

3(c)  Consultations

The Agency’s industry experts have been consulted, and the Agency’s
internal data sources and projections of industry growth over the next
three years have been considered.  The primary source of information as
reported by industry, in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in the standard, is the Online Tracking Information System
(OTIS) which is operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.
 OTIS is the EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval
of all compliance data.  The growth rate for the industry is based on
our consultations with the Agency’s internal industry experts.
Approximately twenty-eight respondents will be subject to the standard
over the three-year period covered by this ICR.

Industry trade associations and other interested parties were provided
an opportunity to comment on the burden associated with the standard as
it was being developed, and the standard has been previously reviewed to
determine the minimum information needed for compliance purposes.

It is our policy to respond after a thorough review of comments received
since the last ICR renewal as well as those submitted in response to the
First Federal Register Notice.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation
and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting
violations would be less likely.

3(e)  General Guidelines

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

These standards require the respondents to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
with the Part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations
on which the permit program is based.  The retention of records for five
years allows EPA to establish the compliance history of a source, any
pattern of non-compliance and to determine the appropriate level of
enforcement action.  EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have
violations extending beyond the five years.  In addition, EPA would be
prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or
nonexistence of essential records.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive
questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
solvent extraction for vegetable oil production.  The United States
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for the respondents
affected by the standards, which corresponds to The North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, are listed below for
source category description.

Standard (40 CFR part 63, Subpart GGGG)	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

Flour and Other Grain Mill Products	2041	311211

Wet Corn Milling (except refining purchased corn oil)	2046	311221

Wet Corn Milling (refining purchased corn oil)	2046	311225

Prepared Feeds and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowls, Except Dogs
and Cats (except slaughtered animals for pet food)	2048	311119

Prepared Feeds and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowls, Except Dogs
and Cats (slaughtering animals for pet food)	2048	311611

Cottonseed Oil Mills (cottonseed processing)	2074	311223

Cottonseed Oil Mills (processing purchased cottonseed oil)	2074	311225

Soybean Oil Mills (processing purchased soybean oil)	2075	311225

Soybean Oil Mills (soybean processing, except edible soybean oil)	2075
311222

Vegetable Oil Mills, Except Corn, Cottonseed, and Soybean (oilseed
processing)	2076	311223

Vegetable Oil Mills, Except Corn, Cottonseed, and Soybean (processing
purchased vegetable and oilseed oils)	2076	311225

Shortening, Table Oils, Margarine and other Edible Fats and Oil, NEC
(processing vegetable oils, except soybean, into edible cooking oils)
2079	311223

Shortening, Table Oils, Margarine, and Other Edible Fats and Oils, NEC
(except processing vegetable and soybean oils into edible oils)	2079
311225

Shortening, Table Oils, Margarine, and Other Edible Fats and Oils, NEC
(processing soybean oil into edible cooking oils from soybeans crush)
2079	311222

4(b)  Information Requested

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data recorded or reported is required by National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Solvent Extraction
for Vegetable Oil Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGGG).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports

Initial notification	63.9(b) and 63.2860(a)

Notification and application of construction and reconstruction	63.5(d)
and 63.2860(b)

Notification of construction commencement	63.5 and 63.2860(b)

Notification of anticipated startup.	63.5(d) and 63.2860(b)

Notification of actual startup	63.6 and 63.2860(b)

Notification of compliance status	63.9(h) and 63.2860(d)

Annual compliance certification	63.2861(a)

Deviation notification report	63.2861(b)

Periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction report	63.10(d)(5)(i) and
63.2861(c)

Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report	63.10(d)(5)(ii) and
63.2861(d)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Solvent, HAP content and oilseed inventory	63.2862(c)

Twelve months compliance ratio	63.2862(d)

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan	63.2862(b)

Plan for demonstrating compliance	63.2862(b)

Electronic Reporting

Some of the respondents are using monitoring equipment that
automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the
affected facility must still evaluate the data, internal automation has
significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and
recordkeeping at a plant site.

Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents continue
to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However,
electronic reporting systems are still not widely used.  At this time,
it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use
electronic reporting.

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate solvent extraction for
vegetable oil production processor.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 311.

Develop plan for demonstrating compliance.

Develop startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.

Write the notification and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way e.g., continuous parameter monitoring
system.  Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the
data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the
burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

Agency Activities

Review notifications and reports, including periodic SSM report,
deviation notification report, and immediate SSM report, required to be
submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Online Tracking Information
System (OTIS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect
the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operational.  Performance test reports are used
by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with
the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which
compliance was achieved.  Data and records maintained by the respondents
are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement
programs.

Information contained in the reports is entered into OTIS which is
operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  OTIS is the
EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of
compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and
government-owned facilities.  EPA uses OTIS for tracking air pollution
compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA
regional offices, and EPA headquarters.  EPA-delegated Authorities can
edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or
operator for five years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

The majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large
businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small
businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the
regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process
operations and the types of control equipment employed, the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and
large entities.  The Agency considers these to be the minimum
requirements needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce
them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses
can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden
will be reduced.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NESHAP for
Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
GGGG).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed
under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept
of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Wherever appropriate,
specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to
this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB Control Number.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 39,385
(Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency
studies and background documents from the development of the regulation,
Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously
approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

	This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial 	$95.32   ($45.39 + 110%)

Technical	$64.60   ($30.76 + 110%)

Clerical	$40.09   ($19.09 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, December 2003, “Table 10. Private industry, by
occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1,
“Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent
to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by
private industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

	The only costs to the regulated industry resulting from information
collection activities required by the subject standard are labor costs.
There are no capital/startup or operation and maintenance costs.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

The only type of industry costs associated with the information
collection activity in the regulations is labor costs.  There are no
capital/startup or operation and maintenance costs.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of
the reported information.  The EPA compliance and enforcement program
includes activities such as: the examination of records maintained by
the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the
publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $152,476.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial	$54.66   (GS-13, Step 5, $34.16 + 60%)

Technical	$40.56   (GS-12, Step 1, $25.35 + 60%)

Clerical	$21.95   (GS-6, Step 3, $13.72 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 2004
General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates have
been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages
available to government employees.  Details upon which this estimate is
based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NESHAP for Solvent
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGGG),
below.

6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three
years, approximately one hundred and one respondents will be subject to
the standard.  It is estimated that one reconstructed sources per year
will become subject in the next three years.  The overall average number
of respondents, as shown in the table below is 101 per year.

	The number of respondents is calculated using the following table which
addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents 1	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	1	101	0	1	101

2	1	101	0	1	101

3	1	101	0	1	101

Average	1	101	0	1	101

1 New respondent include sources with constructed, reconstructed and
modified affected facilities.  In this standard existing respondents
submit initial notifications.

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown
above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of
this ICR is one hundred and one.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Application of construction/reconstruction	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of commencement of construction/reconstruction	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of anticipated startup	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of actual startup	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of compliance status	101	1	N/A	101

Annual compliance certification	101	1	N/A	101

Periodic SSM report	5	1	N/A	5

Immediate SSM report	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of deviation report	1	1	N/A	1

	Total	213

The number of Total Annual Responses is 213.

The total annual labor costs are $2,512,947.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost -
NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (40 CFR Part
63, Subpart GGGG), below.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
and summarized below.

(i)  Respondent Tally

The total annual labor costs are $2,512,947.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost:
NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (40 CFR Part
63, Subpart GGGG) below.  Furthermore, the annual public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to
average 185 hours per response.

The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity
are $0.

(ii)  The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is
estimated to be 3,855 labor hours at a cost of $152,476.  See Table 2.
Annual Agency Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for
Vegetable Oil Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGGG) below.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in the labor hours or cost in the ICR compared to the
previous ICR.  This is due to two considerations.  First, the
regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years.  Secondly, the growth
rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is
no significant change in the overall burden.

Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is
no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the
previous ICR are used in this ICR, and there is no change in burden to
industry.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 185 hours per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA regulations are listed
at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0059.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"
http://www.regulations.gov/  which may be used to obtain a copy of the
draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the content of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When
in the system, select “search” than key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.  The documents are also available for
public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information
Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0059 and OMB Control Number
2060-0471 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NESHAP for Solvent
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGGG)

Burden item	(A)

Person hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year	(C)

Person hours per respondent per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Respondents per year  	(E)

Technical person- hours per year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management person hours per year

(Ex0.05)	(G)

Clerical person hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Cost, $  a

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Reporting requirements

     A.  Read instructions b 	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	$0

  B.  Required activities b

         Develop plans for demonstrating

         compliance b	80	1	80	0	0	0	0	$0

         Develop SSM plan b, c	100	1	100	0	0	0	0	$0

  C.  Create information	N/A

	  D.  Gather existing information	 See 4E

	  E.  Write Report

           Initial notification of intent to

           construct/reconstruction b
      	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

           Application for construction/

           reconstruction d 	8	1	8	1	8	0.4	0.8	$587.00

           Notification of commencement of

           construction/reconstruction d	8	1	8	1	8	0.4	0.8	$587.00

           Notification of anticipated startup d	8	1	8	1	8	0.4	0.8
$587.00

           Notification of actual startup d	8	1	8	1	8	0.4	0.8	$587.00

           Notification of compliance status e	24	1	24	101	2,424	121.2
242.4	$177.861.00

           Annual compliance certification e	24	1	24	101	2,424	121.2
242.4	$177,861.00

           Periodic startup, shutdown, malfunction

           report f	24	1	24	5	120	6	12	$8,805.00

           Immediate startup, shutdown

           malfunction report d, g	8	1	8	1	8	0.4	0.8	$587.00

           Notification of deviation report d, i	8	1	8	1	8	0.4	0.8
$587.00

4.  Recordkeeping requirements

     A.  Read instructions 	See 3A

	     B.  Develop record system	N/A

	     C.  Time to enter information

          Solvent inventory e, h	8	12	96	101	9,696	484.8	969.6
$711,444.00

          HAP content of solvent e, h	8	12	96	101	9,696	484.8	969.6
$711,444.00

          Oilseed inventory e, h	8	12	96	101	9,696	484.8	969.6
$711,444.00

    D.  Record startup, shutdown, malfunction

          activities j	12	12	144	1	144	7.2	14.4	$10,566.00

    E.  Time to train personnel b	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

     J.  Time for audits	N/A

	Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	34,248	1,712.4	3,424.8	$2,512,947.00

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	39,385.2

39,385 (rounded)	$2,512,947

Assumptions:

a  This ICR uses the following labor rates: $95.32 per hour for
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $64.60 per hour for
Technical labor, and $40.09 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates
are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, December, 2003, (Table 10. Private industry, by occupational
and industry group.(

b  We have assume that there will be no new growth over the three-year
period of this ICR.

c  We have assumed that it will take one hundred hours to develop a
startup, shutdown, malfunction plan.

d  We have assumed that one existing facility will be reconstructed each
year over the next three years.

e  We have assumed that there are approximately 101 sources that are
subject to the standard.

f  We have assumed that five percent of sources will submit a periodic
SSM report.

g  It is estimated that one source will submit an immediate SSM report.

h  We have assumed that  it will take eight hours once per month for
data to be recorded.

i  We have assumed that one source will submit a notification of
deviation report each year.

j  We have estimated that it will take twelve hours to record startup,
shutdown, and malfunction activities.	Table 2:  Average Annual EPA
Burden - NESHAP for Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart GGGG)

Activity	(A)

EPA person- hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per plant per year	(C)

EPA person- hours per plant per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Plants per year  	(E)

Technical person- hours per year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management person-hours per year

(Ex0.05)

	(G)

Clerical person-hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Cost, $ a

Activity

Report review

   Initial notification b	8	1	8	0	0	0	0	$0

   Review approve construction/reconstruction

   application c	24	1	24	1	24	1.2	2.4	$1,091.71

   Notification of construction/reconstruction c	24	1	24	1	24	1.2	2.4
$1,091.71

   Notification to begin construction c	4	1	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	$181.95

   Notification of anticipated startup c	4	1	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	$181.95

   Notification of actual startup c	4	1	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	$181.95

   Review of compliance status d	16	1	16	101	1,616	80.8	161.6	$73,508.61

   Review of annual compliance certification d	16	1	16	101	1,616	80.8
161.6	$73,508.61

   Review of periodic startup, shutdown,

   malfunction reports e	8	1	8	5	40	2	4	$1,819.52

   Review of immediate SSM report f, g	16	1	16	1	16	0.8	1.6	$727.81

   Review of deviation report h, i	4	1	4	1	4	0.2	0.4	$181.95

   Review compliance plans	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

   Review SSM plans	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	3,352	167.6	335.2	$152,475.77

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	3,854.8

3,855 (rounded)	$152,476

 	Assumptions:

a  This cost is based on the following hourly labor rates times a 1.6
benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead
expenses: $54.66 for Managerial (GS-13, Step 5, $34.16 x 1.6), $40.56
for Technical (GS-12, Step 1, $25.35 x 1.6) and $21.95 Clerical (GS-6,
Step 3, $13.72 x 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) (2004 General Schedule( which excludes locality rates
of pay.

b  We have assumed that there will be no new growth in the industry over
the next three years.

c  We have assumed that one existing facility will be reconstructed each
year over the next three years.

d  We have assumed that there are approximately 101 sources that are
subject to the standard.

e  We have assumed that five percent of sources will submit a periodic
SSM report.

f  It is estimated that one of the sources will submit an immediate SSM
report.

g  We have assumed that it will take sixteen hours to review an
immediate SSM report.

h  We have assumed that it will take four hours to review the deviation
report.

       i  We have assumed that one source will submit a notification of
deviation report each year.

 PAGE

 PAGE   17

 PAGE


 Deliberative, Pre Decisional, Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute Page 1 DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY Phase III Cooling Water Intake Structure Outreach Meeting for Small Entities March 16, 2004 Meeting Participants:

Small Entity Representatives: David G. Borland, City of Dover ( Dover Light & Power) Bob Crye, Richmond Power and Light Maria Ikelberger (?) Meg McCarthy, American Forest and Paper Association Eveleen Muehlethaler, Port Townsend Paper Corp. Teresa Pugh, American Power Producers Association ( APPA)

U. S. EPA: Ghulam Ali, EPA Office of Water ( OW) Alex Cristofaro, EPA Small Business Advocacy Chair, Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation ( OPEI) George Denning, EPA EAD Patrick Easter, EPA OPEI John Fox, Phase III Rulemaking Manager, EPA Engineering and Analysis Division ( EAD) Mindy Gampel, EPA OPEI Pooja Parikh, EPA Office of General Counsel ( OGC) Paul Shriner, EPA OW Mary Smith, Division Director, EPA EAD Other Participants: Elicia Blumberg, Tetra Tech Incorporated ( EPA contractor) Joseph Johnson, Office of Advocacy, U. S. Small Business Administration ( SBA) Jim Leity, OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ( OIRA) Thomas Sullivan, Office of Advocacy, SBA Welcome and Introductions/ Words from the SBREFA Panel Chair: ( Alex Christofaro, EPA Small Business Advocacy Chair, Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation)

Mr. Christofaro welcomed everyone to the meeting, and invited everyone to introduce him or herself. He first explained that the purpose of today's meeting was to get information from small entities before EPA drafts the Phase III rule, so that EPA would be able to take their concerns and information into account. He emphasized that small entities would be invited to comment during the normal rulemaking process following the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) process. Mr. Christofaro stated that EPA, OMB and SBA would prepare a report based upon Deliberative, Pre Decisional, Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute Page 2 information received from participants and make a recommendation to the EPA Administrator within 60 days following the meeting. The Administrator would then consider the input as the rule was developed. In addition, EPA will issue a proposal ( available to the public), and small entity representatives ( SERs) would be welcome to comment again for EPA's consideration. Participants must submit any comments that they would like to see included in the memo to the Administrator by March 30, 2004.

Thomas Sullivan ( SBA) thanked the participants for taking the time to help the government " get it right." In the past three years, $ 31 billion has been saved through the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act, in part because of engaged and involved small businesses. The Final Rule for 316( b) Phase III will reflect the concerns of those entities.

Overview of Outreach Materials ( John Fox, Phase III Rulemaking Manager, EPA Engineering and Analysis Division ( EAD))

John Fox briefly reviewed the materials that were sent to participants since the last Outreach Meeting:

A description of the Final Phase II rule;

A set of sample costs for various kinds of control technologies as well as permitting costs, based upon the Phase II requirements ( these costs did not take into account regulatory options being considered for Phase III);

A list of possible regulatory alternatives for Phase III; and

A list of detailed questions for SERs' consideration.

Question and Answer Session/ Comments from Small Entity Representatives: ( John Fox called on participants in alphabetical order by first name).

Bob Crye, Richmond Power and Light, explained that they are a small utility ( approximately 40 staff), and lack an environmental department. As such, Bob anticipates having to outsource design and engineering work, which would mean an extra expense. Another concern is the reliability of intakes: with the current configuration, seasonal rain can cause shutdowns. Mr. Crye also expressed concern related to overall costs potentially associated with the Phase III rule. In response to Patrick Easter's question on whether the costs presented in the outreach materials looked high or low, Mr. Crye responded that he believed they may be high, but could not be certain as his utility had never conducted studies or gotten price quotes. In answer to questions from John Fox and Jim Leity, Bob described the current intake configuration: stationary screens located in the center of Whitewater River [ name correct?], at a depth of 4 feet in the middle of the water column, and extending 3 feet up. The intake is located 15 feet from the shoreline. The design intake capacity of the intake is less than 2 million gallons per day ( MGD), probably 0.8 MGD. The facility does experience problems with clogging by leaves following rainy periods. Deliberative, Pre Decisional, Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute Page 3 David Borland, Dover Light & Power, said that he agreed with Mr. Crye's statements and emphasized that his staff is even smaller than that of Richmond Power and Light. The design intake flow for Dover's facility is 17.75 MGD, and is also a river intake ( the Tuscarawas River in Ohio). Mr. Borland described the intake as having trash racks and two traveling screens behind the racks. Like Mr. Crye, Mr. Borland anticipated that Dover would have to outsource the plant study for any modifications to the intake structure, and that it would be expensive to do so. David described the shoreline intake as having a channel alongside the riverbank to direct water into the intake structure. Dover experiences problems with clogging by leaves in the fall. The facility conducted a fish kill study in January 1989 as part of their NPDES permit application, and found that the majority of fish were found during two days of extremely low temperatures. Mr. Borland therefore attributed the fish kills to the weather as opposed to the plant. The study looked at adult fish only, not fish eggs or larvae. Mr. Borland added that he believes the Dover plant will not require entrainment controls, as the intake flow is less than 5% of the mean annual river flow. When asked the facility's estimated percentage of the mean annual river flow, Mr. Borland stated that he thought about 2%. He added that he anticipates any changes to the intake structure will exacerbate the leaf issue in the fall, particularly if the changes reduced intake velocity. He has not yet spoken with any engineers on the issue. Both Bob Crye and David Borland agree that the regulations should be tailored to fit the needs of the individual facilities. Jim Leity asked whether the intake configuration was designed for preventing the intrusion of leaves or fish; Mr. Borland replied that the plant was built in the 1940s, and probably designed to keep leaves out though a side benefit of the design is that fish must swim up a 100 foot channel to get into the intake. This design probably minimizes the entry of fish into the intake. John Fox asked about the number of pumps. David answered that there are three pumps but only two are run at any time, as the third is a backup. The flows reported for the facility were for two pumps running, not three. Eveleen Muehlethaler, Port Townsend Paper Corporation, asked for clarification from EPA on the term design intake capacity. For example, she said, their facility has four pumps, but two of those are backups. If you run all four, the intake would be 11 MGD, though normally only one or two pumps are run, which changes that number significantly.

Jim Leity explained that in the Phase II rule, much discretion was left to the permitting authorities to determine design intake flow ( DIF). As such, a facility may not have to determine DIF as the intake with all pumps running if that's not the normal operation of the facility. Mary Smith, Division Director, EPA EAD, added that she was not certain if that was the case. John Fox added that this issue should be clarified. Jim Leity stated that he thought the Phase II rule was set up as he described.

Eveleen Muehlethaler, Port Townsend Paper Corporation, described her facility. It is a paper mill with 315 staff ( including six environmental staff) on site. The cooling water intake structure was constructed in the late 1920s or early 1930s as part of the original mill design. There are four pumps, but is a one two pump system. Because they don't have a flow meter, Eveleen had to refer to pump curves in order to answer the flow questions on the survey. They considered all four pumps and determined that the DIF was 11 MGD. Ms. Muehlethaler pleaded for a simple approach to the rule. The Deliberative, Pre Decisional, Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute Page 4 preferred approach would be an acknowledged technology that could be considered best professional judgment ( BPJ) for their facility. She added that any biological or dredging assessments would be outsourced, each costing an estimated $ 20,000. Therefore, Eveleen prefers to choose the right technology for the plant and not spend additional money on monitoring and reporting. Ms. Muehlethaler is also interested in the de minimis approach; for example, setting the threshold for being in scope at 20 MGD. She added that the facility is located on a saltwater body at the northern edge of Washington State, and has a near shore crude intake design. Eveleen has not seen major debris loading they clean the crib area of the intake approximately once every 8 years. She reiterated that EPA should clarify whether DIF would be based on actual use or capacity. Regarding the permit writers using BPJ, Eveleen generally supports the idea though she is wary of overzealous permit writers. Finally she had a generally question regarding when impingement controls would be required as opposed to both impingement and entrainment controls. Port Townsend, as an ocean intake, is labeled as needing both types of controls and Eveleen does not understand why this should be the case.

Jim Leity answered her last question. In the Phase II rule, there was a judgment made that facilities located on estuaries and oceans must have entrainment controls because there water bodies ( and especially estuaries) are highly productive during spawning seasons. However, he added, there is no reason to think that this automatically applies, as the Phase II rule regulated very high flow facilities ( greater than 50 MGD), and Port Townsend has a much lower intake flow. Eveleen emphasized that her facility actually uses between 1.5 and 2 MGD, and is not an estuarine intake.

Jim Leity responded to Eveleen's concern regarding the overzealous permit writers. He explained that under the Clean Water Act, States may always have more stringent standards than national standards, and that only Congress could change this. If EPA issues national standard, this will provide a default for permit writers, who might otherwise just go out independently. Jim asked Eveleen whether she preferred the current status ( permit writers determining independently) to national standards. Eveleen answered that she preferred a blend: guidelines provided by EPA to present acceptable technologies would be her first choice. Jim Leity reiterated that Eveleen supports having guidance from EPA but no national standards, and Eveleen replied that either the guidance or the de minimis approach would be preferred. Mary Smith asked whether Port Townsend had current protective technologies on the intakes; Eveleen answered that the structure is unchanged from the last century, and consists of r screens at the intake crib spaced 0.5 inches apart ( a coarse screening process). Mary also asked whether the 1.5 2 MGD figure referred to DIF or actual intake. Eveleen replied that that was a question of definition: with four pumps it was 11 MGD, but with typical operation, only up to 2 MGD. Jim Leity asked if there were any records that showed daily use; Ms. Muehlethaler answered that there were not because the facility lacked a direct flow meter. Jim asked if it would be problematic for Eveleen's facility if the rule threshold were based upon average intake of 2 MGD; she replied that they would need to purchase monitoring equipment. The flows as reported are calculated flows. Mindy Gampel, EPA OPEI, asked if the facility reused cooling water for processes. Eveleen explained that Deliberative, Pre Decisional, Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute Page 5 some water is used in the condensation process ( cooling of process equipment), so she would need clarification on what constituted cooling water.

Maria Ikelberger, North American Stainless, expressed concerned about the variability within states in determining what was " reasonable" for a facility. Her facility is located on the Ohio River and has a maximum permitted intake of 8 MGD. Ms. Ikelberger asked about the role of cost analyses in Phase III. John Fox answered that cost analyses were used as part of one of the options in the Phase II final rule. Maria also expressed concern about consistency among permit writers, that some may be stricter than others. Jim Leity replied that this was similar to the concerns expressed by Eveleen, and explained that inconsistency among and within States was due in part to the lack of Federal regulations. Maria asked if EPA had a minimum cost in mind. Jim Leity answered that if EPA promulgates national requirements for Phase III, there may be a variance for costs based on cost cost tests as seen in Phase II. This may or may not be the case for Phase III. Ms. Ikelberger suggested that it might be beneficial to increase the de minimis threshold to help small businesses. Jim answered that one number that is currently circulating is 20 MGD, which would put North American Stainless out of scope. This would not mean that the State could not set requirements for you, as EPA cannot put a ceiling on what States do. John Fox added that under 316( b) today, States are setting case by case requirements, so what Maria is required to do now without Federal regulations may be indicative of what her State will do in the future. John added that his personal feeling was that States often don't have the time or resources to do more.

Eveleen agreed that if a national standard were available, States would often use it as a default. She wanted to know if States were aware that Phase III facilities were smaller than Phase II facilities. Mary Smith mentioned that some Phase III facilities are actually quite large, and utilize far more than 50 MGD.

Jim Leity wished to know if Eveleen and Maria had cooling water requirements in their NPDES permits. Eveleen did not, aside from monitoring flow; Maria only had to monitor the temperature of the discharge. Jim concluded that without national requirements, the States did not do anything to regulate intake flow. Mary Smith added that some States, however, were more aggressive, and wanted to know if the flows for either facility exceeded the 5% threshold for mean annual flow of the rivers. The answers were no in both cases.

Meg McCarthy, American Forest and Paper Association, agreed with Eveleen. She also wanted to know whether the rule would cover facilities or intake structures. Jim Leity answered that under Phase II, the determination of whether you would be covered by the rule was done on a facility wide basis. The intakes of all intake structures were added to see if the 50 MGD and 25% thresholds were met. There was a provision that if a facility had different structures that served separate units, this would be a capacity or peaking facility issue, and such a configuration could bring less stringent requirements. In Phase III, this may not apply, so the rule would probably be facility wide. John Fox asked if Meg's facility had different intakes solely dedicated to different processes. Ms. McCarthy answered that she was not sure, but wanted to know if the de minimis Deliberative, Pre Decisional, Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute Page 6 determination would apply to the intake or to a whole facility. Mr. Leity stated that it was too early to tell for the Phase III rule, but in Phase II the rule was based on the whole facility. He asked Meg if she was aware of the two thresholds in Phase II: the total withdrawal of 50 MGD and the percentage of water used for cooling ( 25%). Jim clarified that if a facility has water that is used as both cooling and process water, it could count as process water. This was not yet decided for Phase III. Jim asked Meg as to whether the water is reused at her facility, and if the 25% threshold would be useful. Meg answered that the 25% provision was useful, though she was not sure of the exact numbers regarding reuse of cooling water use at her facility. Eveleen added that from the pulp and paper standpoint, the 25% threshold was useful, though for her facility it was less relevant because of the saltwater issue.

Conclusions Alex Christofaro asked if there were any further questions. There were none. He added that the SERs can submit written comments by 30 March 2004, close of business. Comments should be addressed to Alex or by email to Patrick Easter. For process questions, call Patrick; for technical questions, call John Fox. EPA will consider the comments when writing the rule. Furthermore, comments already submitted are in the " basket" and part of the permanent record. Anyone who plans to submit additional comments should notify EPA. As a last question, Jim Leity asked if anyone who was on the phone had conducted a fish kill study; none had. The meeting was adjourned.