standard to drilling. Neither of these changes involves a change in the
reporting burden.
    115. Because the proposed expansion of the blanket certificate
program will

permit projects that are now processed under the case-specific NGA
section 7 procedures to go forward under the streamlined blanket
certificate program, while the burden under the expanded blanket
certificate program will increase, the overall burden on the industry
will decrease. The Commission estimates that the total annual hours for
the blanket certificate program burden will increase by 7,727, whereas
the total annual hours associated with case-specific application
projects will decrease by 11,997. This represents an overall reduction
of 4,270 hours.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of       Number of
                 Data collection                     Number of      responses/       hours per     Total annual
                                                    respondents       filings        response          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-537 (Part 157).............................              76             206          -42.02           7,727
FERC-577 (Part 380).............................              76             -62          193.50         -11,997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information Collection Costs: The above reflects the total blanket
certificate program reporting burden if expanded as proposed. Because
of the regional differences and the various staffing levels that will
be involved in preparing the documentation (legal, technical and
support) the Commission is using an hourly rate of $150 to estimate the
costs for filing and other administrative processes (reviewing
instructions, searching data sources, completing and transmitting the
collection of information). The estimated cost is anticipated to be
$2,748,900, an amount that is $640,500 less than the current estimated
cost.
    Title: FERC-537 and FERC-577.
    Action: Proposed Data Collection.
    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0060 and 1902-0128.
    Respondents: Natural gas pipeline companies.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of Information: Submission of the information is
necessary for the Commission to carry out its NGA statutory
responsibilities and meet the Commission's objectives of expediting
appropriate infrastructure development to ensure sufficient energy
supplies while addressing landowner and environmental concerns fairly.
The information is expected to permit the Commission to meet the
request of the natural gas industry, as expressed in the INGAA and NGSA
petition to improve industry's ability to ensure the adequacy of the
infrastructure to meet increased demands from consuming markets, to
expand the scope and scale of the blanket certificate program to
provide a streamlined means to build and maintain infrastructure
necessary to ensure all gas supplies are available to fulfill market
needs.
    116. The Commission requests comments on the accuracy of the burden
estimates, how the quality, quantity, and clarity of the information to
be collected might be enhanced, and any suggested methods for
minimizing the respondent's burden. Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting requirements or submit comments by
contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426 (Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the
Executive Director,<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail michael.miller@ferc.gov).
Comments may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget
(Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Environmental Analysis

    117. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any
action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human
environment.\76\ In 1982, in promulgating the blanket certificate
program, the Commission prepared an EA in which it determined that,
subject to compliance with the standard environmental conditions,
projects under the blanket program would not have a significant
environmental impact. As a result, the Commission determined that
automatic authorization projects would be categorically excluded from
the need for an EA or (EIS) under Sec.  380.4 of the Commission's
regulations. However, the Commission specified that prior notice
projects should be subject an EA to ensure each individual project
would be environmentally benign. For the reasons set forth below the
Commission continues to believe this would be the case under the
blanket certificate program as modified in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (December 17, 1987), FERC
Stats. & Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    118. First, the monetary limits on projects are simply being
adjusted to account for inflationary effects which were not completely
captured under the mechanism specified in the regulations (the gross
domestic product implicit price deflator as determined by the
Department of Commerce). As a result, the scale of projects which will
be within the new cost limits will be comparable to those projects that
were allowed when the blanket program was first created. Second, the
proposed additions to the types of projects which are acceptable under
the blanket program will be subject to the prior notice provisions and
will be subject to an EA. Finally, the Commission is proposing to
strengthen the standard environmental conditions applicable to all
blanket projects. Therefore, this proposed rule does not constitute a
major federal action that may have a significant adverse effect on the
human environment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    119. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \77\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed regulations that will
have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Commission is not required to make such an analysis if
proposed regulations would not have such an effect.\78\ Under the
industry standards used for purposes of the RFA, a natural gas pipeline
company qualifies as ``a small entity'' if it has annual revenues of
$6.5 million or less. Most companies regulated by the Commission do not
fall within the RFA's definition of a small entity.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2000).
    \78\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (2000).
    \79\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3), citing to section 3 of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 623 (2000). Section 3 of the Small Business Act
defines a ``small-business concern'' as a business which is
independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its
field of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    120. The procedural modifications proposed herein should have no
significant economic impact on those entities--be they large or small--
subject to the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction under NGA section 3
or 7, and no significant economic impact on state agencies.
Accordingly, the Commission certifies that this notice's proposed
regulations, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Public Comments

    121. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments
on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted,
including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters
may wish to discuss. Comments are due by August 25, 2006. Comments must
refer to Docket No. RM06-7-000, and must include the commenter's name,
the organization represented, if applicable, and address in the
comments. Comments may be filed either in electronic or paper format.
The Commission encourages electronic filing.
    122. Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission

accepts most standard word processing formats and requests commenters
to submit comments in a text-searchable format rather than a scanned
image format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a
paper filing. Commenters unable to file comments electronically must
send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    123. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

Document Availability

    124. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's

Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 157

    Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend
part 157, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 157--APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER
SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT

    1. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

    2. In Sec.  157.6, paragraph (d)(2)(i) is revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  157.6  Applications; general requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Is directly affected (i.e., crossed or used) by the proposed
activity, including all facility sites (including compressor stations,
well sites, and all above-ground facilities), rights of way, access
roads, pipe and contractor yards, and temporary workspace;
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  157.203:
    a. In paragraph (d)(1), the phrase ``30 days'' is removed and the
phrase ``45 days'' is added in its place, and the phrase ``30-day'' is
removed and the phrase ``45-day'' is added in its place;
    b. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), the phrase ``; and'' is removed and the
phrase ``;'' is added in its place;
    c. Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is redesignated as paragraph (d)(1)(iv)and
a new paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is added;
    d. Paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) are revised;
    e. In paragraph (d)(2)(iii), the word ``and'' is removed;
    f. Paragraph (d)(2)(iv) is redesignated as paragraph (d)(2)(vi),
and the phrase ``45 days'' is removed and the phrase ``60 days'' is
added its place, and the period at the end of the paragraph is removed
and the phrase ``; and'' is added in its place;
    g. New paragraphs (d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(v) and (d)(2)(vii) are added
to read as follows:

Sec.  157.203  Blanket certification.

* * * * *
    (d) Landowner notification. * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) A description of the company's environmental complaint
resolution procedure that must:
    (A) Provide landowners with clear and simple directions for
identifying and resolving their environmental mitigation problems and
concerns during construction of the project and restoration of the
right-of way;
    (B) Provide a local contact that the landowners should call first
with problems and concerns and indicate when a landowner should expect
a response;
    (C) Instruct landowners that if they are not satisfied with the
response, they should call the company's Hotline; and
    (D) Instruct landowners that, if they are still not satisfied with
the response, they should contact the Commission's Enforcement Hotline.
    (2) * * *
    (i) A brief description of the company and the proposed project,
including the facilities to be constructed or replaced and the location
(including a general location map), the purpose, and the timing of the
project and the effect the construction activity will have on the
landowner's property;
    (ii) A general description of what the company will need from the
landowner if the project is approved, and how the landowner may contact
the company, including a local or toll-free phone number and a name of
a specific person to contact who is knowledgeable about the project;
* * * * *
    (iv) The most recent edition of the Commission pamphlet that
explains the Commission's certificate process and addresses basic
concerns of landowners;
    (v) A brief summary of the rights the landowner has in Commission
proceedings and in proceedings under the eminent domain rules of the
relevant state(s); and
* * * * *
    (vii) The description of the company's environmental complaint
resolution procedure as described in paragraph 157.203(d)(1)(iii) of
this section.
* * * * *

Sec.  157.205  [Amended]

    4. In Sec.  157.205, paragraph (d)(1), the phrase ``45 days'' is
removed and the phrase ``60 days'' is inserted in its place.
    5. In Sec.  157.206, paragraph (b)(5) is redesignated as (b)(5)(i)
and revised, and paragraph (b)(5)(ii) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  157.206  Standard conditions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5)(i) The noise attributable to any new compressor station,
compression added to an existing station, or any modification, upgrade
or update of an existing station, must not exceed a day-night level
(Ldn) of 55 dBA at the site property boundary.
    (ii) Any horizontal directional drilling or drilling of wells which
will occur between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. local time must be conducted with
the goal of keeping the perceived noise from the

drilling at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area (such as schools,
hospitals, or residences) at or below 55 Ldn dBA.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec.  157.208:
    a. Paragraph (c)(9) is revised;
    b. Paragraph (c)(10) is added;
    c. in paragraph (d), Table I, ``Year 2006,'' in column 1, titled
``Automatic project cost limit,'' the figure ``8,200,000'' is removed
and the figure ``9,600,000'' is added in its place, and in column 2,
titled ``Prior notice project cost limit,'' the figure ``22,000,000''
is removed and the figure ``27,400,000'' is added in its place; and
    d. paragraph (e)(4) is redesignated as (e)(4)(i) and paragraphs
(e)(4)(ii) through (e)(4)(iv) are added to read as follows:

Sec.  157.208  Construction, acquisition, operation, replacement, and
miscellaneous rearrangement of facilities.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (9) A concise analysis discussing the relevant issues outlined in
Sec.  380.12 of this chapter. The analysis must identify the existing
environmental conditions and the expected significant impacts that the
proposed action, including proposed mitigation measures, will cause to
the quality of the human environment, including impact expected to
occur to sensitive environmental areas. When compressor facilities are
proposed, the analysis must also describe how the proposed action will
be made to comply with applicable State Implementation Plans developed
under the Clean Air Act. The analysis must also include a description
of the contacts made, reports produced, and results of consultations
which took place to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act,
National Historic Preservation Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Include a copy of the agreements received for compliance with the
Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Coastal
Zone Management Act, or if no written concurrence is issued, a
description of how the agency relayed its opinion to the company.
Describe how drilling for wells or horizontal direction drilling would
be designed to meet the goal of limiting the perceived noise at NSAs to
an Ldn of 55 dBA or what mitigation would be offered to landowners.
    (10) A commitment to having the Environmental Inspector's report
filed every week.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4)(i) * * *
    (ii) Documentation, including images, that restoration of work
areas is progressing appropriately;
    (iii) A discussion of problems or unusual construction issues,
including those identified by affected landowners, and corrective
actions taken or planned; and
    (iv) For new or modified compression, a noise survey verifying
compliance with Sec.  157.206(b)(5).
* * * * *
    7. Section 157.210 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  157.210  Mainline natural gas facilities.

    Prior Notice. Subject to the notice requirements of Sec. Sec.
157.205(b) and 157.208(c), the certificate holder is authorized to
acquire, abandon, construct, modify, replace, or operate natural gas
mainline facilities. The cost of a project may not exceed the cost
limitation set forth in column 2 of Table I of Sec.  157.208(d). The
certificate holder must not segment projects in order to meet this cost
limitation.
    8. Sections 157.212 and 157.213 are added to read as follows:

Sec.  157.212  Synthetic and liquefied natural gas facilities.

    Prior Notice. Subject to the notice requirements of Sec. Sec.
157.205(b) and 157.208(c), the certificate holder is authorized to
acquire, abandon, construct, modify, replace, or operate natural gas
facilities that are used to transport exclusively either synthetic gas
or revaporized liquefied natural gas and that are not ``related
jurisdictional natural gas facilities'' as defined in Sec.  153.2(e) of
this chapter. The cost of a project may not exceed the cost limitation
set forth in column 2 of Table I in Sec.  157.208(d) of this chapter.
The certificate holder must not segment projects in order to meet this
cost limitation.

Sec.  157.213  Underground storage field facilities.

    (a) Prior Notice. Subject to the notice requirements of Sec. Sec.
157.205(b) and 157.208(c) of this chapter, the certificate holder is
authorized to acquire, abandon, construct, modify, replace, or operate
natural gas underground storage facilities, provided the storage
facility's total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer
boundaries, certificated capacity, and compliance with environmental
and safety provisions remain unaffected. The cost of a project may not
exceed the cost limitation set forth in column 2 of Table I in Sec.
157.208(d) of this chapter. The certificate holder must not segment
projects in order to meet this cost limitation.
    (b) Contents of request. In addition to the requirements of
Sec. Sec.  157.206(b) and 157.208(c), requests for activities
authorized under paragraph (a) of this section must contain:
    (1) A description of the current geological interpretation of the
storage reservoir, including both the storage formation and the
caprock, including summary analysis of any recent cross-sections, well
logs, quantitative porosity and permeability data, and any other
relevant data for both the storage reservoir and caprock;
    (2) The latest isopach and structural maps of the storage field,
showing the storage reservoir boundary, as defined by fluid contacts or
natural geological barriers; the protective buffer boundary; the
surface and bottomhole locations of the existing and proposed
injection/withdrawal wells and observation wells; and the lengths of
open-hole sections of existing and proposed injection/withdrawal wells;
    (3) Isobaric maps (data from the end of each injection and
withdrawal cycle) for the last three injection/withdrawal seasons,
which include all wells, both inside and outside the storage reservoir
and within the buffer area;
    (4) A detailed description of present storage operations and how
they may change as a result of the new facilities or modifications.
Include a detailed discussion of all existing operational problems for
the storage field, including but not limited to gas migration and gas
loss;
    (5) Current and proposed working gas volume, cushion gas volume,
native gas volume, deliverability (at maximum and minimum pressure),
maximum and minimum storage pressures, at the present certificated
maximum capacity or pressure, with volumes and rates in MMcf and
pressures in psia;
    (6) The latest field injection/withdrawal capability studies
including curves at present and proposed working gas capacity,
including average field back pressure curves and all other related
data;
    (7) The latest inventory verification study for the storage field,
including methodology, data, and work papers;
    (8) The shut-in reservoir pressures (average) and cumulative gas-
in-place (including native gas) at the beginning of each injection and
withdrawal season for the last 10 years; and
    (9) A detailed analysis, including data and work papers, to support
the need for additional facilities (wells, gathering lines, headers,
compression, dehydration, or other appurtenant facilities) for the
modification of

working gas/cushion gas ratio and/or to improve the capability of the
storage field.

[FR Doc. 06-5618 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 22, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52605-52606]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20294]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0294; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-31]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment and Removal of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes;
Eastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends two jet routes, and removes four jet
routes, in the eastern United States. This action is in support of the
Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project to improve the
efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) and reduce dependency
on ground-based navigational systems.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, December 2, 2021. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2021-0294 in the Federal Register (86 FR 24801; May 10, 2021),
amending three jet routes, and removing four jet routes in the United
States in support of the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route
Project. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No
comments were received.
    Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F
dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes listed in this
document will be subsequently amended in, or removed, respectively,
from the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Difference From the NPRM

    The NPRM proposed to amend jet route J-55 by removing the segments
between Sea Isle, NJ, and Presque Isle, ME. Design and coordination of
the proposed amendment is incomplete so the J-55 amendment is removed
from this final rule. The change will be deferred to a later date. J-55
will remain as currently depicted on aeronautical charts.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending two jet routes and
removing four jet routes in the eastern United States. This action
supports the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project by
amending and removing certain jet route segments that are being
replaced by Area Navigation (RNAV) routing. Additionally, the jet route
changes will reduce aeronautical chart clutter by removing unneeded
route segments.
    The jet route changes are as follows:
    J-42: J-42 currently extends between the Delicias, Mexico, VOR/DME,
and the Boston, MA, VOR/DME. This action removes the segments between
Texarkana, AR, and Boston, MA. The amended route extends between
Delicias, Mexico and Texarkana, AR. The portion within Mexico is
excluded.
    J-150: J-150 extends between the Gordonsville, VA, VOR/Tactical Air
Navigation (VORTAC) and the Marconi, MA, 082[deg] and the Boston, MA,
097[deg] radials (STOOL intersection). This action removes the entire
route.
    J-191: J-191 currently extends between the Robbinsville, NJ,
VORTAC, and the Wilmington, NC, VORTAC. This action removes the
segments between Robbinsville, NJ, and Patuxent, MD. The amended route
extends between Hopewell, VA and Wilmington, NC.
    J-193: J-193 currently extends between the Wilmington, NC, VORTAC,
and the intersection of the Harcum, VA, VORTAC 006[deg] and the
Hopewell, VA, VORTAC 030[deg] radials (HUBBS intersection). This action
removes the entire route.
    J-222: J-222 currently extends between the Robbinsville, NJ,
VORTAC, and the Cambridge, NY, VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)/Distance
Measuring Equipment (DME). This action removes the entire route.
    J-225: J-225 currently extends between the Cedar Lake, NJ, VOR/DME,
and the Providence, RI, VOR/DME. This action removes the entire route.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when
promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of amending two jet routes,
removing four jet routes, in the eastern United States qualifies for
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes
from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that
designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and
reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D,
and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting
Points). As such, this action is not expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order
1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA
has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined
no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J-42 [Amended]

    From Delicias, Mexico, via Fort Stockton, TX; Abilene, TX;
Ranger, TX; Texarkana, AR; excluding the portion in Mexico.
* * * * *

J-150 [Removed]

* * * * *

J-191 [ Amended]

    From Hopewell, VA; to Wilmington, NC
* * * * *

J-193 [Removed]

* * * * *

J-222 [Removed]

* * * * *

J-225 [Removed]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 15, 2021.
Michael R. Beckles,
Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-20294 Filed 9-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41424-41429]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17235]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2010-1083; FRL-9434-7]

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call
for Iowa State Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
authority in the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), section 110(k)(5), to call
for plan revisions, EPA is making a finding that the Iowa State
Implementation Plan (SIP) is substantially inadequate to maintain the
2006 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) in Muscatine County, Iowa. The
specific SIP deficiencies needing revision are described below. EPA is
also finalizing

a timeline for Iowa to revise its SIP to correct these deficiencies by
a date which is no later than 18 months after the effective date of
this rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2010-1083. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Brown at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background of this action?
III. How can Iowa correct the inadequacy and when must the
correction be submitted?
IV. What are EPA's comment responses?
V. What action is EPA taking?

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is finding that the Iowa SIP is substantially inadequate to
maintain the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 in Muscatine
County, Iowa. EPA is also finalizing a timeline for Iowa to revise its
SIP to correct these deficiencies by a date no later than 18 months
after the effective date of this rule. EPA proposed this rule on
February 2, 2011 (76 FR 9706). EPA received comments from the State of
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), the Iowa Environmental
Council, and 15 Iowa citizens. A summary of these comments on the
proposed rule and EPA's responses are found in Section IV. EPA's
finding is based on complete, quality-assured, quality controlled and
certified ambient monitoring data from the 2007-2009 monitoring period.
Based on the 2010 monitoring data in Iowa's Certification Request, the
Muscatine area continues to violate the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard based on the 2008-2010 monitoring data with a design value of
37 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).

II. What is the background of this action?

    EPA promulgated the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 on
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144) based on significant evidence and
numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are
associated with exposures to fine particulate matter. The 2006 standard
for 24-hour PM2.5 was set at a level of 35 [mu]g of
particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers ([mu]m) in diameter, per
cubic meter of air. The standard is met when the 3-year average of the
98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations is equal to or less than 35
[mu]g/m\3\. The computation of this 3-year average of the 98th
percentiles of 24-hour concentrations is commonly referred to as the
design value and is based on the most recent three years of quality
assured data.
    Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires each state to establish and operate
appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to
monitor, compile and analyze data on ambient air quality. Pursuant to
this authority, the state maintains a network of air quality monitors
for PM2.5 in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 which meets
applicable requirements. Monitors called State or Local Air Monitoring
Stations (SLAMS) make up the ambient air quality monitoring sites whose
data are primarily used for determining compliance with the NAAQS.
    In accordance with section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA, no later than 2
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the Administrator
must designate all areas, or portions thereof, within each state as
nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable. This process is commonly
referred to as the ``designations process.''
    With respect to all pollutants, including PM2.5, if
monitoring data demonstrates that an area does not comply with the
NAAQS, or contributes to a violation in a nearby area, that area is
designated as nonattainment. If monitoring data demonstrates that an
area complies with the NAAQS, and the area does not contribute to air
quality problems in nearby areas that do not comply with the NAAQS, the
area is designated attainment. If there is not enough information to
determine if an area is compliant with the NAAQS it is designated as
unclassifiable. On November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated its final
designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards (74 FR
58688). These designations were determined based upon air quality
monitoring data for calendar years 2006-2008 (which were the most
recent three years of data prior to the initial designations). The
entire State of Iowa was designated as unclassifiable/attainment (74 FR
58729) at that time based on that set of data.
    On May 20, 2010, the State submitted certified SLAMS monitoring
data, for calendar year 2009, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58. When
determining the design value for the current 24-hour PM2.5
standard based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar years
2007-2009, EPA concluded that a monitor in the Muscatine area recorded
data violating the standard. The monitor (site ID 191390015)
is located in the City of Muscatine, Muscatine County, Iowa, and is the
only PM2.5 SLAM station in the county. The SLAM stations
make up the ambient air quality monitoring sites that are primarily
needed for NAAQS comparisons. Site ID 191390015 is often
referred to as the ``Garfield School'' monitor and will be referred to
as such in this rulemaking. The 2007-2009 design value for the Garfield
School monitor is 38 [mu]g/m\3\. Historically, the Garfield School
monitoring location has recorded fluctuating PM2.5 values
very near or above the NAAQS. Historical values are shown in Table 1.
The monitoring data in Iowa's Certification Request for 2010 indicates
that the Muscatine area continues to violate the 2006 24-hour standard
based on 2008-2010 monitoring data.
    The area was not designated nonattainment at the time of EPA's
initial designations rulemaking for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard in 2009, because, at that time, available certified monitoring
data demonstrated that the design value was compliant with the
standard.

    Table 1--Historical Design Values at the Garfield School Monitor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Design
                       Monitoring years                          value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001-2003....................................................         35
2002-2004....................................................         35
2003-2005....................................................         38
2004-2006....................................................         34
2005-2007....................................................         36
2006-2008....................................................         35
2007-2009....................................................         38

2008-2010....................................................         37
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA provides, in relevant part, that
``[w]henever the Administrator finds that the applicable implementation
plan for an area is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the
relevant national ambient air quality standard, * * * the Administrator
shall require that state to revise the plan as necessary to correct
such inadequacies.''
    Because monitor data in the Muscatine area show violations of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, based upon 2007-2009 data, and
have shown violations of the standard in the past (based upon 2005-2007
data), EPA has determined that the SIP is substantially inadequate to
maintain the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 in this area. EPA
received no comments on the monitoring data or proposed finding of
substantial inadequacy. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing the proposed
action and Iowa must revise the SIP as described herein.

III. How can the State correct the inadequacy and when must the
correction be submitted?

    The State must submit several specific plan elements to EPA in
order to correct the inadequacy of the SIP identified above. These
specific elements are: (1) A revised emissions inventory for all
sources (including area sources, mobile sources and other significant
sources) that could be expected to contribute to the violating monitor
because of their size, proximity, or other relevant factors consistent
with 40 CFR 51.114(a); (2) a modeling demonstration consistent with
Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 showing what reductions will be needed to
attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the area; (3) adopted
measures to achieve reductions determined necessary to attain and
maintain the NAAQS, with enforceable schedules for implementing the
measures as expeditiously as practicable; and (4) contingency measures
as described below.
    The Muscatine area is currently designated as attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, however, EPA finds the SIP
substantially inadequate to maintain the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5, due to the monitor in the Muscatine area (Garfield
School) recording data violating the standard (considering 2007-2009
monitoring data). In this instance, the CAA requirements relating to
nonattainment areas are not expressly applicable. Therefore, consistent
with the general SIP requirements in section 110 of the CAA, and as
discussed in the February 2, 2011, proposed SIP Call. (76 FR 9706), EPA
is requiring a SIP revision which includes adopted measures to achieve
reductions determined necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS, as
well as contingency measures, as described below.
    Consistent with the February 2, 2011, proposal, all adopted
measures to achieve reductions, determined through the modeling
demonstration to be necessary to attain and maintain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard, should be implemented no later than two
years after the issuance of this final SIP Call. EPA believes that this
schedule is reasonable, because IDNR has already performed a
substantial portion of its analysis of the nature of the
PM2.5 problem in the area and the types of controls which
might be necessary to address the problem.
    EPA believes that it is reasonable to expect that the 98th
percentile value for the calendar year after the necessary controls are
implemented should be at or below the 24-hour PM2.5
standard. Contingency measures will be triggered if that value is above
the standard in the calendar year after the implementation of controls
necessary for attainment, or in any subsequent year. The SIP revision
must contain an enforceable commitment to adopt and implement
sufficient contingency measures, once triggered, in an expeditious and
timely fashion that is comparable and analogous to requirements for
contingency measures in CAA section 175A(d). To do so, the SIP revision
should clearly identify measures which could be timely adopted and
implemented, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation,
and a specific time limit for action by the State. The schedule for
adoption and implementation should be as expeditious as practicable,
but no longer than 24 months after being triggered.
    Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA provides that after EPA makes a
finding that a plan is substantially inadequate, it may establish a
reasonable deadline for the State to submit SIP revisions correcting
the deficiencies, but the date cannot be later than 18 months after the
State is notified of the finding. Consistent with this provision, EPA
is requiring the submittal within 18 months following the final finding
of substantial inadequacy. The 18-month period begins on the effective
date of this rule.
    This rule requires the State to establish a specific date in its
SIP revision by which the Muscatine area will attain the standard. The
date must be as expeditiously as practicable based upon implementation
of Federal, State and local measures. As discussed previously, we
expect that the date for attainment (for the purpose of this rule, the
date by which the 98th percentile 24 hour PM2.5 value must
be at or below 35 [mu]g/m\3\) will be the first full calendar year
following the required implementation of controls. In this case, the
date will be the first full calendar year which begins after the two
year anniversary of the effective date of this rule. EPA will establish
a specific date for attainment at the same time it takes final action
on the State's implementation plan revision in response to this final
SIP Call. Notwithstanding the date for attainment, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard can only be achieved when the average of
three consecutive years of data show those PM2.5
concentrations are at or below the levels of the 2006 24-hour standard.

IV. What is EPA's response to comments?

    As stated above, on February 22, 2011, EPA proposed to find that
the Iowa SIP was substantially inadequate to maintain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 9106). EPA received 17 comments on the
proposed rule. We note that all of the comments related to the proposed
remedy (the timing and content of the SIP to be required as a result of
the SIP call). EPA received no comments on the underlying proposed
finding of substantial inadequacy and we are finalizing that finding on
the basis of the rationale stated in EPA's February 2, 2011, proposal
and in section II, above. Below we set forth a summary of the comments
regarding the proposed remedy and EPA's responses:
    Comment 1: Fifteen citizens commented that the new SIP should be
completed in less than 18 months.
    Response: The CAA section 110(k)(5) requires that whenever the
Administrator finds that the applicable implementation plan for any
area is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the relevant
NAAQS, the Administrator shall require the state to revise the plan as
necessary to correct such inadequacies. The Administrator shall notify
the state of the inadequacies and may establish reasonable deadlines
(not to exceed 18 months after the date of such notice) for the
submission of such plan revisions. EPA believes the 18 month deadline
for Iowa to submit its revised SIP is appropriate.

    In order to revise the SIP, the State must conduct modeling;
analyze the modeling; and determine what emission reductions are needed
and the appropriate emission controls to achieve those reductions. The
rulemaking process includes the opportunity for the public to comment
on the proposed SIP revisions, including the proposed emission
controls, at the State level. Once the public has been given adequate
opportunity to submit comments, the State must respond to those
comments, finalize its plan, and then submit it to EPA for review and
approval. In order to have a complete submittal for EPA review, the
State must ensure EPA that all of the requirements in 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix V are met, including for example, a control strategy
demonstration with adequate justification which has been fully vetted
through the public process.
    As described above, the process for developing and finalizing the
State's plan can take a significant amount of time, much of which is
used to allow the public (as well as affected sources) time to comment
on the proposal. Therefore, EPA has determined that the 18 month
timeframe is reasonable for submission of the plan.
    Comment 2: Fourteen citizens commented that the adopted measures to
achieve reductions determined necessary to attain and maintain the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS should be implemented in less than two
years.
    Response: As stated in the response to Comment 1, section 110(k)(5)
of the CAA requires the State to submit a revised SIP to EPA within 18
months of the date of this action, and EPA has determined that the 18
month deadline is reasonable for submission of the SIP. If, as
anticipated, IDNR cannot complete the SIP sooner than 18 months after
this final action, sources would then be required to implement controls
within 6 months after the revised SIP has been developed and submitted.
As discussed above, the State and affected sources will not know which
specific controls will be required until the SIP has gone through the
State rulemaking process, including opportunity for public comment.
Depending on the nature of the final controls selected, it may not be
reasonable to establish a deadline shorter than two years after EPA
promulgates the final SIP call rule. In the proposal EPA stated that
this two year deadline is an outside date, and that compliance with the
control strategy necessary to achieve the standard should be as
expeditious as practicable, but no later than that date. If, during the
SIP development process, the State or EPA determines that compliance
can be achieved earlier than the two year outside date, then compliance
would be required by the earlier date. Therefore, EPA has determined
that this deadline is reasonable.
    Comment 3: Two citizens commented regarding the health effects of
high levels of air pollution in Muscatine. One commenter states that
Muscatine residents experience high incidences of lung disease, cardiac
problems, renal and other serious life threatening illnesses, as well
as death that may be caused by ``air toxicants'' including
PM2.5 and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
    Response: EPA acknowledges the health effects of high levels of
PM2.5 and SO2. The adverse health effects of the
high concentrations of these pollutants are the primary considerations
EPA takes into account when setting the NAAQS levels. The primary NAAQS
levels are intended to be protective of human health. EPA has
determined that the Muscatine area is not meeting the current 24-hour
NAAQS for PM2.5 and, therefore, the current level of air
quality is not protective of human health. This action will help ensure
that the Muscatine area air quality returns to levels of
PM2.5 concentrations that are protective of human health.
    EPA is also addressing air quality issues related to SO2
through the new NAAQS standard promulgated on June 22, 2010, by EPA (72
FR 35520). The attainment status of the Muscatine area with respect to
the SO2 one-hour NAAQS is yet to be determined.
Nonattainment areas will be required to develop plans addressing the
CAA nonattainment area requirements for SO2. In the preamble
to the rule, EPA also describes how most areas not designated as
nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS will be required to develop
a plan to maintain the standard (72 FR 35520, 35552-35554). Therefore,
the State will also need to address SO2 emissions in the
Muscatine area in implementing the applicable requirements for the
SO2 NAAQS.
    Comment 4: Two citizens commented on the emissions seen at or near
Grain Processing Corporation (GPC). A commenter stated that residents
who live near GPC must either stay indoors or be exposed to air
pollutants when the boilers are fired.
    Response: As a result of this action, IDNR is required to submit a
SIP that will demonstrate how the Muscatine area will reach attainment
of the health-based PM2.5 NAAQS. As part of the SIP
development, Iowa will conduct an analysis of the sources contributing
to exceedances of the standard, which will include GPC. The State will
require emissions reductions from contributing sources sufficient to
bring the area back into attainment with the health-based PM NAAQS.
Further opportunity for public review of the State's plan will be
provided by the State and EPA.
    Comment 5: One citizen commented on the exceedances of the ambient
air monitors at the Garfield monitor noting ongoing exceedances of the
standard.
    Response: As explained in Section II, EPA has analyzed the
historical and current monitoring data and has reached the conclusion
that the area is not achieving the standard. EPA agrees that the
Garfield monitor has shown exceedances of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard. EPA is taking this action to address the
resulting violations of the NAAQS to bring the Muscatine area into
attainment.
    Comment 6: IDNR commented that EPA should be more flexible
regarding the modeling demonstration required as part of the SIP. IDNR
stated that the modeling requirement for this SIP call should allow for
the use of the modeling protocol developed by Iowa as well as future
EPA guidance and procedures that may not be part of Appendix W.
    Response: The proposed rule states that the modeling demonstration
should be consistent with Appendix W. EPA does not read this language
as precluding the use of Iowa's modeling protocol and any future
guidance. Appendix W provides the guidelines to establish the modeling
protocol and specifically allows for the use of alternative models. 40
CFR part 51, Appendix W, Section 3.2. EPA will approve the use of
alternatives if appropriate and adequately justified. Any future
guidance will be addressed at the time it is issued.
    Comment 7: IDNR commented that it is not reasonable to expect that
the design value during the calendar year after the necessary controls
are implemented should be at or below the 24-hour PM2.5
standard. Further, IDNR commented that the determination that the
attainment date has been met should be based on data representative of
conditions after the implementation of controls. IDNR also commented
that the attainment date should be determined within two years
following the implementation of controls and should be assessed using
the 98th percentile concentrations. IDNR stated that if the 98th
percentile concentrations for the first and second calendar years after
controls are implemented are below the level of the NAAQS, a deferment
or extension of the attainment date should occur, even if the design
value is over the standard.

    Response: EPA believes it is reasonable to expect the monitored
values in the area to be below the level of the NAAQS in the year after
installation of controls. IDNR has already done a substantial analysis
of air quality and the sources that contribute to the PM2.5
problems in the area. The modeling should identify all of the emissions
reductions which are necessary to attain the standard. The SIP should
also identify the controls which will result in the required emissions
reductions. As discussed in Section III, above, the date for
implementation of controls should be two years after the effective date
of this final rule (in 2013), and the date for attainment will be the
first full calendar year following the required implementation of
controls, i.e. 2014. For clarification, the calculation of this value
would only consider the air quality data in the calendar year after the
controls are fully implemented, and thus would not include the data
from the previous two years (prior to controls, i.e. 2012 and 2013). In
other words, in the year after implementation of controls (2014), the
98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations should be equal to or less
than 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
    This action is a SIP Call under section 110(k)(5). The area has not
yet been designated as nonattainment and therefore, there is no
statutory process for extending the ``attainment date.'' Through this
action, EPA is setting forth a date by which the area must meet the
NAAQS standard.
    Comment 8: IDNR commented that because Muscatine is not currently
designated as a nonattainment area, therefore, it is not clear why
contingency measures analogous to those specified in CAA section
175A(d) are appropriate for the area.
    Response: Although this area is not designated as a nonattainment
area, the area currently is not attaining the NAAQS, and appears in the
past to have gone in and out of attainment. EPA is taking this action
to call for a SIP which includes a control strategy to ensure that the
area attains and then continues to maintain the standard. To ensure
that the area continues to maintain the standard in the future, EPA has
concluded that the State must develop contingency measures which would
address any future violations after the control strategy to achieve
attainment has been successfully implemented. The proposed rule states
that the SIP submission must contain an enforceable commitment to adopt
and implement sufficient contingency measures, once triggered (i.e.,
once the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations for a particular
year exceeds 35 [micro]g/m\3\), in an expeditious and timely fashion
that is comparable and analogous to requirements for contingency
measures in CAA section 175A(d). EPA did not state or intend to imply
that section 175A(d) is literally applicable to the Muscatine area, but
rather provided that IDNR follow 175A(d) as a guide for developing and
implementing its contingency measures. Contrary to commenter's
contention, section 175A(d) contingency measures are not designed for
implementation in nonattainment areas, but rather for implementation
after areas have been redesignated to attainment. In other contexts as
well, EPA has looked to section 175A as a guide for attainment area
maintenance plan contingency measures. For example, EPA used section
175A(d) as a model for maintenance plan contingency measures for
certain areas designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
see Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman to Air Division Directors,
Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under
Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act, May 20, 2005 and attainment area
section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans following this guidance. Thus EPA's
invocation of section 175A(d) with respect to the Muscatine area is
consistent with the purpose of that section and EPA's past practice.
EPA did not receive comments on whether any additional contingency
measure triggers would be appropriate, or whether contingency measures
should be adopted in advance and implemented automatically once
triggered. Therefore, EPA is adopting its proposed approach and
requiring that the SIP submission include contingency measures using
175A(d) as a guide in developing the measures. The specific
requirements for contingency measures for this plan are described in
section III, above.
    Comment 9: The Iowa Environmental Council (IEC) commented that EPA
should issue its final SIP call at the earliest possible date so that
corrective actions can be put into practice quickly. IEC also commented
on the health effects of high levels of PM2.5 in the
Muscatine area. Finally, the commenter stated that it is imperative
that IDNR assure that Muscatine reduces its PM2.5
concentrations and prove that these reductions can at last be
maintained in the long run.
    Response: See responses to comments 1, 3, and 8 above.

V. What actions is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking the following actions relating to the Iowa SIP for
PM2.5 for Muscatine County. EPA:
    1. Finds that the SIP is substantially inadequate to maintain the
NAAQS for 24-hour PM2.5 in the area;
    2. Requires that Iowa revise and submit to EPA a SIP to meet all of
the applicable requirements of section 110 of the Act with respect to
PM2.5 in the area, including an emissions inventory, modeled
attainment demonstration, adopted control measures and contingency
measures as described in EPA's February 2, 2011, proposal;
    3. Requires the State to submit revisions to the SIP within 18
months of the effective date of this rule;
    4. Requires that all adopted measures to achieve reductions
determined necessary to attain and maintain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard be implemented no later than two years after
the issuance of this rule;
    5. Requires that the SIP provide for attainment and maintenance of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Muscatine County, Iowa
area as expeditiously as practicable, beginning (as described in
response to Comment 7) no later than the calendar year after the
implementation of controls necessary for attainment (two years after
the effective date of this rule).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, a finding of substantial inadequacy and subsequent
obligation for a State to revise its SIP arise out of section 110(a)
and 110(k)(5). The finding and State obligation do not directly impose
any new regulatory requirements. In addition, the State obligation is
not legally enforceable by a court of law. EPA would review its
intended action on any SIP submittal in response to the finding in
light of applicable statutory and Executive Order requirements, in
subsequent rulemaking acting on such SIP submittal. For those reasons,
this rule:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 CAA; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the finding of SIP inadequacy would not apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 12, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 110
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410 and 7601).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Iowa, Particulate matter, State implementation plan.

    Dated: June 28, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-17235 Filed 7-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21764-21765]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-1806-000]

Mitsui Bussan Commodities, Ltd.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Mitsui Bussan
Commodities, Ltd.'s application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and

assumptions of liability, is May 29, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 9, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10038 Filed 5-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


APPENDIX F

Nonroad Sources

Bureau of Air Quality

Department of Environmental Protection

This page blank for copying purposes.


[Federal Register: February 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5311-5312]
[DOCID:fr01fe06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

January 24, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Application for Amendment of License.
    b. Project No: 2685-021.
    c. Date Filed: December 22, 2005.
    d. Applicant: Power Authority of the State of New York.
    e. Name of Project: Blenheim Gilboa Power Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Schoharie Creek in
Schoharie County, New York.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contacts: Mr. John J. Suloway, Executive Director,
Licensing Division, New York Power Authority, 123 Main Street, 9th Fl.,
White Plains, NY 10601,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Mr. Hong Tung at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: February 24, 2006.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee proposes to rehabilitate
the four generating units of its Blenheim-Gilboa Pumped Storage
Project, which would increase its generating capacity and efficiency.
The rehabilitation of the existing four pump-turbine runners and
possibly other components would increase the total generating capacity
by 120 MW, and the maximum hydraulic capacity by about 3.5 to 10.35
percent. The licensee states the proposed modifications would increase
the generating efficiency by about 7 percent, and would enhance the
flexibility of the plant to meet peak demand.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing 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 field to access the document. You may
also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies)
should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A
copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application.

A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the
Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time
specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments.
One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's
representatives.
    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 at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-1242 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5536-5537]
[DOCID:fr30ja08-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12965-000]

Wickiup Hydro Group, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

January 24, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12965-000.
    c. Date Filed: August 20, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Wickiup Hydro Group, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Wickiup Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Deschutes River in Deschutes County, Oregon. It would
use the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Wickiup Dam.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L. Smith, COO, Symbiotics, LLC,
P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID 83442,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 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. Please include the project
number (P-12965-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation's Wickiup Dam and

operated in a run-of-river mode would consist of: (1) One new 400-foot-
long, 120-inch-diameter steel penstock; (2) a new powerhouse and
switchyard; (3) two turbine/generator units with a combined installed
capacity of 4 megawatts; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed
Wickiup Dam project would interconnect with Midstate Electrical
Cooperative's existing distribution system at the project site, and
would have an average annual generation of 16 gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may 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 field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-1629 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 29911]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4319-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Kansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4319-DR), dated June 16, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 23, 2017.

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: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Kansas is hereby amended to include the following area
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
June 16, 2017.

    Stanton County for snow assistance under the Public Assistance
program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the
incident period (already designated for Public Assistance).

    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.

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-13840 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: August 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 47036-47038]
[DOCID:fr04au10-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-29373]

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

July 29, 2010.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
July 2010.

A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's Web
site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the
Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling
(202) 551-8090. An order granting each application will be issued
unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a
hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the
address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the
request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by
the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on August 24, 2010, and should be accompanied by
proof of service on the applicant, 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 Secretary, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane L. Titus at<PHONE_NUMBER>, SEC,
Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4041.

John Hancock Equity Trust

[File No. 811-4079]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On January 22, 2010, applicant transferred
its assets to John Hancock Small Cap Equity Fund, a series of John
Hancock Investment Trust II, based on net asset value. Expenses of
$130,204 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on June 29, 2010.
    Applicant's Address: 601 Congress St., Boston, MA 02210-2805.

Destination Funds

[File No. 811-21701]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 16, 2010, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of approximately $5,227 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by Destination Capital Management, Inc.,
applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on June 29, 2010.
    Applicant's Address: Destination Capital Management, Inc., c/o
YCMNET Advisors, Inc., 2001 North Main St., Suite 270, Walnut Creek, CA
94596.

Small Cap Premium & Dividend Income Fund, Inc.

[File No. 811-21746]

Enhanced S&P 500[reg] Covered Call Fund Inc.

[File No. 811-21787]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On May
24, 2010, each applicant made a liquidating distribution to its
shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $17,500 incurred by
each applicant in connection with the liquidations were paid by
applicants and IQ Investment Advisors LLC, applicants' investment
adviser. Each applicant has retained approximately $11,500 in cash to
pay certain outstanding liabilities.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on July 1, 2010.
    Applicants' Address: 4 World Financial Center, 6th Floor, New York,
NY 10080.

Telephone Exchange Fund AT&T Shares

[File No. 811-3822]

    Summary: Applicant, a unit investment trust, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October 1,
2008, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its unit holders,
based on net asset value. Applicant incurred expenses of $2,003 in
connection with the liquidation. As of July 6, 2010, applicant had 33
outstanding unit holders. The trustee will mail a due diligence follow-
up notice to each remaining holder every three months until the third
anniversary of applicant's termination, at which time any unpaid
distributions will be included in the trustee's normal escheatment
process.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 3, 2010, and
amended on March 5, 2010, and July 6, 2010.
    Applicant's Address: 60 South Sixth Street., Minneapolis, MN 55402-
4422.

Oppenheimer Target Distribution Fund

[File No. 811-22230]

Oppenheimer Target Distribution & Growth Fund

[File No. 811-22231]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. Applicants have never made a public
offering of their securities and do not propose to make a public
offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The applications were filed on June 4, 2010, and
amended on July 14, 2010.
    Applicants' Address: 6803 S. Tucson Way, Centennial, CO 80112.

Ironwood Series Trust

[File No. 811-8507]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 2, 2009, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of approximately $545 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by Ironwood Investment Management, LLC,
applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 1, 2009, and
amended on July 12, 2010.
    Applicant's Address: Atlantic Fund Administration, LLC, Three Canal
Plaza, Suite 600, Portland, ME 04101.

Van Kampen Partners Trust

[File No. 811-22268]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On January 22, 2010, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of approximately $21,600 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by Van Kampen Asset Management, applicant's
investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 31, 2010 and
amended on July 6, 2010.
    Applicant's Address: 522 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10036.

Ivy Funds

[File No. 811-1028]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 1, 2010, applicant transferred its
assets to the Ivy Funds, File No. 811-6569 (changing the state of
organization from Massachusetts to Delaware), based on net asset value.
Expenses of approximately $2,357,597 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by applicant and the surviving fund.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 27, 2010, and
amended on July 23, 2010.
    Applicant's Address: 6300 Lamar Ave., Shawnee Mission, KS 66202-
4200.

Ivy Long/Short Hedge Fund LLC

[File No. 811-21246]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 12, 2010, and
amended on July 22, 2010.
    Applicant's Address: Ivy Long/Short Hedge Fund LLC, One Wall St.,
New York, NY 10286.

Frontier Funds Inc.

[File No. 811-6449]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 12, 2010, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $500 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid
by applicant. Applicant has retained less than $400 in cash to cover
certain miscellaneous closing expenses.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 31, 2010 and
amended on June 16, 2010 and July 26, 2010.
    Applicant's Address: 333 Bishops Way, Suite 122, Brookfield, WI
53005.

MetLife Investors Variable Annuity Account Five

[File No. 811-7060]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant is a registered separate account,
as defined in Section 2(a)(37) under the Investment Company Act of
1940, and is organized as a unit investment trust. The board of
directors of MetLife Investors Insurance Company (``MLI'') the
depositor to the separate account, approved the merger of the separate
account into Metlife Investors Variable Annuity Account One on June 29,
2009. The merger was effected on November 9, 2009. MLI bore all
expenses relating to the merger.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on July 21, 2010.
    Applicant's Address: 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California
92614.

MetLife Investors Variable Life Account Five

[File No. 811-8433]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant is a registered separate account,
as defined in Section 2(a)(37) under the Investment Company Act of
1940, and is organized as a unit investment trust. The board of
directors of MetLife Investors Insurance Company (``MLI''), the
depositor to the separate account, approved the merger of the separate
account into Metlife Investors Variable Life Account One on June 29,
2009. The merger was effected on November 9, 2009. MLI bore all
expenses relating to the merger.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on July 21, 2010.
    Applicant's Address: 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1900, Irvine, California
92614.

Metropolitan Life Variable Annuity Separate Account I

[File No. 811-8732]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant is a registered separate account,
as defined in Section 2(a)(37) under the Investment Company Act of
1940, and is organized as a unit investment trust. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (``MLIC''), the depositor to the separate account,
merged the separate account into Metropolitan Life Variable Annuity
Separate Account II on November 9, 2009. MLIC bore all expenses
relating to the merger.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on July 21, 2010.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166.

The New England Variable Account

[File No. 811-5338]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant is a registered separate account,
as defined in Section 2(a)(37) under the Investment Company Act of
1940, and is organized as a unit investment trust. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (``MLIC''), the depositor to the separate account,
merged the separate account into Metropolitan Life Separate Account E
on November 9, 2009. MLIC bore all expenses relating to the merger.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on July 21, 2010.
    Applicant's Address: 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19110 Filed 8-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P