[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21305-21309]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09929]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0836; FRL-9993-60-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU43

Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Gasoline
Volatility Standard for the Atlanta RVP Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a request from Georgia for EPA to relax the federal Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce
from June 1 to September 15 of each year for the following Georgia
counties: Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette,
Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale (the ``Atlanta
RVP Area''). Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend the regulations to
allow the RVP standard for the Atlanta RVP Area to change from 7.8
pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline. EPA has
preliminarily determined that this change to the federal RVP regulation
is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 13, 2019
unless a public hearing is requested by May 29, 2019. If EPA receives
such a request, we will publish information related to the timing and
location of the hearing and a new deadline for public comment.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0836, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your
comment, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.)
must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and should include discussion of all
points you wish to make.
    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-
9256; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also contact Rudolph Kapichak, Office
of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency,
2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105; telephone number:
(734) 214-4574; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in
the following outline:

I. General Information
II. Public Participation
III. Background and Proposal
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
V. Legal Authority

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are fuel
producers and distributors involved in the supplying of gasoline to
Shelby County.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Examples of potentially regulated
                entities                          NAICS \1\ codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum refineries....................  324110.
Gasoline Marketers and Distributors.....  424710, 424720.
Gasoline Retail Stations................  447110.
Gasoline Transporters...................  484220, 484230.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which EPA is
aware that potentially could be affected by this proposed rule. Other
types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected. To
determine whether your organization could be affected by this proposed
rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If
you have questions regarding

the applicability of this action to a particular entity, call the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ North American Industry Classification System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by
sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the CAA, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h)
and 7601(a).

II. Public Participation

    EPA will not hold a public hearing on this matter unless a request
is received by the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble by May 29, 2019. If EPA receives such
a request, we will publish information related to the timing and
location of the hearing and a new deadline for public comment.

III. Background and Proposal

A. Summary of the Proposal

    EPA is proposing to approve a request from Georgia to change the
summertime federal RVP standard for the Atlanta RVP Area from 7.8 psi
to 9.0 psi by amending EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). In a
separate rulemaking, EPA has approved both a revised maintenance plan
and CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration, which conclude
that relaxing the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for
gasoline sold from June 1 to September 15 of each year in the Atlanta
RVP Area would not interfere with the maintenance of the ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the maintenance of the other
NAAQS, or with any other applicable CAA requirement. (See 84 FR 16786,
April 23, 2019.)
    On July 18, 2016, Georgia submitted a redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the 15-county 2008 ozone NAAQS, which EPA approved
on June 2, 2017 (82 FR 25523).\2\ The maintenance plan included
estimated emissions through 2030 and modeled 7.8 psi for the RVP
requirements in the Atlanta RVP Area. Georgia did not, at that time,
request the relaxation of the federal RVP requirements for the Atlanta
RVP Area. Since then, EPA has also designated a portion of the Atlanta
RVP Area as a nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\3\ More
recently, Georgia requested a relaxation of the federal RVP
requirements. This has necessitated a demonstration that relaxing the
federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold from
June 1 to September 15 of each year in the Atlanta RVP Area would not
interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS, including the 2008 and 2015
ozone NAAQS, or any other applicable CAA requirement, under CAA section
110(l). Therefore, by a subsequent rulemaking, EPA approved Georgia's
non-interference demonstration and its related revised maintenance plan
for the 15-county 2008 ozone NAAQS maintenance area. The subsequent
rulemaking also approved Georgia's non-interference demonstration for
the 7-county 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 15-county 2008 ozone NAAQS maintenance area includes the
following counties: Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb,
Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton,
Paulding, and Rockdale. The 13-county Atlanta RVP Area covered by
the federal RVP requirement includes the same counties with the
exception of Bartow and Newton Counties.
    \3\ EPA designated seven counties in the Atlanta RVP Area as
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the seven counties are:
Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett and Henry. (See 83
FR 25776, June 4, 2018.)
    \4\ EPA approved Georgia's non-interference demonstration and
revised maintenance plan on April 23, 2019 (84 FR 16786).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section
III.B. provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility
regulation. Section III.C. describes the policy regarding relaxation of
gasoline volatility standards. Section III.D. provides information
specific to Georgia's request for the Atlanta RVP Area.

B. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment.
Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone
and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to
ground-level ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma
and other respiratory conditions, increase susceptibility to
respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people
with heart and lung disease.
    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in
evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under CAA section
211(c), EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868)
that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the
regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state
basis in that final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the
portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These
regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program,
which was designed to reduce the volatility of gasoline during the high
ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more
stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control
program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0
psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's
initial ozone NAAQS attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS).
    The 1990 CAA Amendments established new CAA section 211(h) to
address fuel volatility. CAA section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone
season. CAA section 211(h) also prohibits EPA from establishing a
volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area,
except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any
former ozone NAAQS nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The
modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above
9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January
13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations
retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55
FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for
certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility
controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility
standards published in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate
changes to their respective volatility programs. EPA's policy for
approving such changes is described below in Section III.C.

C. Relaxation of Gasoline Volatility Standards

    EPA stated in the amended Phase II volatility standards (56 FR
64706), that any change in the gasoline volatility standard for a
nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment
area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises
the applicable standard for that area. Thus, the federal 7.8 psi
gasoline RVP requirement remains in effect, even

after such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate
rulemaking is completed that relaxes the federal gasoline RVP standard
in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
    As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, EPA believes that
relaxation of an applicable gasoline RVP standard is best accomplished
in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone
NAAQS nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, CAA
section 107(d)(3) requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to CAA
section 175A, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for
the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's circumstances,
this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable
of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent
volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may
be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA
will not relax the gasoline volatility standard unless the state
requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the
area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the
more stringent volatility standard. Similarly, a maintenance plan may
be revised to relax the gasoline volatility standard if the state
requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the
area will maintain attainment for the duration of the maintenance plan.
    In the context of this rulemaking, EPA must consider the
applicability of its longstanding policy and practice of approving RVP
relaxations in areas that are either designated attainment or have been
redesignated to attainment for all relevant ozone NAAQS. As previously
explained, given that a portion of the Atlanta RVP Area is a designated
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS,\5\ EPA has also considered
agency practices and policy for the approval of requests from states to
opt out of reformulated gasoline (RFG) and removal of state fuel
regulations from approved SIPs. With regard to state requests to opt
out of RFG, EPA's RFG opt-out regulations allow for the approval of a
state's request regardless of whether the area is either designated
nonattainment or has been redesignated to attainment for the relevant
ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 80.72). Further, EPA has approved the removal of
state fuel regulations from an approved SIP where subject areas were
designated nonattainment for an ozone NAAQS at the time of the
action.\6\ EPA has extended these various practices and policy to
Georgia's RVP relaxation request given that a portion of the Atlanta
RVP Area is also designated as nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\7\ Given past actions with respect to ozone NAAQS nonattainment
areas, EPA is proposing to approve relaxations of the federal 7.8 psi
RVP standard in areas that are designated as nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA designated seven counties in the Atlanta RVP Area as
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the seven counties are:
Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett and Henry. (See 83
FR 25776, June 4, 2018.)
    \6\ For example, on December 20, 2018 (83 FR 65301), EPA
approved the removal of Pennsylvania's regulation requiring the sale
of gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi from June 1st to September 15th
of each year in the Pittsburgh area, which is designated as a
Marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    \7\ EPA designated seven counties in the Atlanta area as
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the seven counties are:
Bartow, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett and Henry. (See 83
FR 25776, June 4, 2018.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary requirement in approving RFG opt-out requests and SIP
revisions to remove approved fuel regulations is that the subject state
must demonstrate that the relevant area will be able to attain the
ozone NAAQS by the required attainment date without relying on
emissions reductions from RFG or the state fuel regulation. This has
been accomplished by the state submitting and EPA approving a SIP
revision that includes an appropriate CAA section 110(l) non-
interference demonstration. In most cases, this has necessitated that
the state SIP revision includes additional controls on emissions that
will offset any increased emissions. The CAA section 110(l) requirement
also applies to the relaxation of the federal 7.8 psi RVP limit.
Therefore, where EPA approves a CAA section 110(l) non-interference
demonstration associated with an RVP relaxation for an ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area, EPA may approve a relaxation of the gasoline RVP
limit from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi consistent with EPA's precedent to date.

D. Georgia's Request To Relax the Federal Gasoline RVP Requirement for
the Atlanta RVP Area

    On August 15, 2018, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Division (Georgia or State), submitted a
request to relax the federal gasoline RVP requirement in the Atlanta
RVP Area. The State also submitted a CAA section 110(l) non-
interference demonstration and revised maintenance plan for approval by
EPA. The non-interference demonstration shows that the relaxation would
not interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 15-
county 2008 ozone NAAQS maintenance area or any other applicable CAA
requirement, including the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As previously explained,
Georgia did not request relaxation of the federal RVP standard from 7.8
psi to 9.0 psi when the State originally submitted the CAA section 175A
maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that was approved on June 2,
2017 (82 FR 25523). Georgia's CAA section 110(l) non-interference
demonstration for the 2015 ozone NAAQS demonstrated that timely
attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS would not be delayed if the federal
RVP standard was relaxed. This was accomplished by including additional
controls that serve to reduce emissions to make up the emission
reductions that are removed through the relaxation of the federal RVP
limit from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
    On April 23, 2019, EPA approved Georgia's August 15, 2018 request
for a revised maintenance plan approval and its CAA section 110(l) non-
interference demonstration. In that rulemaking, EPA included an
evaluation of Georgia's CAA section 110(l) non-interference
demonstration for the 15-county 2008 ozone NAAQS maintenance area and
the 7-county 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area (including the
additional control measures incorporated into the SIP to ensure timely
attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS).\8\ EPA received one comment on
this rulemaking that supported EPA's approval of Georgia's request but
conditioned the support based on EPA establishing a compliance date for
the relaxation that would not disrupt the marketplace or negatively
impact retailers and marketers. EPA noted that this comment was outside
the scope of that rulemaking, which was related to the approval of a
revised maintenance plan and CAA section 110(l) demonstration. The
compliance date of a relaxation of the RVP limit would be established
through this rulemaking, which, if finalized, will revise the RVP limit
for the Atlanta area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For further details, see 84 FR 16786 (April 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In today's action, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's request to
relax the summertime ozone season federal RVP gasoline standard for the
Atlanta RVP Area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to amend the applicable standard to allow the gasoline RVP
requirements at 40 CFR

80.27(a)(2) for the counties in the Atlanta RVP Area to change from 7.8
psi to 9.0 psi. Today's proposal is based on Georgia's August 15, 2018
submission of a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration and
maintenance plan revision, and EPA's April 23, 2019 approval of
Georgia's submission.
    EPA believes that a final rule that raises the RVP standard for
gasoline from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would be ``a substantive rule which .
. . relieves a restriction'' within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
Accordingly, EPA may decide to make the publication date of a final
rule based on this proposal serve as the compliance date of the final
rule.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This proposed rule, if finalized, would provide meaningful
burden reduction because it would relax the federal RVP standard for
gasoline, and as a result, fuel suppliers would no longer be required
to provide the lower RVP gasoline in the Atlanta RVP Area during the
summer months. Relaxing the volatility requirements would also be
beneficial because this action, if finalized, could improve the
fungibility of gasoline sold in Georgia by allowing the gasoline sold
in the Atlanta RVP Area to be identical to the fuel sold in the
remainder of the State.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the
requirements of this action are refiners, importers or blenders of
gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in
Georgia, and gasoline distributers and retail stations in Georgia. This
action, if finalized, would relax the federal RVP standard for gasoline
sold in the Atlanta RVP Area during the summertime ozone season (June 1
to September 15 of each year) to allow the RVP for gasoline sold in
this area to rise from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. This rule does not impose
any requirements or create impacts on small entities beyond those, if
any, already required by or resulting from the CAA section 211(h)
Volatility Control program. Therefore, this action, if finalized, would
have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small
entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This proposed rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100
million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action would
implement mandates that are specifically and explicitly set forth in
CAA section 211(h) without the exercise of any policy discretion by
EPA.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It would not
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed
rule would affect only those refiners, importers or blenders of
gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in
the Atlanta RVP Area and gasoline distributers and retail stations in
the Area. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive Order. EPA has no reason to believe that this action may
disproportionately affect children since Georgia has provided evidence
that a relaxation of the gasoline RVP will not interfere with its
attainment of the ozone NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement.
By separate action, EPA has approved Georgia's non-interference
demonstration regarding its maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
for the 15-county 2008 ozone NAAQS maintenance area, and that Georgia's
relaxation of the gasoline RVP standard in the Atlanta RVP Area to 9.0
RVP will not interfere with any other NAAQS (including attainment of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS) or CAA requirement.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by
this action would not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the applicable
ozone NAAQS (i.e., the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS), which establish the
level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
Georgia has demonstrated in its non-interference demonstration that
this action will not interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
for the 15-county 2008 ozone NAAQS maintenance area, or with any other
applicable requirement of the CAA, including timely attainment of the
2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore,

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated
result. The results of this evaluation are contained in EPA's proposed
and final rules for Georgia's non-interference demonstration. A copy of
Georgia's August 15, 2018 letter requesting that EPA relax the gasoline
RVP standard, including the technical analysis demonstrating that the
less stringent gasoline RVP would not interfere with continued
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS or with any other applicable CAA
requirement, including timely attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, has
been placed in the public docket for this action.

V. Legal Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by
sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C.
7545(h) and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and
motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 7, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-09929 Filed 5-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21927-21928]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meeting related to the

transmission planning activities of the Southern Company Services,
Inc.:

Southeastern Regional Transmission Planning (SERTP) Process Interim
Stakeholder Meeting on Order No. 1000

April 10, 2013, 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., Local Time

    The above-referenced meeting will be held at:

Georgia Transmission Corporation (GTC) Headquarters--Tucker, Georgia

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: www.southeasternrtp.com.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER13-908, Alabama Power Company et al.
Docket No. ER13-913, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
Docket No. ER13-897, Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky
Utilities Company
Docket No. ER12-337, Mississippi Power Company
Docket No. ER13-1221, Mississippi Power Company
Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL10-52, Central Transmission, L.L.C. v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER09-1256, Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER10-253 and EL10-14, Primary Power, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER11-2814 and ER11-2815, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and
American Transmission Systems, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-69, Primary Power LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-91, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-92, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.
Docket No. ER12-1178, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2399, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2708, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-195, Indicated PJM Transmission Owners
Docket No. ER13-198, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-887, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-1033, Linden VFT, LLC and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER13-1177, 1178 and 1179, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and
Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-186, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc. and the MISO Transmission Owners
Docket No. ER13-187, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc. and the MISO Transmission Owners
Docket No. ER13-89, MidAmerican Energy Company and Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-101, American Transmission Company LLC and the Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-84, Cleco Power LLC
Docket No. ER13-95, Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-80, Tampa Electric Company
Docket No. ER13-86, Florida Power Corporation
Docket No. ER13-104, Florida Power & Light Company
Docket No. NJ13-2, Orlando Utilities Commission
Docket Nos. ER13-366 and ER13-367, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-83, Duke Energy Carolinas LLC and Carolina Power &
Light Company
Docket No. ER13-88, Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-107, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

    For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6139 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 4, 2013.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08586 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 8244-8245]
[DOCID:fr24fe09-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 459-249]

Ameren/UE; Notice of Application for Amendment of License and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

February 17, 2009.
    a. Type of Application: Non-project use of project lands and
waters.
    b. Project Number: 459-249.
    c. Date Filed: December 22, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Ameren/UE.
    e. Name of Project: Osage Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located in Benton, Camden, Miller, and
Morgan Counties, Missouri. The proposed use would be located at the
Paradise Tropical Restaurant, Inc., near mile marker 24 of the main
channel of the Lake of the Ozarks in Camden County, Missouri.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a) 825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeff Green, Shoreline Supervisor, Ameren/
UE, P.O. Box 993, Lake Ozark, MO 65049,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Christopher Yeakel at<PHONE_NUMBER>,

or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: March 17, 2009.
    k. Description of Request: Ameren/UE requests approval to permit
Tucker Investments, LLC, to modify an existing multi-slip boat dock and
construct a breakwater at the Paradise Tropical Restaurant, Inc., near
mile marker 24 of the main channel of the Lake of the Ozarks. The
existing dock has 13 double slips. The modified dock would have a total
of 18 double boat slips; twelve slips would be 28 feet long and 24 feet
wide and six would be 28 feet long and 28 feet wide. The docks would be
available to patrons of Paradise Tropical Restaurant. The breakwater
would be a floating-concrete design 320 feet long and 12 feet wide, and
would have seventeen navigation lights. The existing fuel-dispensing
facilities would remain. In developing the application, the licensee
consulted with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Officer, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Missouri Department of Conservation, and
the Missouri State Water Patrol.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's 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 (p-459) 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 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. 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, .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.
    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 (p-459-249). 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. 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.
    q. 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.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-3856 Filed 2-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 189)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56537-56540]
[DOCID:fr29se08-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0744]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Spa Creek,
Annapolis, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the enforcement
period for special local regulations during the ``Tug-of-War'', a
marine event held annually on the waters of Spa Creek between Eastport
and Annapolis, Maryland. Special local regulations are necessary to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event.
This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of Spa
Creek during the event.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before October 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0744 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Ronald Houck, Marine Information Specialist, Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0744), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0744)
in the Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit either the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays; or the Fifth Coast Guard District,
Prevention Division, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA, 23704 between
10 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act, system of
records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Annually, the City of Annapolis sponsors the ``Tug-of-War'', across
the waters of Spa Creek between Eastport and Annapolis, Maryland. The
event consists of a tug of war between teams on the Eastport side of
Spa Creek pulling against teams on the Annapolis side of Spa Creek. The
opposing teams will pull a floating rope approximately 1,700 feet in
length, spanning Spa Creek. A fleet of spectator vessels is
anticipated. The regulation at 33 CFR 100.501 is effective annually for
the Tug-of-War marine event. The table to Sec.  100.501, event No. 29
establishes the enforcement date for the Tug-of-War. This regulation
proposes to temporarily change the enforcement date from ``October--
last Saturday or November first Saturday'' to the second Saturday in
November, holding the marine event on November 8, 2008. The City of
Annapolis who is the sponsor for this event intends to hold this event
annually; however, they have changed the date of the event for 2008 so
that it is outside the scope of the existing enforcement period. Due to
the need for vessel control while the rope is spanned across Spa Creek,
vessel traffic would be temporarily restricted to provide for the
safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily suspend the regulations at
33 CFR 100.501 by changing the date of enforcement in the table to
Sec.  100.501 to reflect the event will be conducted in 2008 on the
second Saturday in November, November 8, 2008. This proposed change is
needed to accommodate the sponsor's schedule. The special local
regulations will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on November
8, 2008, and will restrict general navigation in the regulated area
during the marine event. Except for persons or vessels authorized by
the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or
remain in the regulated area during the effective period. The regulated
area is needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance
the safety of participants and transiting vessels.
    In addition to notice in the Federal Register, the maritime
community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local
Notice to Mariners, and marine information broadcasts so mariners can
adjust their plans accordingly.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this proposed rule prevents traffic from transiting a
portion of Spa Creek during the event, the effect of this regulation
will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated
area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that
will be made to the maritime community via marine information
broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers so mariners can
adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the proposed regulated
area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general
navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary. Vessel
traffic will be able to transit the regulated area when the Coast Guard
Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule will effect the following entities,
some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Spa Creek during the
event.
    This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be in effect for only a 4-hour period. Vessel traffic will be
able to transit the regulated area when the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander deems it is safe to do so. Before the enforcement period, we
will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans
accordingly.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for

compliance, please contact Coast Guard Sector Baltimore listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the beginning of this rule. The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination under the Instruction that this
action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human
environment. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

    1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. In Sec.  100.501, from October 24, 2008 to November 15, 2008,
suspend line No. 29 in the Table to Sec.  100.501.
    3. In Sec.  100.501, from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., on November 8,
2008, add line No. 58 in Table to Sec.  100.501 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.501  Special Local Regulations; Marine Events in the Fifth
Coast Guard District.

* * * * *
Table to Sec.  100.501
    All coordinates listed in the Table to Sec.  100.501 reference
Datum NAD 1983.

                                     Coast Guard Sector Baltimore--COTP Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Number                 Date                  Event                Sponsor                 Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
58................  November 8, 2008.....  Tug of War..........  City of Annapolis...  The waters of Spa Creek
                                                                                from shoreline to
                                                                                shoreline, extending 400
                                                                                feet from either side of
                                                                                a rope spanning Spa
                                                                                Creek from a position at
                                                                                latitude
                                                                                38[deg]58'36.9'' N,
                                                                                longitude
                                                                                076[deg]29'03.8'' W on
                                                                                the Annapolis shoreline
                                                                                to a position at
                                                                                latitude
                                                                                38[deg]58'26.4'' N,
                                                                                longitude
                                                                                076[deg]28'53.7'' W on
                                                                                the Eastport shoreline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: August 18, 2008.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-22442 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


316B RULE TELEPHONE LOG Name of Caller: John Sunda, SAIC Date: November 4, 2002 Company Name: Chalk Point Power Station Street Address:

City/ State/ ZIP:

Person Contacted: Patrick Langley Title: Environmental Mgr Telephone #: 301 843 4439 Called to inquire about fish barrier net design and operation especially operating costs.

He's been at that plant since 1971, back before the nets were used, they used to have to frequently clean out the condensers after just 2 weeks they were removing a dump truck load of debris including crabs and other debris. Now with the nets in place, they recently went for 99 days before a shut down ( they try to shut down during lower demand between Friday and Monday) and only pulled out about a 5 gallon bucket full. Originally they tried using poles similar to what fishermen use but found that they were to easily pushed over  so use pilings instead. There is a separate set of pilings for each of the two nets. Pilings are about 18 to 20 ft apart  enough space so a boat can go between. The pilings extend above the water surface by about 6 ft.

The nets are supported on spikes in the pilings near the top and are not connected anyplace else. When put in place the weighted lower end of the net is placed outward from the pilings so that net forms an " el" shape profile. They have had no problems with sealing the bottom using this method.

They do not have problems with abrasion on the pilings but they do have problems sometimes with watermen who between pulling traps go up to their nets and fish alongside. They damage the nets when their boats come up against the pilings with the net in between where the up and down wave action damages the nets or their props get caught. They sometimes have problems with beavers also.

They have debris problems with jellyfish, colonial hydroids and virtocella ( sp?), a spongelike organism. They use a two net system to deal with debris where the outer net with a 1.25 inch stretch removes 85% of the debris and the inner net removes another 85%+. They tried smaller mesh at 0.5 inch stretch and found that too much debris ( colonial hydroids) got caught on the net.

Concerning the nets, each net consists of three nets approximately 275 300 ft long and 27 ft deep. The specs for 1.25 in mesh net recently purchased for $ 4,131 each was:

° 275 ft long by 27 ft wide, ° # 252 knotless nylon netting, ° 5 inch rope on top with floats every 6 ft ° 5/ 16 inch galvanized line on bottom For the similar nets with .75 inch mesh were $ 3,936 each. Normally the smaller mesh netting costs more. This is a new supplier " Nylon Net Company" in Memphis TN.

Concerning O& M costs, the $ 7,500 answer in the questionnaire is incorrect. It should be more like $ 75,000 and may be a typo. They pay a marine contractor $ 1,400 a job to remove, repair, clean, and replace the netting for both nets. They pay for 52 to 54 net change outs every year with frequency as often as two per week during the summer, and every two weeks during the winter. Removal and replacement of a net is done in one step with one boat removing a net starting at one end and a second boat putting the replacement net in place right behind the first boat so the time the area is open is minimized. The contractor then takes the net to their dock where they clean and repair it for the next net change out. The contractor uses a diver to make sure the bottom of the net is set properly. They buy the equivalent of a new set of nets generally about every 3 years.

Based on this, the O& M costs include: ° 53 x $ 1,400 = $ 74,200/ year for net maintenance ° 6 ( nets) / 3 years * $ 4,100 = $ 8,200 year In past they took the nets down during the winter because of ice. But they had still problems with perch impingement in January. Then their contractor and biologists came up with a method for suspending the net about 3 ft below the surface. The perch tend to be near the bottom and they haven't had too much problem with fish or debris passing over the nets.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 143 (Thursday, July 27, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34853]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15829]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG- 2017-0593]

Special Local Regulations; Three Rivers Rowing Association/Head
of the Ohio Regatta, Allegheny River Mile 0.0 to 4.0

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation during
the Three Rivers Rowing Association/Head of the Ohio Regatta on the
Allegheny River miles 0.0 to 4.0, for all navigable waters of the
river. This regulation is needed to protect vessels transiting the area
and event spectators from the hazards associated with the Three Rivers
Rowing Association/Head of the Ohio Regatta. During the enforcement
period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the regulated area is
prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as
participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized
by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1 Sector Ohio Valley,
No. 36 will be enforced from 6 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., each day from
October 7, 2017, through October 8, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine
Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce special local
regulations for the annual Three Rivers Rowing Association/Head of the
Ohio Regatta in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1 Sector Ohio Valley, No. 36 from
6 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. each day from October 7, 2017 through October 8,
2017. Entry into the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a
designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or
pass through the area must request permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and
vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated
representative.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
100.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with
advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to
Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

    Dated: July 20, 2017.
L. McClain, Jr.,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2017-15829 Filed 7-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 60)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14678-14681]
[DOCID:fr29mr07-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0774; FRL-8284-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving revisions to Indiana's State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on August 25, 2006, revising its
existing emission reporting rule to be consistent with the emission
statement program requirements for stationary sources in the Clean Air
Act (CAA). The rationale for approval and other information are
provided in this rulemaking action.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 29, 2007, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by April 30, 2007. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of

the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0774, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0774. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI 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, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. General Information
II. What Is Required by the Clean Air Act and How Does It Apply to
Indiana?
III. What Change Is Indiana Requesting?
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

    This rulemaking applies to stationary sources located in ozone
nonattainment areas. It requires sources to submit emission statement
data to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) on an
annual basis. This collected emission data can help the IDEM develop a
complete and accurate emission inventory for air quality planning
purposes at the State, and also meet EPA emission reporting
requirements.

II. What Is Required by the Clean Air Act and How Does It Apply to
Indiana?

Emission Statements (Annual Reporting)

    Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires each state to submit
revisions to its State implementation plan (SIP) to require that the
owner or operator of each stationary source of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in nonattainment
areas prepare and submit emission statements each year showing actual
emissions of those pollutants. This requirement applies to all ozone
nonattainment areas covered under subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the
CAA, regardless of classification (marginal, moderate, etc.) In such
nonattainment areas, facilities which emit VOC or NOX (on a
plant-wide basis) in amounts of 25 tons per year or more into the
ambient air must submit an emission statement to the State.
    On June 10, 2002 (67 FR 39602), EPA amended the list of pollutants
to be reported on emission statements, adding particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5)
and ammonia (NH3).
    On April 30, 2004, EPA published its Phase 1 rule to implement the
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (69 FR
23951). On this same date, EPA set forth nonattainment and attainment
designations for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858).
    EPA has determined that the emission statement program requirements
previously applicable for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS apply in the same
manner for the 8-hour NAAQS. See May 3, 2006, memorandum from Thomas C.
Curran, Director, Air Quality Assessment Division, to Regional Air
Division Directors, entitled ``Emission Statement Requirement Under 8-
hour Ozone NAAQS implementation.'' Thus, the requirement for emission
statements under section 182(a)(3)(B) applies to newly-designated
subpart 2 ozone nonattainment areas. Also, those areas designated
nonattainment for ozone under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and then
designated nonattainment under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, regardless of
classification under subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the Act, remain
subject to the emission statement requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B).

Indiana's Current SIP

    On June 10, 1994, EPA approved rule 2-6 of Title 326 of the Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC), as meeting the emission statement program
requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA. See 59 FR 29956.
Subsequently, EPA redesignated a number of counties subject to the
emission statement program to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard.
See, e.g., 59 FR 5439

(Indianapolis) and 62 FR 64725 (Evansville). On October 29, 2004, EPA
approved a revision to rule 2-6 to reflect these changes. 69 FR 63069.
As a result, the emission statement program requirements applied to
stationary sources in Lake and Porter counties.
    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated Lake, Porter, and LaPorte
Counties as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. 69 FR 23858.

III. What Change Is Indiana Requesting?

    Indiana is requesting that EPA approve the revisions to the
existing emission reporting rule, 326 IAC 2-6, to be consistent with
the emission statement program requirements for stationary sources in
section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA. Since, under the existing Federally
approved SIP for Indiana, the emission statement program requirements
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS apply in the same manner as for the 8-hour
NAAQS, the emission statement program requirements will remain
applicable to stationary sources in Lake and Porter counties. The
requirement for emission statements under section 182(a)(3)(B) will
also apply to LaPorte County, the only newly designated nonattainment
area in Indiana under subpart 2 of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Indiana is also requesting that EPA approve the addition of
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to
2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5) and ammonia (NH3) to the list of pollutants to
be reported on the emission statement.

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA has determined that the Indiana program contains the necessary
applicability, compliance and reporting provisions necessary to meet
the requirements for an emission statement program for all ozone
nonattainment areas for the 8-hour ozone standard under subpart 2 of
the CAA. The revision to Indiana's revised emission statement program
will now include stationary sources in LaPorte County. Therefore, EPA
is approving the revisions to the emission reporting requirements of
326 IAC 2-6 to satisfy the Federal requirements for an emission
statement program as part of the SIP. EPA is also approving Indiana's
request to include PM 2.5 and NH3 to the list of pollutants to be
reported in emission statements.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective May 29, 2007
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by April 30, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this
action will be effective May 29, 2007.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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.
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: February 27, 2007.
Steve Rothblatt,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.770 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(c)(91) and (c)(166), and adding paragraph (c)(178) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (178) On August 25, 2006, Indiana submitted final adopted revisions
to its emission reporting requirement rules as a revision to the
Indiana State Implementation Plan.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Indiana Administrative Code Title
326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 2: Permit Review Rules, Rule
6 Emission Reporting, Section 1: Applicability, Section 3: Compliance
schedule, and Section 4: Requirements. Approved by the Attorney General
June 29, 2006. Approved by the Governor July 13, 2006. Filed with the
Publisher July 14, 2006. Published on the Indiana Register Web site
August 9, 2006, Document Identification Number (DIN):20060809-IR-
326050078FRA. Effective August 13, 2006.

 [FR Doc. E7-5655 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM 						March 16, 2011

SUBJECT: Meeting with the Illinois Corn Growers Association on Proposed Rules for E15

FROM: Jim Caldwell, Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ)

TO: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0448

Date of Meeting: March 15, 2011

Location: 1310 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005

Attendees:

Wayne Anderson  -  Illinois Corn Growers Association
David Beaudreau, Jr.  -  DC Legislative & Regulatory Services, Inc.
Jessica Bennett  -  National Corn Growers Association
Tim Lentz  -  Illinois Corn Growers Association
Dave Loos  -  Illinois Corn Growers Association
Jim Caldwell  -  EPA/OTAQ
Mary Manners  -  EPA/OTAQ
Deborah Wood  -  EPA/OTAQ

	Mr. Loos was interested in the timing for the final rule.  We said this spring.  Mr. Loos stated that the E15 pump labels should be informational and not alarming, and marketers should have flexibility in the size and other aspects of the labels.  Several E15 issues unrelated to the rulemaking were also discussed.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 50654]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17658]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34671; 812-15360]

Pacific Funds Series Trust, et al.

August 11, 2022.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from Section 15(c) of
the Act.

Summary of Application:  The requested exemption would permit a Trust's
board of trustees (the ``Board'') to approve new sub-advisory
agreements and material amendments to existing sub-advisory agreements
without complying with the in-person meeting requirement of Section
15(c) of the Act.

Applicant:  Pacific Funds Series Trust and Pacific Select Fund (each a
``Trust'' and collectively the ``Trusts''), and Pacific Life Fund
Advisors LLC (``PLFA'' or the ``Adviser'').

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on June 27, 2022.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
relevant applicant with a copy of the request by email, if an email
address is listed for the relevant applicant below, or personally or by
mail, if a physical address is listed for the relevant applicant below.
    Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m.
on September 7, 2022, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Audrey L. Cheng, Esq., [email protected] and Anthony
Zacharski, Esq., [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terri Jordan, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and condition, please refer to Applicants' application, dated
June 27, 2022, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by
searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an
Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR
system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at, at http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also
call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-17658 Filed 8-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P