[Federal Register: November 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 73106]
[DOCID:fr29no10-103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0565]

Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Establishing the Performance Characteristics of In Vitro
Diagnostic Devices for the Detection of Clostridium difficile;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance document entitled ``Establishing the
Performance Characteristics of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for the
Detection of Clostridium difficile.'' This draft guidance document
describes FDA's recommendations concerning 510(k) submissions for
various types of in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) intended to be used
for detecting Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). This draft guidance
is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance
by February 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance document entitled ``Establishing the Performance
Characteristics of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for the Detection of
Clostridium difficile'' to the Division of Small Manufacturers,
International, and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
request, or fax your request to<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the
guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://
www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Lovell, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4435, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    This draft guidance includes recommendations concerning 510(k)
submissions for various types of (IVDs) intended to be used for
detecting C. difficile. The document is a revision of ``Review Criteria
for Assessment of Laboratory Tests Directed at Assisting in the
Diagnosis of C. difficile Associated Disease'' issued on May 31, 1990.
It is updated to include new issues and technologies identified since
the 1990 guidance. Such methods include detection of C. difficile
nucleic acids (e.g., C. difficile toxin B gene by nucleic acid
amplification methods such as the Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
technique).

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized will represent the Agency's current thinking on establishing
the performance characteristics of in vitro diagnostic devices for the
detection of C. difficile. It does not create or confer any rights for
or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance
documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. To receive
``Establishing the Performance Characteristics of In Vitro Diagnostic
Devices for the Detection of Clostridium difficile,'' you may either
send an e-mail request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic
copy of the document or send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER> to receive a
hard copy. Please use the document number 1715 to identify the guidance
you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations and guidance documents. These
collections of information are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part
807 subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120;
the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in
42 CFR section 493.15 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-
0598; the collections of information in 21 CFR section 50.23 have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0586; and the collections of
information in 21 CFR section 56.115 have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0130.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: November 22, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-29794 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 71150]
[DOCID:fr08de06-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-31-000]

Endeavor Power Partners, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

November 30, 2006.
    Endeavor Power Partners, LLC (Endeavor) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The
proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy,
capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Endeavor also
requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular,
Endeavor requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18
CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability by Endeavor.
    On November 29, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the
request for blanket approval under part 34. The Director's order also
stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest
the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Endeavor should file a motion to intervene or protest with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is December 29, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Endeavor is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
Endeavor, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Endeavor's issuance of securities or assumptions
of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-20810 Filed 12-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 Forwarded by Tom Coda/ RTP/ USEPA/ US on 04/ 03/ 2006 03: 26 PM

Tom Coda/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 12/ 21/ 2005 03: 49 PM T o aflynn@ omb. eop. gov c c Stonefield. Dave@ epamail. e pa. gov@ EPA, Tom Helms/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EP A, Kimber Scavo/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EP A S u b j e c t General Conformity De Minimis Rule for PM2.5 Amy,

Thanks for your time today. Here is an informal copy of the draft proposal. We would like to get it up to OMB around the first week of the new year for an expedited review. Please give me a call if you have any questions.

Tom Coda Ozone Policy and Strategies Group U. S. Environmental Protection Agency OAQPS  C539 02 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 29858]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11276]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2016-0071; FRL-9945-35-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Solid Waste Disposal Facility
Criteria (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1381.11, OMB Control No. 2050-0122)
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through May 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register (81 FR 8956) on February 23, 2016 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2016-0071, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and
Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery, Mail Code 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-
9037; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: In order to effectively implement and enforce final
changes to 40 CFR part 258 on a State level, owners/operators of
municipal solid waste landfills have to comply with the final reporting
and recordkeeping requirements. Respondents include owners or operators
of new municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs), existing MSWLFs, and
lateral expansions of existing MSWLFs. The respondents, in complying
with 40 CFR part 258, are required to record information in the
facility operating record, pursuant to Sec.  258.29, as it becomes
available. The operating record must be supplied to the State as
requested until the end of the post-closure care period of the MSWLF.
The information collected will be used by the State Director to confirm
owner or operator compliance with the regulations under part 258. These
owners or operators could include Federal, State, and local
governments, and private waste management companies.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of MSWLFs;
State, Local, and Tribal governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, see 40 CFR part
258.29.
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,950 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 204,868 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)
    Total estimated cost: $15,255,544 (per year), includes $2,210,853
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 60 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to the increased number of states
adopting the Research, Development, and Demonstration section (Sec.
258.4) since the last renewal.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-11276 Filed 5-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24264-24266]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11200]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0269; FRL-9977-87--Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Maine; Infrastructure Requirement for the 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a February 21, 2018, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maine. This revision addresses the interstate
transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect to the
2010 primary nitrogen dioxide (NO2) National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This action proposes to approve
Maine's demonstration that the State is meeting its obligations
regarding the interstate transport of NO2 emissions into
other states. This action is being taken under the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2018-0269 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available
docket materials are available at www.regulations.gov or at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the contact 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 legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Bird, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100 (Mail Code OEP 05-2),
Boston, MA 01209-3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport
III. State Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On February 9, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-
year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-
hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474. This NAAQS is
designed to protect against exposure to the entire group of nitrogen
oxides (NOX). NO2 is the component of greatest
concern and is used as the indicator for the larger group of
NOX Emissions that lead to the formation of NO2
generally also lead to the formation of other NOX Therefore,
control measures that reduce NO2 can generally be expected
to reduce population exposures to all gaseous NOX which may
have the co-benefit of reducing the formation of ozone and fine
particles, both of which pose significant public health threats.
    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to
submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, or
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.\1\ These SIPs, which
EPA has historically referred to as ``infrastructure SIPs,'' are to
provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of
such NAAQS, and the requirements are designed to ensure that the
structural components of each state's air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. A
detailed history, interpretation, and rationale of these SIPs and their
requirements can be found in, among other documents, EPA's May 13, 2014
proposed rulemaking titled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the
2008 Lead NAAQS,'' in the section ``What is the scope of this
rulemaking?'' See 79 FR 27241 at 27242-45. As noted above, section
110(a) of the CAA imposes an obligation upon states to submit to EPA a
SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS. The content of individual
state submissions may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances,
and may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's approved
SIP already contains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This requirement applies to both primary and secondary
NAAQS, but EPA's approval in this notice applies only to the 2010
primary NAAQS for NO2 because EPA did not revise the
secondary NAAQS for NO2 in 2010. See 75 FR 35521 & n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 7, 2013, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
(ME DEP) submitted for EPA approval revisions to its SIP, certifying
that its SIP meets all but one of the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA with respect to the 2010 primary NO2 NAAQS. The
State did not include in its submittal a certification for the
transport element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On March 26, 2018,
EPA proposed to approve ME DEP's certification that its SIP was
adequate to meet most of the program elements required by section
110(a)(2) of the CAA with the exception of subsection (E) regarding
state boards, for which EPA proposed a conditional approval. See 83 FR
12905.
    On February 21, 2018, ME DEP submitted an analysis addressing the
transport elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
primary NO2 NAAQS.

II. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this section are referred to
as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interference with maintenance of the NAAQS).

III. State Submittal

    Maine presents several facts in its SIP submittal concerning the
current and future impact of in-state NO2 emissions on
nonattainment, and interference with maintenance, of the NO2
NAAQS in another state. The approach used to analyze the effects of
transport for NO2 emissions from Maine consists of three
elements: (1) The fact that all areas in the United States have been
designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 primary
NO2 NAAQS; (2) monitoring data continue to show no
violations of that standard at any monitoring station in New England;
and (3) that major stationary sources of NOX in Maine are
subject to a variety of federally-enforceable regulations (e.g.,
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements
under ME DEP's 06-096 CMR 115, Major and Minor License Regulations and
06-096

CMR Chapter 135, Reasonably Achievable Control Technology for
Facilities that Emit Nitrogen Oxides \2\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA notes that Maine's NOX reasonably available
control technology rule is located at 06-096 CMR Chapter 138, not
06-096 CMR Chapter 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to these facts, Maine asserts that the State does not
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NO2 NAAQS in another state nor will new sources of
NO2 emissions in Maine have such an impact in other states.
Furthermore, Maine notes that statewide NOX emissions have
declined from 95,471 tons per year in 2000 to 45,214 tons per year in
2016. ME DEP expects the downward trend to continue as both stationary
and mobile sources continue to advance NOX controls.

IV. EPA's Evaluation

    EPA evaluated Maine's analysis as contained in the State's February
21, 2018, infrastructure SIP submittal concerning interstate transport
of NO2 emissions as it pertains to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 primary NO2 NAAQS.\3\ With
respect to designations of the 2010 primary NO2 NAAQS, Maine
correctly asserts that the entire country is designated unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532 (February
17, 2012). Those designations are based on three-year design values \4\
for the 2008-2010 time period that showed that all ambient air quality
monitoring stations monitoring for NO2 in the United States
met the NAAQS. The most recent three-year design value period, spanning
2014-2016, indicate continued attainment of the 2010 primary
NO2 NAAQS at all NO2 monitoring stations in the
country.\5\ Furthermore, measurements from the most recent three-year
design value period showed that all ambient air quality monitoring
sites in Maine and the other New England states were well below the
standard at no more than 54% of the NO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA notes that the evaluation of other states' satisfaction
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS can
be informed by similar factors found in this proposed rulemaking,
but may not be identical to the approach taken in this or any future
rulemaking for Maine and depends on available information and state-
specific circumstances.
    \4\ A ``design value'' is a statistic that describes the air
quality status of a given location relative to the level of the
NAAQS. The interpretation of the 2010 primary NO2 NAAQS
(set at 100 ppb) including the data handling conventions and
calculations necessary for determining compliance with the NAAQS can
be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.
    \5\ See www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values for
NO2 design values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ME DEP has an EPA-approved PSD permitting program and its
regulations, found at 06-096 CMR 115, ``Major and Minor License
Regulations,'' contain appropriate measures to address NOX
emissions from major new and modified stationary sources in the State.
Similarly, 06-096 CMR Chapter 138, ``Reasonably Achievable Control
Technology for Facilities that Emit Nitrogen Oxides,'' are EPA-approved
regulations that apply to major existing stationary sources of
NOX in Maine. For these reasons, EPA proposes that Maine
does not significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere
with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2010
NO2 NAAQS and that its SIP contains adequate measures
prohibiting such contribution or interference.

V. Proposed Action

    In light of the above evaluation, EPA is proposing to approve
Maine's February 21, 2018 infrastructure submittal for the 2010 primary
NO2 NAAQS as it pertains to Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of
the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this notice. These comments will be considered before taking final
action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking
procedure by submitting comments to this proposed rulemaking by
following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action 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);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is 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.);
     Does 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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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 and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 17, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-11200 Filed 5-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8712-8717]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04086]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33031; File No. 812-14766]

Bain Capital Specialty Finance, Inc., et al.

February 23, 2018.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and rule 17d-1
under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited
by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit
business development companies (``BDCs'') to co-invest in portfolio
companies with each other and with affiliated investment funds.
    Applicants: Bain Capital Specialty Finance, Inc. (``BCSF''),
Griffin Institutional Access Credit Fund; BCSF Advisors, LP
(``BCSFA''), on behalf of itself and its successors; \1\ Griffin
Capital Credit Advisor, LLC (``GIACF''); Bain Capital Credit, LP
(``Bain''), Bain Capital Credit (Australia), Pty. Ltd, Bain Capital
Credit (Asia), LLC, Bain Capital Investments (Europe) Ltd, Bain Capital
Credit, Ltd., Bain Capital Credit CLO Advisors, LP (together with
BCSFA, the ``Existing Bain Advisers''), on behalf of themselves and
their successors; Avery Point II CLO, Ltd, Avery Point III CLO, Ltd,
Avery Point IV CLO, Ltd, Avery Point V CLO, Ltd, Avery Point VI CLO,
Ltd, Newhaven II CLO, Designated Activity Co, Race Point IX CLO, Ltd,
Race Point X CLO, Ltd, Race Point V CLO, Ltd, Race Point VI CLO, Ltd,
Race Point VII CLO, Ltd, Race Point VIII CLO, Ltd, Bain Capital CLO
Partners, L.P., Sankaty Credit Opportunities (Offshore Master) IV, LP,
Sankaty Credit Opportunities II, LP, Sankaty Credit Opportunities III,
LP, Sankaty Credit Opportunities IV, LP, Bain Capital Distressed &
Special Situations 2013 (AIV I), L.P., Bain Capital Distressed &
Special Situations 2013 (AIV II Master), L.P., Bain Capital Distressed
& Special Situations 2013 (A), L.P., Bain Capital Distressed & Special
Situations 2013 (A2 Master), L.P., Bain Capital Distressed & Special
Situations 2013 (B), L.P., Bain Capital Direct Lending 2015 (L), L.P.,
SDLF (L-A), LLC, Bain Capital Direct Lending 2015 (U), L.P., Bain
Capital Distressed & Special Situations 2013 (D), L.P., Bain Capital
High Income Feeder II, L.P., Bain Capital High Income Feeder, Ltd.,
Bain Capital High Income Partnership, L.P., Bain Capital Credit Managed
Account (CalPERS), L.P., Bain Capital Credit Managed Account (E), L.P.,
Bain Capital Credit Managed Account (Newport Mobile), L.P., Bain
Capital Credit Managed Account (NZSF), L.P., Bain Capital Credit
Managed Account (PSERS), L.P., Bain Capital Credit Managed Account
(TCCC), L.P., Bain Capital Credit Managed Account (UCAL), L.P., Bain
Capital Middle Market Credit 2010 (Offshore II Master), L.P., Bain
Capital Middle Market Credit 2010 (Offshore Master), L.P., Bain Capital
Middle Market Credit 2014, L.P., Bain Capital Middle Market Credit 2014
(A Master), L.P., Bain Capital Middle Market Credit 2014 (F), L.P.,
Bain Capital Middle Market Credit 2010, L.P., Bain Capital Credit Rio
Grande FMC, L.P., Bain Capital Senior Loan Fund (SRI), L.P., Bain
Capital Senior Loan Fund Public Ltd Co, Bain Capital Senior Loan Fund,
L.P., Warehouse Funding Avery Point VII, LLC, Queenscliff Trust, Bain
Capital Credit Managed Account (CLO), L.P., Cape Schanck Direct Lending
Trust, Bain Capital Distressed & Special Situations 2016 (A), L.P.,
Bain Capital Distressed & Special Situations 2016 (B Master), L.P.,
Bain Capital Distressed & Special Situations 2016 (B), L.P., Bain
Capital Distressed & Special Situations 2016 (EU), L.P., Bain Capital
Distressed & Special Situations 2016 (EU Master), L.P., Bain Capital
Distressed & Special Situations 2016 (F), L.P., Sankaty Credit
Opportunities (F) Europe, L.P., Bain Capital Credit Managed Account
(Blanco), L.P., Bain Capital Credit Managed Account (FSS), L.P., Bain
Capital Structured Credit Fund, L.P., Bain Capital Special Situations
Asia, L.P., Sankaty CLO Opportunities Coinvestment Fund, L.P., Bain
Capital Distressed & Special Situations 2016 (G), L.P., Bain Capital
Credit CLO 2016-2, Ltd, Bain Capital Credit CLO 2017-1, Ltd, Bain
Capital Credit CLO 2017-2, Ltd, Newhaven CLO, Designated Activity Co,
Rye Harbour CLO, Designated Activity Co, Cavalry CLO IV, Ltd., Cavalry
CLO V, LTD., Bain Capital Euro CLO 2017-1, Designated Activity Co, Bain
Capital Euro CLO 2017-2, Designated Activity Co (collectively, the
``Existing Affiliated Funds'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``successor,'' as applied to each Adviser (defined
below), means an entity that results from a reorganization into
another jurisdiction or change in the type of business organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Filing Dates: The application was filed on April 20, 2017 and
amended on October 4, 2017 and February 20, 2018.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief 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
March 20, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
St. NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Mr. Ranesh Ramanathan,
Esq., General Counsel, Bain Capital Credit, LP, 200 Clarendon Street,
37th Floor, Boston, MA, 02116; Mr. Howard S. Hirsch, Esq., Vice
President and Secretary, Griffin Capital Credit Advisor, LLC, Griffin
Capital Plaza, 1520 E. Grand Avenue, El Segundo, CA 90245.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth G. Miller, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Assistant Chief Counsel, at
(202) 551-6825 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment
Management).

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 for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Applicants' Representations:
    1. BCSF is a Delaware corporation organized as a closed-end
management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC
under Section 54(a) of the Act.\2\ BCSF's Objectives and Strategies \3\
are to provide risk-adjusted returns and current income to investors.
BCSF invests primarily in middle-market companies with between $10
million and $150 million in annual earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization. BCSF intends to focus on senior
investments with a first or second lien on collateral and strong
structures and documentation intended to protect the lender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 2(a)(48) defines a BDC to be any closed-end
investment company that operates for the purpose of making
investments in securities described in sections 55(a)(1) through
55(a)(3) of the Act and makes available significant managerial
assistance with respect to the issuers of such securities.
    \3\ ``Objectives and Strategies'' means a Regulated Fund's
investment objectives and strategies, as described in the Regulated
Fund's registration statement on Form 10, other filings the
Regulated Fund has made with the Commission under the Securities Act
of 1933 (the ``Securities Act''), or under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the Regulated Fund's reports to shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. GIACF is a Delaware statutory trust organized as a closed-end
investment management company that has elected to operate as an
interval fund pursuant to Rule 23c-3 under the Act. GIACF's Objectives
and Strategies are to generate a return comprised of both current
income and capital appreciation with an emphasis on current income with
low volatility and low correlation to the broader markets. GIACF
pursues its investment objective by investing primarily in secured debt
(including senior secured, unitranche and second lien debt) and
unsecured debt (including senior unsecured and subordinated debt)
issued by private or public U.S. companies. GIACF's portfolio will
consist of a core of syndicated high yield bonds and bank loans.
    3. The board of directors of each of BCSF and GIACF (the ``Board'')
\4\ is comprised of five directors, three of whom are not ``interested
persons,'' within the meaning of Section 2(a)(19) of the Act (the
``Non-Interested Directors'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Board'' refers to the board of directors or
trustees of any Regulated Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. BCSFA is registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act''). BCSFA serves as
investment adviser to BCSF and sub-adviser to GIACF. It is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Bain.
    5. Griffin is registered an investment adviser under the Advisers
Act. Griffin serves as investment adviser to GIACF. Griffin is an
indirect majority-owned subsidiary of Griffin Capital Company, LLC.
    6. Bain is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers
Act. Bain serves as investment adviser to certain Existing Affiliated
Funds and either it or another Bain Adviser will serve as the
investment adviser to any Future Affiliated Funds (defined below).
    7. Bain Capital Credit (Australia), Pty. Ltd., an Australian
proprietary company formed in 2012, is authorized and regulated by the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission. It is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bain.
    8. Bain Capital Investments (Europe), Limited, a United Kingdom
private limited company formed in 2014, and Bain Capital Credit, Ltd.,
a United Kingdom private limited company formed in 2005, are authorized
and regulated by the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority. Bain Capital
Investments (Europe) Limited is a subsidiary of Bain Capital, LP. Bain
Capital Credit, Ltd. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bain.
    9. Bain Capital Credit Asia, LLC is a limited liability company
organized in the State of Delaware in 2014 that has been registered in
Hong Kong under the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance. It is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bain.
    10. Bain Capital Credit CLO Advisors, LP is a limited partnership
organized in the State of Delaware and is registered with the
Commission under the Advisers Act. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Bain.
    11. Applicants state that the Bain Advisers and the Griffin
Advisers are not affiliated persons, or affiliated persons of
affiliated persons (as defined in the Act), except for the affiliation
that arises as a result of serving as the advisers of any Regulated
Fund that is advised by a Griffin Adviser and sub-advised by a Bain
Adviser.
    12. As Bain Capital, LP controls Bain, and will control any other
Bain Adviser, it may be deemed to control the Regulated Funds and the
Affiliated Funds. Applicants state that Bain Capital, LP is a holding
company and does not currently offer investment advisory services to
any person and is not expected to do so in the future. Applicants state
that as a result, Bain Capital, LP has not been included as an
Applicant.
    13. Applicants seek an order (``Order'') to permit a Regulated Fund
\5\ and one or more Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds
\6\ to participate in the same investment opportunities through a
proposed co-investment program (the ``Co-

Investment Program'') where such participation would otherwise be
prohibited under section 57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1 by (a) co-investing
with each other in securities issued by issuers in private placement
transactions in which an Adviser \7\ negotiates terms in addition to
price; \8\ and (b) making additional investments in securities of such
issuers, including through the exercise of warrants, conversion
privileges, and other rights to purchase securities of the issuers
(``Follow-On Investments''). ``Co-Investment Transaction'' means any
transaction in which a Regulated Fund (or its Wholly-Owned Investment
Sub, as defined below) participated together with one or more other
Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds in reliance on the
requested Order. ``Potential Co-Investment Transaction'' means any
investment opportunity in which a Regulated Fund (or its Wholly-Owned
Investment Sub, as defined below) could not participate together with
one or more Affiliated Funds and/or one or more other Regulated Funds
without obtaining and relying on the Order.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Regulated Fund'' means Existing Regulated Funds and any
Future Regulated Fund. ``Future Regulated Fund'' means any closed-
end management investment company (a) that is registered under the
Act or has elected to be regulated as a BDC, (b)(i) whose investment
adviser is a Bain Adviser or (ii) whose investment adviser is a
Griffin Adviser and whose sub-adviser is a Bain Adviser, and (c)
that intends to participate in the Co-Investment Program.
    The term ``Adviser'' means any Bain Adviser or Griffin Adviser.
The term ``Bain Adviser'' means any Existing Bain Adviser and any
future investment adviser that (i) controls, is controlled by or is
under common control with Bain Capital, LP, and (ii) is registered
as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act and (iii) is not a
Regulated Fund or a subsidiary of a Regulated Fund.
    \6\ ``Affiliated Fund'' means the Existing Affiliated Funds and
any Future Affiliated Fund. ``Future Affiliated Fund'' means any
entity (a) whose investment adviser is a Bain Adviser, (b) that
would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of
the Act, and (c) that intends to participate in the Co-Investment
Program.
    \7\ The term ``Adviser'' means any Bain Adviser or Griffin
Adviser.
    \8\ The term ``private placement transactions'' means
transactions in which the offer and sale of securities by the issuer
are exempt from registration under the Securities Act.
    \9\ All existing entities that currently intend to rely upon the
requested Order have been named as applicants. Any other existing or
future entity that subsequently relies on the Order will comply with
the terms and conditions of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time,
form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.\10\ Such a subsidiary
would be prohibited from investing in a Co-Investment Transaction with
any Affiliated Fund or Regulated Fund because it would be a company
controlled by its parent Regulated Fund for purposes of section
57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1. Applicants request that each Wholly-Owned
Investment Sub be permitted to participate in Co-Investment
Transactions in lieu of its parent Regulated Fund and that the Wholly-
Owned Investment Sub's participation in any such transaction be
treated, for purposes of the requested Order, as though the parent
Regulated Fund were participating directly. Applicants represent that
this treatment is justified because a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub would
have no purpose other than serving as a holding vehicle for the
Regulated Fund's investments and, therefore, no conflicts of interest
could arise between the Regulated Fund and the Wholly-Owned Investment
Sub. The Regulated Fund's Board would make all relevant determinations
under the conditions with regard to a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub's
participation in a Co-Investment Transaction, and the Regulated Fund's
Board would be informed of, and take into consideration, any proposed
use of a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub in the Regulated Fund's place. If
the Regulated Fund proposes to participate in the same Co-Investment
Transaction with any of its Wholly-Owned Investment Subs, the Board
will also be informed of, and take into consideration, the relative
participation of the Regulated Fund and the Wholly-Owned Investment
Sub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``Wholly-Owned Investment Sub'' means an entity
(i) that is wholly-owned by a Regulated Fund (with the Regulated
Fund at all times holding, beneficially and of record, 100% of the
voting and economic interests); (ii) whose sole business purpose is
to hold one or more investments on behalf of the Regulated Fund;
(iii) with respect to which the Regulated Fund's Board has the sole
authority to make all determinations with respect to the entity's
participation under the conditions of the Application; and (iv) that
would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Applicants note that Griffin is responsible for the overall
management of GIACF's activities, and BCSFA is responsible for the day-
to-day management of GIACF's investment portfolio, in each case
consistent with their fiduciary duties. A Griffin Adviser will serve as
the investment adviser to any Regulated Fund with a Bain Adviser as its
sub-adviser. In the case of a Regulated Fund with a Bain Adviser as
sub-adviser, the Bain Adviser will identify and recommend the Potential
Co-Investment Transactions for the Regulated Fund, and the applicable
sub-advisory agreement will require the Bain Adviser to present such
Potential Co-Investment Transaction to the applicable Griffin Adviser,
which will have the authority to approve or reject it for the Regulated
Fund.
    16. When considering Potential Co-Investment Transactions for any
Regulated Fund, the applicable Adviser will consider only the
Objectives and Strategies, investment policies, investment positions,
capital available for investment, and other pertinent factors
applicable to that Regulated Fund. The Regulated Fund Advisers expect
that any portfolio company that is an appropriate investment for a
Regulated Fund should also be an appropriate investment for one or more
other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds, with certain
exceptions based on available capital or diversification.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Regulated Funds, however, will not be obligated to
invest, or co-invest, when investment opportunities are referred to
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Other than pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as
provided in conditions 7 and 8, and after making the determinations
required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the Advisers will present each
Potential Co-Investment Transaction and the proposed allocation to the
directors of the Board eligible to vote under section 57(o) of the Act
(``Eligible Directors''), and the ``required majority,'' as defined in
section 57(o) of the Act (``Required Majority'') \12\ will approve each
Co-Investment Transaction prior to any investment by the participating
Regulated Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In the case of a Regulated Fund that is a registered
closed-end fund, the Board members that make up the Required
Majority will be determined as if the Regulated Fund were a BDC
subject to Section 57(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Applicants state that a Bain Adviser has an investment
committee through which it will carry out its obligation under
condition 1 to make a determination as to the appropriateness of the
Potential Co-Investment Transaction for any Regulated Fund. Applicants
represent that in the case of a Potential Co-Investment Transaction,
the Bain Adviser would apply its allocation policies and procedures in
determining the proposed allocation for the Regulated Fund consistent
with the requirements of condition 2(a). Applicants further note that
each Griffin Adviser and Bain Adviser has adopted its own allocation
policies and procedures that take into account the allocation policies
and procedures for the Regulated Funds. Applicants believe that while
each Bain Adviser client may not participate in each investment
opportunity, over time each Bain Adviser client would participate in
investment opportunities fairly and equitably.
    19. With respect to the pro rata dispositions and Follow-On
Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, a Regulated Fund may
participate in a pro rata disposition or Follow-On Investment without
obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if, among other
things: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and
Affiliated Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding
investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition or
Follow-On Investment, as the case may be; and (ii) the Board of the
Regulated Fund has approved that Regulated Fund's participation in pro
rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as being in the best
interests of the Regulated Fund. If the Board does not so approve, any
such disposition or Follow-On Investment will be submitted to the
Regulated Fund's Eligible Directors. The

Board of any Regulated Fund may at any time rescind, suspend or qualify
its approval of pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments with
the result that all dispositions and/or Follow-On Investments must be
submitted to the Eligible Directors.
    20. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will have a
financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction, other than through
share ownership in one of the Regulated Funds.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 57(a)(4) of the Act prohibits certain affiliated persons
of a BDC from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a
company controlled by a BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by
the Commission. Under section 57(b)(2) of the Act, any person who is
directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with a BDC is subject to section 57(a)(4). Applicants submit
that each of the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds be deemed to be a
person related to each Regulated Fund in a manner described by section
57(b) by virtue of being under common control. In addition, section
57(b) applies to any investment adviser to a Regulated Fund that is a
BDC and to any section 2(a)(3)(C) affiliates of the investment adviser,
including GIACF and the Affiliated Funds. Section 57(i) of the Act
provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section
57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act
applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed
to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the
Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1
also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs.
Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to
Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
    2. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit
affiliated persons of a registered investment company from
participating in joint transactions with the company unless the
Commission has granted an order permitting such transactions. In
passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers
whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is
consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and
the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or
less advantageous than that of other participants.
    3. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief,
the Regulated Funds would be, in some circumstances, limited in their
ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment
opportunities. Applicants believe that the proposed terms and
conditions will ensure that the Co-Investment Transactions are
consistent with the protection of each Regulated Fund's shareholders
and with the purposes intended by the policies and provisions of the
Act. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the
Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions,
policies, and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different
from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
    4. Applicants also represent that if the Advisers, certain
employees and principals of Bain and its affiliated advisers
(collectively, the ``Principals''), any person controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with the Advisers or the Principals, and
the Affiliated Funds (collectively, the ``Holders'') own in the
aggregate more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of
a Regulated Fund (``Shares''), then the Holders will vote such Shares
as required under Condition 14. Applicants believe that this condition
will ensure that the Non-Interested Directors will act independently in
evaluating the Co-Investment Program, because the ability of the
Advisers or the Principals to influence the Non-Interested Directors by
a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Non-Interested Directors
can be removed will be limited significantly. Applicants represent that
the Non-Interested Directors will evaluate and approve any such
independent party, taking into account its qualifications, reputation
for independence, cost to the shareholders, and other factors that they
deem relevant.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following
conditions:
    1. Each time a Bain Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment
Transaction for an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund that falls
within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies, each
Adviser to a Regulated Fund will make an independent determination of
the appropriateness of the investment for such Regulated Fund in light
of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
    2. (a) If each Adviser to a Regulated Fund deems the Regulated
Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be
appropriate for the Regulated Fund, the Adviser (or Advisers if there
are more than one) will then determine an appropriate level of
investment for the Regulated Fund.
    (b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the Adviser (or Advisers
if there are more than one) to a Regulated Fund to be invested by the
Regulated Fund in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, together
with the amount proposed to be invested by the other participating
Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds, collectively, in the same
transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the
amount of the investment opportunity will be allocated among the
Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds pro rata based on each
participant's capital available for investment in the asset class being
allocated, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each. The
Adviser (or Advisers if there are more than one) to a Regulated Fund
will provide the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated
Fund with information concerning each participating party's available
capital to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the
Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these allocation
procedures.
    (c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and
2(a)above, the Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are
more than one) will distribute written information concerning the
Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the amount proposed to
be invested by each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund)
to the Eligible Directors for their consideration. A Regulated Fund
will co-invest with one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or
more Affiliated Funds only if, prior to the Regulated Funds' and
Affiliated Funds' participation in the Potential Co-Investment
Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
    (i) The terms of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including
the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated
Fund and its shareholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of
the Regulated Fund or its shareholders on the part of any person
concerned;
    (ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
    (A) The interests of the Regulated Fund's shareholders; and
    (B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
    (iii) the investment by any other Regulated Funds or Affiliated
Funds would not disadvantage the Regulated

Fund, and participation by the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis
different from or less advantageous than that of any other Regulated
Fund or Affiliated Fund; provided that, if any other Regulated Fund or
Affiliated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to
nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of
directors or the right to have a board observer or any similar right to
participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company,
such event shall not be interpreted to prohibit the Required Majority
from reaching the conclusions required by this condition 2(c)(iii), if:
    (A) The Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the
selection of such director or board observer, if any;
    (B) the Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are
more than one) agrees to, and does, provide periodic reports to the
Regulated Fund's Board with respect to the actions of such director or
the information received by such board observer or obtained through the
exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or
management of the portfolio company; and
    (C) any fees or other compensation that any Affiliated Fund or any
Regulated Fund or any affiliated person of any Affiliated Fund or any
Regulated Fund receives in connection with the right of an Affiliated
Fund or a Regulated Fund to nominate a director or appoint a board
observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of
the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among the
participating Affiliated Funds (who each may, in turn, share its
portion with its affiliated persons) and the participating Regulated
Funds in accordance with the amount of each party's investment; and
    (iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not benefit
the Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more than
one), the Affiliated Funds or the other Regulated Funds or any
affiliated person of any of them (other than the parties to the Co-
Investment Transaction), except (A) to the extent permitted by
condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted by sections 17(e) or 57(k) of
the Act, as applicable, (C) indirectly, as a result of an interest in
the securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-Investment
Transaction, or (D) in the case of fees or other compensation described
in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).
    3. Each Regulated Fund has the right to decline to participate in
any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the
amount proposed.
    4. The Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more
than one) will present to the Board of each Regulated Fund, on a
quarterly basis, a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment
Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds or Affiliated
Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated
Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were not made
available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why the
investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Fund. All
information presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be
kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years
thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and
its staff.
    5. Except for Follow-On Investments made in accordance with
condition 8,\13\ a Regulated Fund will not invest in reliance on the
Order in any issuer in which another Regulated Fund, Affiliated Fund,
or any affiliated person of another Regulated Fund or an Affiliated
Fund is an existing investor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This exception applies only to Follow-On Investments by a
Regulated Fund in issuers in which that Regulated Fund already holds
investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. A Regulated Fund will not participate in any Potential Co-
Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of
securities to be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights
will be the same for each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated
Fund. The grant to an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund, but
not the Regulated Fund, of the right to nominate a director for
election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have
an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate
in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be
interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions
2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.
    7. (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund elects to sell,
exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was
acquired by one or more Regulated Funds and/or Affiliated Funds in a
Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Adviser(s) will:
    (i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-
Investment Transaction of the proposed disposition at the earliest
practical time; and
    (ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by the
Regulated Fund in the disposition.
    (b) Each Regulated Fund will have the right to participate in such
disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same
terms and conditions as those applicable to the participating
Affiliated Funds and any other Regulated Fund.
    (c) A Regulated Fund may participate in such disposition without
obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed
participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such
disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the
issuer immediately preceding the disposition; (ii) the Board of the
Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the
Regulated Fund the ability to participate in such dispositions on a pro
rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and
(iii) the Board of the Regulated Fund is provided on a quarterly basis
with a list of all dispositions made in accordance with this condition.
In all other cases, the Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if
there are more than one) will provide their written recommendation as
to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and
the Regulated Fund will participate in such disposition solely to the
extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated
Fund's best interests.
    (d) Each Affiliated Fund and each Regulated Fund will bear its own
expenses in connection with any such disposition.
    8. (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund desires to make
a Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were
acquired by the Regulated Fund and the Affiliated Fund in a Co-
Investment Transaction, the applicable Adviser(s) will:
    (i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-
Investment Transaction of the proposed transaction at the earliest
practical time; and
    (ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation,
including the amount of the proposed Follow-On Investment, by each
Regulated Fund.
    (b) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Follow-On Investment
without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The
proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund
in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in
the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and (ii) the
Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests
of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in Follow-On
Investments on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the
application). In all other cases, the

Adviser to the Regulated Fund (or Advisers if there are more than one)
will provide their written recommendation as to such Regulated Fund's
participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will
participate in such Follow-On Investment solely to the extent that the
Required Majority determines that it is in such Regulated Fund's best
interests.
    (c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:
    (i) The amount of the opportunity is not based on the Regulated
Funds' and the Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments immediately
preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
    (ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Adviser (or Advisers
if there are more than one) to a Regulated Fund to be invested by the
Regulated Fund in the Follow-On Investment, together with the amount
proposed to be invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and
the Affiliated Funds in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the
opportunity; then the amount invested by each such party will be
allocated among them pro rata based on each participant's capital
available for investment in the asset class being allocated, up to the
amount proposed to be invested by each.
    (d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this
condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all
purposes and subject to the other conditions set forth in the
application.
    9. The Non-Interested Directors of each Regulated Fund will be
provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-
Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including
investments made by other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds that a
Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the
Non-Interested Directors may determine whether all investments made
during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the
Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with
the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Non-Interested Directors
will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for such
Regulated Fund of participating in new and existing Co-Investment
Transactions.
    10. Each Regulated Fund will maintain the records required by
section 57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the Regulated Funds were a
BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were
approved by the Required Majority under section 57(f) of the Act.
    11. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will also be a
director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise
an ``affiliated person'' (as defined in the Act), of any Affiliated
Fund.
    12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or
disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction
(including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any
such securities registered for sale under the Securities Act) will, to
the extent not payable by the applicable Adviser(s) under their
respective investment advisory agreements with the Affiliated Funds and
the Regulated Funds, be shared by the Regulated Funds and the
Affiliated Funds in proportion to the relative amounts of the
securities held or to be acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
    13. Any transaction fee \14\ (including break-up or commitment fees
but excluding broker's fees contemplated by section 17(e) or 57(k) of
the Act, as applicable) received in connection with a Co-Investment
Transaction will be distributed to the participating Regulated Funds
and Affiliated Funds on a pro rata basis based on the amounts they
invested or committed, as the case may be, in such Co-Investment
Transaction. If any transaction fee is to be held by an Adviser pending
consummation of the transaction, the fee will be deposited into an
account maintained by the Adviser at a bank or banks having the
qualifications prescribed in section 26(a)(1) of the Act, and the
account will earn a competitive rate of interest that will also be
divided pro rata among the participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated
Funds based on the amounts they invest in such Co-Investment
Transaction. None of the Affiliated Funds, the applicable Adviser(s),
the other Regulated Funds or any affiliated person of the Regulated
Funds or Affiliated Funds will receive additional compensation or
remuneration of any kind as a result of or in connection with a Co-
Investment Transaction (other than (a) in the case of the Regulated
Funds and the Affiliated Funds, the pro rata transaction fees described
above and fees or other compensation described in condition
2(c)(iii)(C); and (b) in the case of the Advisers, investment advisory
fees paid in accordance with the Regulated Funds' and the Affiliated
Funds' investment advisory agreements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Applicants are not requesting and the staff is not
providing any relief for transaction fees received in connection
with any Co-Investment Transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. If the Holders own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the
Shares of a Regulated Fund, then the Holders will vote such Shares as
directed by an independent third party when voting on (1) the election
of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) any
other matter under either the Act or applicable State law affecting the
Board's composition, size or manner of election.
    15. Each Regulated Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in
rule 38a-1(a)(4), will prepare an annual report for its Board each year
that evaluates (and documents the basis of that evaluation) the
Regulated Fund's compliance with the terms and conditions of the
application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04086 Filed 2-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14318-14319]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4101-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Mississippi; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4101-DR), dated February
13, 2013, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 13, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 13, 2013, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), as
follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Mississippi resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
beginning on February 10, 2013, and continuing, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Mississippi.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and
assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures
(Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance program in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments
(PDAs). Direct Federal assistance is authorized.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Terry L. Quarles, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Mississippi have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Forrest and Lamar Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Forrest and Lamar Counties for debris removal and protective
measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance,
under the Public Assistance program.
    All counties within the State of Mississippi are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    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. 2013-04978 Filed 3-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Given the expanding suite of efficiency improving technologies, and growing interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through efficiency improvements, it is reasonable to project overall efficiency improvements, in the absence of NSR constraints, as large as10 15%. Such a range is much larger than conventional wisdom, which is perhaps shaped by expectations under the current NSR policy, and the absence of efficiency incentives related to climate change concerns. To cover a broad range of possible improvements, a range of 5% to 15% was examined using the NEMS modeling system. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SPECIFICATION OF CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES AS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND REPLACEMENT FOR THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM Page 46 APPENDIX B EVALUATION OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE MODEL SCENARIO FOR POWER PLANTS ( ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY) 22 This finding is described in detail in EPA's June 13, 2002 New Source Review Report to the President.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SPECIFICATION OF CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES AS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND REPLACEMENT FOR THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM Page 47 EVALUATION OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE MODEL SCENARIO FOR POWER PLANTS Purpose: This analysis uses model scenarios to evaluate the impact that the changes to the routine maintenance provisions of NSR are likely have on emissions from the power generation sector.

Methodology: In order to evaluate the impact of the routine maintenance provisions, EPA considered a scenario under which NSR regulations remained in place and a range of scenarios that could occur if NSR did not exist. The first scenario is intended to represent the existing program, which the EPA has found impedes or results in cancellation of projects that maintain and improve reliability, availability, and efficiency at existing power plants. 22 The second range of scenarios represents companies receive flexibility under the NSR program that removes many of these impediments . As part of this analysis, EPA reviewed three key variables: change in SO2 emissions, change in NOx emissions and change in cost.

It is worth noting that EPA recently promulgated final rules governing the use of plantwide applicability limits ( PALs), and Clean Units. Some sources with in the electric utility generation industry may take advantage of these changes. However, any such decision will be based on case specific information related to their past operating levels, current levels of control and company's specific strategies for complying with NSR. Therefore, we can not make estimates on how many sources may take advantage of PALs and Clean Units. To the extent they are used within the industry, they will dampen the effects shown in this analysis ( i. e., estimated decreases and increases will not be as large.

This analysis was performed using the Integrated Planning Model ( IPM). IPM is a linear programming model that EPA uses to analyze the effect of various environmental policies on the power sector. It provides forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch and emission control strategies for meeting energy demand and environmental, transmission, dispatch and reliability constraints. EPA has used it to analyze many environmental policies including the Phase II Acid Rain Nitrogen Oxide regulations and the Nitrogen Oxide SIP Call. Analysis can be performed varying multiple constraints such as availability of various types of power plants ( e. g. coal fired, nuclear, gas fired combined cycle units), heat rates of various types of power plants, environmental constraints ( e. g. caps on emissions, emission rate limitations). More detail regarding IPM can be found in the document titled " Documentation of EPA Modeling Application ( V. 2.1) Using the Integrated Planning Model, which can be found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ airmarkets/ epa ipm/ index. html.

Assumptions: The first scenario, referred to as the NSR base case, approximates utility behavior under the current program, where the EPA has found that companies perform limited maintenance on coal plants because of concerns about NSR. In this scenario, it was assumed that the performance of coal units would deteriorate, resulting in higher heat rates and lower capacities. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SPECIFICATION OF CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES AS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND REPLACEMENT FOR THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM Page 48 EPA did not assume that reduced maintenance resulted in a change in maximum potential unit availability. This is because over the last 20 years, availability of coal fired plants has increased even as the plants have aged. This is due in large part to improved maintenance practices. For instance tests to inspect boiler tubes have been continually improving ( see " Preventing Boiler Tube Failures with EMAT's", S. P. Clark et al, " EPRI International Conference on Boiler Tube Failures and HRSG Tube Failures and Inspects", November 6 8, 2001). These improved preventive maintenance practices have improved availability by reducing the incidence of forced outages. Although we did not assume availability decreases, we did assume that continued future availability increases would diminish, and any remaining increases would essentially be negated by deterioration caused by limited maintenance.

The second range of scenarios, referred to as increased maintenance cases # 1  # 5 , looks at a range of scenario for what might happen in the utility sector if companies were provided with increased flexibility under NSR to perform RMRR. This would result in lower heat rates, higher capacities and/ or higher unit availabilities for these units. Finally EPA looked at one case ( standard base case) in which heat rate, capacity and unit availability did not change. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SPECIFICATION OF CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES AS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND REPLACEMENT FOR THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM Page 49 Table 1: Key modeling assumptions in routine maintenance analysis Winter Availability Summer Availability Heat Rate Change Capacity Change NSR Base case 81.6% 89.8% + 0.1% per year  0.1% per year Increased Maintenance Case # 1 85.0% 92.0%  0.1% per year + 0.1% per year Increased Maintenance Case # 2 81.6% 89.8%  0.1% per year + 0.1% per year Increased Maintenance Case # 3 85.0% 92.0%  1.6% in year 2005 and beyond + 1.6% in year 2005 and beyond Increased Maintenance Case # 4 85.0% 92.0%  3.2% in year 2005 and beyond + 3.2% in year 2005 and beyond Increased Maintenance # 5 81.6% 89.8%  1.6% in year 2005 and beyond + 1.6% in year 2005 and beyond Standard Base Case 81.6% 89.8% No change No change It is important to note several limitations to this analysis. First this analysis only considered emission regulations that are currently in effect ( e. g. the NOx SIP Call and the Title IV Acid Rain Provisions). Future environmental regulations such as emission reduction requirements necessary to meet the fine particulate matter standards or emission reductions under multipollutant regulations could significantly change this analysis. Second, the analysis assumed the operating and maintenance costs of coal fired units was the same for units performing limited maintenance and for units performing increased maintenance.. Since the most significant cost associated with running an existing power plant is the cost of fuel, this impact is probably fairly small.

Results:

Changes in SO2 Emissions, NOx emissions and cost are summarized in Tables 2, 3 and 4 below. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SPECIFICATION OF CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES AS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND REPLACEMENT FOR THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM Page 50 Table 2: Changes in SO2 emissions in scenarios considered in routine maintenance analysis.

2005 SO2 Emissions ( tons) 2010 SO2 Emissions ( tons) 2015 SO2 Emissions ( tons) 2020 SO2 Emissions ( tons)

NSR Base case 10,168, 230 9,713,6 84 9,101,6 22 9,103,2 75 Increased Maintenance Case # 1 10,135, 120 9,739,0 29 9,104,1 21 9,102,6 88 Increased Maintenance Case # 2 10,186, 660 9,701,1 12 9,099,3 63 9,099,2 71 Increased Maintenance Case # 3 10,075, 060 9,773,2 42 9,104,8 36 9,103,7 79 Increased Maintenance Case # 4 10,009, 250 9,813,6 64 9,105,4 29 9,104,3 96 Increased Maintenance # 5 10,079, 510 9,764,9 71 9,099,9 23 9,100,3 61 Standard Base Case 10,168, 520 9,712,4 99 9,100,2 64 9,100,6 80 As shown in Table 2, there is very little change in SO2 emissions over the entire time period studied under the two scenarios. This is because SO2 emissions are already capped nationally under the Title IV Acid Rain Provisions. Therefore if a unit decreases its emissions to make room under its PAL, it could instead sell excess allowances to another unit. However because emissions can also be shifted temporally by banking emission allowances to be used in a future year there can be significant changes in emissions for a specific year. While temporal distribution of emissions did not change much over time in the NSR cases considered, there was more temporal distribution of emissions in the increased maintenance scenarios considered.

Table 3: Changes in NOx emissions in scenarios considered under routine maintenance scenarios.

2005 NOx Emissions ( tons) 2010 NOx Emissions ( tons) 2015 NOx Emissions ( tons) 2020 NOx Emissions ( tons) REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SPECIFICATION OF CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES AS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND REPLACEMENT FOR THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM Page 51 NSR Basecase 4,279,3 62 4,285,4 00 4,338,4 61 4,375,48 6 Increased Maintenance Case # 1 4,340,1 66 4,362,9 48 4,442,8 81 4,471,49 9 Increased Maintenance Case # 2 4,276,5 50 4,283,0 81 4,327,9 79 4,362,85 9 Increased Maintenance Case # 3 4,307,7 96 4,350,7 37 4,423,1 41 4,472,70 6 Increased Maintenance Case # 4 4,276,1 72 4,334,6 71 4,412,3 40 4,460,04 1 Increased Maintenance # 5 4,259,1 70 4,271,2 94 4,324,9 92 4,363,93 0 Standard Base Case 4,277,4 07 4,285,4 23 4,332,2 09 4,360,04 4 Increasing capacity ( under the increased maintenance cases) leads to increases in NOx emissions. When comparing increased maintenance cases # 1 and # 2 ( which had the same increases in efficiency, but different changes in maximum availability, NOx emissions increase by an average of almost 92,000 tons per year over the time period analyzed.

It appears that changing heat rates and capacities has the opposite effect on emissions. NOx emissions actually decrease when flexibility under NSR allows power generation companies to improve efficiency by performing increased maintenance if maximum availability of these units does not change at the same time. For instance if one compares two scenarios with the same maximum capacities: NSR Base case , increased maintenance case # 2 and the standard base case, average emissions are about 7000 tons per year higher over the time period analyzed in NSR Base case where heat rates are higher and capacities are lower. Looking at increased maintenance cases # 3 and # 4 shows the same trend. In these two cases maximum availability remains constant, but heat rates are lower and capacities are higher in increased maintenance case # 4. These lower heat rates and higher capacities lead to emissions that are on average nearly 18,000 tons per year less in increased maintenance case # 4 than in increased maintenance case # 5.

Another point to note is that EPA also looked at the speed in which the improvements to the units were made. For example by 2020, the heat rate decrease and the capacity increase was the same in both increased maintenance case # 2 and increased maintenance case # 5 were the same. However in case # 5, those changes happened in one step in 2005, and in case # 2, the changes happened gradually. When the changes occurred all at emissions were lower in the early years. In the later years, when the total magnitude of the changes was more similar in both cases, the NOx emissions were also more similar. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SPECIFICATION OF CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES AS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND REPLACEMENT FOR THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM Page 52 This analysis suggests that the effect that changing the requirements of NSR with regard to RMRR will have on emissions is dependent upon the effect that it will have on maximum unit availabilities. If the RMRR changes increase efficiency and plant capacity without increasing maximum unit availability, this analysis suggests that the changes could decrease emissions. The amount of that emission decrease would depend both on how much heat rate decreased and capacity increased and how quickly these changes occurred. The greater the heat rate decrease and capacity increase and the more quickly the changes occurred, the greater the emission reductions. If on the other hand, the new provisions increase maximum unit availabilities this analysis suggests that the changes could increase emissions.

Changes in cost are summarized in Table 4 below. Note that this analysis does not consider actual changes in the cost of performing maintenance; it only assumes changes in fuel costs and changes in capital costs associated with new generating units and new emission control equipment. Therefore it probably understates the cost of the increased maintenance scenarios and understates the cost of the NSR Base case.

Table 4: Total cost of scenarios considered ( in 1999 dollars)

2005 Total Cost ( million 1999 dollars) 2010 Total Cost ( million 1999 dollars) 2015 Total Cost ( million 1999 dollars) 2020 Cost ( million 1999 dollars)

NSR Basecase 76,187 80,934 88,921 95,819 Increased Maintenance Case # 1 75,432 79,819 87,306 92,817 Increased Maintenance Case # 2 76,088 80,290 87,861 93,781 Increased Maintenance Case # 3 74,422 79,309 86,715 92,788 Increased Maintenance Case # 4 73,740 78,250 85,898 91,932 Increased Maintenance # 5 75,164 79,782 87,600 93,784 Standard Base Case 76,149 80,572 88,404 94,588 For more detailed results, see the attached IPM run summaries. The runs are listed in Table 5 below. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SPECIFICATION OF CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES AS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND REPLACEMENT FOR THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM Page 53 Table 5: IPM Runs used in this analysis Scenario IPM Run #

NSR Base case NSR 13 Increased Maintenance Case # 1 NSR 8 Increased Maintenance Case # 2 NSR 11 Increased Maintenance Case # 3 NSR 14 Increased Maintenance Case # 4 NSR 15 Increased Maintenance # 5 NSR 16 Standard Base Case IPM2000s100d REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SPECIFICATION OF CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES AS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND REPLACEMENT FOR THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM Page 54 APPENDIX C CASE STUDIES OF SELECTED INDUSTRIES


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2958-2959]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00875]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0010]

Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice of open federal advisory committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board)
will meet virtually on Wednesday, March 8, 2023, to discuss and support
the academic stature of the National Fire Academy. The meeting will be
open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will take place on Wednesday, March 8, 2023, 2 p.m.
to 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please note that the meeting may close
early if the Board has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: Members of the public who wish to participate in the virtual
conference should contact Deborah

Gartrell-Kemp as listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
by close of business on February 28, 2023, to obtain the call-in number
and access code for the virtual meeting on March 8, 2023. For more
information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request
special assistance, contact Deborah Gartrell-Kemp as soon as possible.
The Board is committed to ensuring all participants have equal access
regardless of disability status. If you require a reasonable
accommodation due to a disability to fully participate, please contact
Deborah Gartrell-Kemp as listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the Board as listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Participants seeking to have their
comments considered during the meeting should submit them in advance or
during the public comment segment. Comments submitted up to 30 days
after the meeting will be included in the public record and may be
considered at the next meeting. Comments submitted in advance must be
identified by Docket ID FEMA-2008-0010 and may be submitted by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Electronic Delivery: Email Deborah Gartrell-Kemp at
[email protected] no later than February 28, 2023, for
consideration at the March 8, 2023, meeting.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and the Docket ID for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may wish to view the Privacy and Security Notice via a link on the
homepage of www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket and to read background documents
or comments received by the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on ``Advanced Search,'' then enter
``FEMA-2008-0010'' in the ``By Docket ID'' box, then select ``FEMA''
under ``By Agency,'' and then click ``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Designated Federal Officer: Eriks Gabliks,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    Logistical Information: Deborah Gartrell-Kemp,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board will meet virtually on Wednesday,
March 8, 2023. The meeting will be open to the public. Notice of this
meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.
Appendix.

Purpose of the Board

    The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the
National Fire Academy (Academy) and advise the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States
Fire Administrator, on the operation of the Academy and any
improvements therein that the Board deems appropriate. In carrying out
its responsibilities, the Board examines Academy programs to determine
whether these programs further the basic missions approved by the FEMA
Administrator, examines the physical plant of the Academy to determine
the adequacy of Academy facilities, and examines funding levels for
Academy programs. Annually, the Board submits a written report through
the United States Fire Administrator to the FEMA Administrator. The
report provides detailed comments and recommendations regarding Academy
operations.

Agenda

    On Wednesday, March 8, 2023, there will be four sessions, with
deliberations and voting at the end of each session as necessary:
    1. The Board will discuss United States Fire Administration Data,
Research, Prevention and Response.
    2. The Board will discuss deferred maintenance and capital
improvements on the National Emergency Training Center campus and
Fiscal Year 2023 and beyond Budget Request/Budget Planning.
    3. The Board will deliberate and vote on recommendations on Academy
program activities to include developments, deliveries, staffing,
admissions, and strategic plan.
    4. There will also be an update on the Board of Visitors
Subcommittee Groups for the Professional Development Initiative Update
and the National Fire Incident Report System.
    There will be a 10-minute comment period after each agenda item and
each speaker will be given no more than 2 minutes to speak. Please note
the public comment period at the meeting may end before the time
indicated following the last call for comments. Contact Deborah
Gartrell-Kemp to register as a speaker. Meeting materials will be
posted by March 1, 2023, at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/training/nfa/about/bov.html.

Eriks J. Gabliks,
Superintendent, National Fire Academy, United States Fire
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-00875 Filed 1-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-74-P