[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76453-76454]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31298]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-29878]

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

November 30, 2011.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
November 2011. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each application will be
issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request
a hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the
address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the
request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by
the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on December 29, 2011, 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 20549-8010.

Veracity Funds [File No. 811-21483]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On May 13, 2011, applicant transferred its
assets to Munder Veracity Small-Cap Value Fund, a series of Munder
Series Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses of $150,293 incurred
in connection with the reorganization were paid by Integrity Asset
Management, LLC, applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 12, 2011, and
amended on November 17, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: Integrity Asset Management, LLC, 18500 Lake
Rd., Suite 300, Rocky River, OH 44116.

Old Mutual Emerging Managers Fund, L.L.C. [File No. 811-21898]

Old Mutual Emerging Managers Institutional Fund, L.L.C. [File No. 811-
21997]

    Summary: Applicants, closed-end investment companies, seek an order
declaring that they have each ceased to be an investment company. On
March 31, 2011, applicants transferred their assets to Larch Lane
Multi-Strategy Fund, L.L.C. (f/k/a Old Mutual Absolute Return Fund,
L.L.C.) and Larch Lane Multi-Strategy Institutional Fund, L.L.C. (f/k/
a/Old Mutual Absolute Return Institutional Fund, L.L.C.), respectively,
based on net asset value. Expenses of $119,600 and $10,400,
respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations were
allocated to applicants; however, Larch Lane Advisors LLC, investment
adviser to both applicants, will bear these expenses in accordance with
an expense limitation agreement.
    Filing Dates: The applications were filed on August 12, 2011 and
amended on November 10, 2011.
    Applicants' Address: 800 Westchester Ave., S-528, Rye Brook, NY
10573.

Old Mutual Emerging Managers Master Fund, L.L.C. [File No. 811-21912]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company and a master
fund in a master/feeder structure, seeks an order declaring that it has
ceased to be an investment company. On March 31, 2011, applicant
transferred its assets to Larch Lane Multi-Strategy Master Fund, L.L.C.
(f/k/a Old Mutual Absolute Return Master Fund, L.L.C.), based on net
asset value. Applicant incurred no expenses in connection with the
reorganization.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 12, 2011 and
amended on November 10, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 800 Westchester Ave., S-528, Rye Brook, NY
10573.

Larch Lane Multi-Strategy Fund, L.L.C. [File No. 811-21896]

Larch Lane Multi-Strategy Institutional Fund, L.L.C. [File No. 811-
21998]

    Summary: Applicants, closed-end investment companies and feeder
funds in a master/feeder structure, seek an order declaring that they
have each ceased to be an investment company.

On August 1, 2011, the master fund in which each applicant invested
transferred its remaining assets and specified liabilities to a
Delaware statutory trust (``liquidating trust''), based on net asset
value. Each applicant's investors received a pro rata interest in the
liquidating trust based on the number of each applicant's units owned
by the investor. The liquidating trust periodically will make cash
distributions, based on each investor's pro rata ownership interest, as
assets are liquidated. Expenses of $73,125 and $8,125, respectively,
incurred in connection with the liquidations were paid by applicants.
    Filing Dates: The applications were filed on August 12, 2011, and
August 15, 2011, respectively, and amended on November 14, 2011.
    Applicants' Address: 800 Westchester Ave., S-618, Rye Brook, NY
10573.

Larch Lane Multi-Strategy Master Fund, L.L.C. [File No. 811-21911]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company and a master
fund in a master/feeder structure, seeks an order declaring that it has
ceased to be an investment company. On August 1, 2011, applicant
transferred its remaining assets and specified liabilities to a
Delaware statutory trust (``liquidating trust''), based on net asset
value. Each investor in applicant's feeder funds received a pro rata
interest in the liquidating trust and will receive periodic cash
distributions from the liquidating trust as its assets are liquidated.
Applicant incurred no expenses in connection with the liquidation.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 12, 2011 and
amended on November 14, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 800 Westchester Ave., S-618, Rye Brook, NY
10573.

Hatteras Ramius Advantage Fund [File No. 811-22285]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company and a feeder
fund in a master/feeder structure, seeks an order declaring that it has
ceased to be an investment company. By August 18, 2011, applicant had
repurchased all of its shares at net asset value. Expenses of $1,970
incurred in connection with applicant's liquidation were paid by
Hatteras Capital Investment Management, LLC, investment adviser to the
master fund in which applicant invested, or an affiliate.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 26, 2011, and
amended on November 14, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 8540 Colonnade Center Dr., Suite 401, Raleigh,
NC 27615.

Hatteras Ramius Advantage Institutional Fund [File No. 811-22284]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. By August 18,
2011, applicant had repurchased all of its shares at net asset value,
other than those held by its investment adviser, Hatteras Capital
Investment Management, LLC (``Hatteras Capital''). Applicant continues
to hold approximately $569,925 in underlying funds that impose
restrictions on investors redeeming their interests. Hatteras Capital
will remain applicant's sole shareholder during the completion of
applicant's liquidation. Expenses of $1,970 incurred in connection with
the liquidation will be paid by Hatteras Capital or an affiliate.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 26, 2011, and
amended on November 14, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 8540 Colonnade Center Dr., Suite 401, Raleigh,
NC 27615.

Ibero-America Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-5189]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On September
30, 2011, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its
shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $281,780 incurred
in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 31, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10105.

EquiTrust Series Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-2125]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On July 15, 2011, applicant transferred its
assets to corresponding series of Money Market Obligations Trust,
Federated Total Return Series, Inc., Federated Investment Series Funds,
Inc., Federated Asset Allocation Fund, and Federated Equity Funds,
based on net asset value. Expenses of $743,975 incurred in connection
with the reorganization were paid by applicant's investment adviser,
EquiTrust Investment Management Services, Inc., or its affiliates.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 27, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 5400 University Ave., West Des Moines, IA
50266.

Legg Mason Light Street Trust, Inc. [File No. 811-8943]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On December 15, 2009, applicant transferred
its assets to Legg Mason Partners Equity Trust, based on net asset
value. Expenses of $151,600 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by applicant, the acquiring fund and Legg
Mason, Inc.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on November 10, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 100 International Dr., 7th Floor, Baltimore,
MD 21202.

Metzler/Payden Investment Group [File No. 811-21085]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On January 21, 2011, applicant transferred
its assets to Metzler/Payden European Emerging Markets Fund, a series
of Payden & Rygel Investment Group, based on net asset value. Expenses
of $95,352 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 27, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 333 South Grand Ave., 32nd Floor, Los Angeles,
CA 90071.

EquiTrust Variable Insurance Series Fund [File No. 811-5069]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On July 15, 2011, applicant transferred its
assets to corresponding series of Federated Prime Money Fund II,
Federated Quality Bond Fund II, Federated Capital Income Fund II and
Federated Capital Appreciation Fund II, all series of the Federated
Insurance Series, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately
$568,118 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
EquiTrust Investment Management Services Inc. or its affiliates.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 27, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 5400 University Avenue, West des Moines, IA
50266.

For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31298 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


E Docket # OW 2003 0002 February 26, 2003 1 Rulemaking Record for the Procedures for Detection and Quantitation Proposed Rule E Docket # OW 2003 0002 DCN Section Type of Item Title Date Recipient Sender Number of Pages Source 323 A METHOD EPA Method 1631, Revision B: Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge and Trap,

and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry 05/ 1999 Record USEPA 38 U. S. EPA, Office of Water,

Engineering and Analysis Division ( 4303), Washington, D. C. EPA 821 R 99 005 ( See Method 1631,

III. G. 1)

324 A FRN Appendix B to Part 136 Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit Revision 1.11 10/ 26/ 1984 Record USEPA 2 Federal Register ( 49 FR 43234)

329 A FRN Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Proposed Regulations 12/ 3/ 1979 Record USEPA 113 Federal Register ( 44 FR 69463)

337 A DOC Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit  Rev. 1.11 01/ 21/ 1981 Record USEPA 7 USEPA ORD 381 A FRN Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Final Rule and Interim Final Rule, and Proposed Rule. 1984 Record USEPA 220 Federal Register ( 49 FR 43234)

382 A FRN National Primary Drinking Water Regulations  Synthetic Organic Chemicals Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule 1987 Record USEPA 24 Federal Register ( 52 FR 25690)

383 A FRN National Primary Drinking Water Regulations  Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals;

Final Rule 1992 Record USEPA 75 Federal Register ( 57 FR 31776) DCN Section Type of Item Title Date Recipient Sender Number of Pages Source E Docket # OW 2003 0002 February 26, 2003 2 384 A FRN OMB Circular A 119: Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities 1998 Record USEPA 14 Federal Register ( 63 FR 8546)

385 A FRN Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants;

Measurement of Mercury in Water ( EPA Method 1631, Revision B); Final Rule 1999 Record USEPA 17 Federal Register ( 64 FR 30417)

See Method 1631 III, A. 1 386 A AGREEME NT October 19, 2000 Settlement Agreement Between the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc., the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and the Utility Water Act Group, the American Forest & Paper Association, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. 10/ 19/ 2000 Record USEPA 12 EPA 112 B1 DOC Study Plan  Evaluation of Statistical Approaches to Developing Detection and Quantitation Limits  draft 01/ 19/ 1996 USEPA Lynn Riddick 6 DynCorp 135 B1 LETTER Low Level Detection Reporting Requirement Information Request 01/ 13/ 1998 Wisconsin Laboratories John Sullivan 1 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 191 B1 DOC Peer Review of the Plan for the Assessment of Detection and Quantitative Limits under Section 304( h)

of the Clean Water Act 02/ 2002 USEPA Versar 156 Versar 269 B1 DOC Plan for the Assessment of Detection and Quantitative Limits under Section 304( h) of the Clean Water Act 12/ 10/ 2001 Record USEPA 18 USEPA 281 B1 LETTER DL/ QL Study Plan 01/ 07/ 2002 Maria Gomez Taylor Steven Koorse 10 Hunton & Williams 326 B1 DOC Plan for the Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Limits Under Section 304( h) of the Clean Water Act 04/ 2002 Record USEPA Office of Water 21 USEPA Office of Water ( EPA 821 R 02 010) DCN Section Type of Item Title Date Recipient Sender Number of Pages Source E Docket # OW 2003 0002 February 26, 2003 3 389 B1 DOC Response to Peer Review Comments on the Draft Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Limits under Section 304( h)

of the Clean Water Act 04/ 2002 Record USEPA EPA 001 B2 DOC Interlaboratory Validation of EPA 1600 Series Methods: Draft EPA Method 1638 for Analysis of Metals in Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry ( ICP MS) 11/ 2000 Record N. T. Whiddon 358 EPRI Technical Report 1000824 119 B2 ARTICLE IUPAC Recommendations for Defining and Measuring Detection and Quantification Limits 1994 Record LA Currie, W.

Horwitz 3 Analuses Magazine 22: 24 26 131 B2 ARTICLE Nomenclature for the Presentation of Results of Chemical Analysis ( IUPAC Recommendation 1994) 1994 Record L. A. Currie, G.

Svehla 14 Pure & Applied Chemistry 66:

595 608 144 B2 ARTICLE Limit of Detection: A Closer Look at the IUPAC Definition 06/ 1983 Record Gary Long, J. D.

Winefordner 8 Analytical Chem. 55: 712 724 145 B2 METHOD Standard Practice for a 99%/ 95%

Inter Laboratory Detection Estimate ( IDE) for Analytical Methods with Negligible Calibration Error 03/ 1996 11 ASTM 6091 97 170 B2 ARTICLE Nomenclature in Evaluation of Analytical Methods Including Detection and Quantifation Capabilities ( IUPAC Recommendations 1995) 1999 Record L. A. Currie 22 Analytica Chimica Acta 391:

105 126 243 B2 ARTICLE Guidelines for Calibration in Analytical Chemistry Part I. Fundamentals and Single Component Calibration ( IUPAC recommendations 1998) 04/ 98 Record K. Danzer, L. A.

Currie 22 Pure and Applied Chemistry 70:

993 1014 DCN Section Type of Item Title Date Recipient Sender Number of Pages Source E Docket # OW 2003 0002 February 26, 2003 4 252 B2 ARTICLE A Statistical Overview of Standard ( IUPAC and ACS) and New Procedures for Determining the Limits of Detection and Quantification: Application to Voltammetric and Stripping Techniques ( Technical Report) 1997 Record J. Mocak, A. M.

Bond, S. Meitchell,

G. Scollary 32 Pure and Applied Chemistry 69:

297 328 268 B2 LETTER Detection/ Quantification Assessment 08/ 17/ 2001 Geoff Grubbs Steve Koorse 3 Hunton & Williams 311 B2 REFERENC E Detection Limits 2002 Record A. H. El Shaarawi,

W. W. Piegorsch 14 select Encyclopedia of Environmetrics Vol. 1 A D, pp. 504 515 313 B2 DOC Summary Report: Peer Review of the " Technical Support Document for the Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Concepts" 09/ 2002 USEPA Versar 191 Versar 325 B2 REPORT Results of the Interlaboratory Validation Study of EPA Method 1631 3/ 1998 Record USEPA 78 USEPA 327 B2 OPINION Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; No. 92 102 6/ 28/ 1993 Record USEPA 18 509 U. S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 328 B2 OPINION Kumho Tire Company, LTD. V.

Carmichael; No. 97 1709 3/ 23/ 1999 Record USEPA 15 526 U. S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167 344 B2 PAPER Levels of Method Performance Documentation 09/ 12/ 1996 EMMC QA Panel 2 EMMC QA Panel 373 B2 REPORT Determination of Interlaboratory Detection and Quantification Levels for Polychlorinated Biphenyls 01/ 2002 Record J. H. Phillips, J.

Gabrosek, R.

Rediske 140 Michigan Manufacturers Association 375 B2 DOC Draft Technical Support Document for Proposal of Detection and Quantitation Regulations under the Clean Water Act 08/ 2002 Record USEPA Office of Water 80 USEPA Office of Water 391 B2 REPORT Results of the Interlaboratory Validation Study of EPA Method 1638  DRAFT 10/ 2000 Record USEPA 203 EPA 392 B2 REPORT Results of the Interlaboratory Validation Study of EPA Method 1631 Record N. T. Whiddon EPRI DCN Section Type of Item Title Date Recipient Sender Number of Pages Source E Docket # OW 2003 0002 February 26, 2003 5 397 B2 METHOD Standard Practice for Interlaboratory Quantitation Estimate ( ASTM Practice D 2777) 2000 Record ASTM 14 ASTM D 6512 00 398 B2 DOC Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement 2nd Ed. 2000 Record S. L. R. Ellison, M.

Rosslein, A.

Williams 124 Eurachem / CITAC, 2000 399 B2 DOC VAM Project 3.2.1 Development and Harmonisation of Measurement Uncertainty Principles Part ( d): Protocol for Uncertainty Evaluation from Validation Data 2000 Record V. J. Barwick, S. L. R.

Ellison 97 LGC/ VAM/ 1998/ 088 400 B2 DOC Science Policy Council Handbook ( EPA 100 B 98 00) 01/ 98 Record USEPA USEPA 401 B2 DOC Science Policy Council Handbook ( EPA 100 B 00 001) 2000 Record USEPA USEPA 402 B2 DOC Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories 06/ 72 Record USEPA 116 USEPA National Environmental Research Center 403 B2 DOC Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement 1993 2 ISO, Geneva ( ISBN 92 67 10188 9)

404 B2 BOOK Statistical Intervals 1991 Record Hahn and Meeker 1 select Wiley 405 B2 BOOK Concepts on Non parametric Theory 1981 Record Pratt and Gibbons 1 select Springer Verlag 406 B2 DOC Guidance on Evaluation, Resolution, and Documentation of Analytical Problems Associated with Compliance Monitoring 1993 Record USEPA EPA 821 B 93 001 407 B2 DOC Draft National Guidance for the Permitting, Monitoring, and Enforcement of Water Quality based Effluent Limitations Set Below Analytical Detection/ Quantitation Levels 1994 Record USEPA 104 USEPA 408 B2 DOC Guidance for the Implementation and Use of EPA Method 1631for the Determination of Low Level Mercury ( 40 CFR Part 136) 2001 Record USEPA 52 See Method 1631 IV, B. 2 DCN Section Type of Item Title Date Recipient Sender Number of Pages Source E Docket # OW 2003 0002 February 26, 2003 6 409 B2 BOOK Statistical Manual of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1975 Record W. J. Youden, E. H.

Steiner 2 select AOAC International 410 B2 BOOK Introduction to Mathematical Statistics and Its Application 1999 Record Larsen and Marx 2 select Prentice Hall 411 B2 BOOK Introduction to Mathematical Statistics 1995 Record Hogg and Craig 2 select Prentice Hall 413 B2 BOOK Statistics for Experimenters 1978 Box, G. E. P 1 select 416 B2 LETTER coverletter for the draft Technical Support Document submitted to Hunton & Williams for review 08/ 13/ 2002 Steven Koorse Maria Gomez

Talyor 1 USEPA 417 B2 LETTER 06/ 27/ 2002 Maria Gomez

Talyor Steven Koorse 3 Hunton & Williams 418 B2 DOC EPA Response to Peer Review Comments Received on EPA's Draft Assessment of Detection Limit Concepts 02/ 25/ 2003 Record EPA 38 USEPA 100 C LETTER Quantification Levels ( includes Quantification Issue: Historical Overview) 05/ 30/ 1996 Robert Perciasepe Inter Industry Analytical Group 8 Inter Industry Analytical Group 101 C LETTER Vote against Standard Method 1030E 08/ 13/ 1996 Ken Osborn Paul Britton 14 USEPA 102 C LETTER Quantification Levels 3/ 30/ 1998 Robert Perciasepe Inter Industry Analytical Group 4 Inter Industry Analytical Group 103 C NOTES Summary of EPA and Inter Industry Analytical Group Meeting  April 26,

1996 11/ 11/ 1997 30 USEPA 105 C EMAIL ML meeting summary 07/ 01/ 1998 William Telliard Larry LaFleur 2 WCRC NCASI 106 C LETTER Response to ASTM Committee D 19 on Water " Inter laboratory Quantitation Estimate" ( IQE)  DRAFT 01/ 14/ 1999 James Lichtenberg William Telliard 1 USEPA 108 C MEMO Resolution of Quantification/ Detection Level Issues 01/ 26/ 1996 Bill Telliard Jim Taft 1 USEPA DCN Section Type of Item Title Date Recipient Sender Number of Pages Source E Docket # OW 2003 0002 February 26, 2003 7 113 C PRESENT The Calculation of Method Detection Limits: An Alternative to the EPA Procedure Using Quality Control Precision Data 08/ 11/ 1993 Record Kenneth Osborn 9 WEF Specialty Conference Series,

08/ 11/ 93, Santa Clara, CA 139 C LETTER Quantitative Meeting 05/ 28/ 1996 Tudor Davies Inter Industry Analytical Group 2 Inter Industry Analytical Group 146 C LETTER Interlaboratory Quantitative Estimate ( IQE) negative vote 03/ 31/ 1998 Nancy Grams of ASTM William Telliard 5 USEPA 150 C COMMENT American Water Works Association

Review and Comment Letter Ballot

SMLB # 107 20 02/ 10/ 1998 AWWA Richard Reding 5 USEPA 151 C MEMO Use of the Minimum Levels ( ML) in Water Quality Standards 05/ 04/ 1998 George Golliday of EPA Region 3 William Telliard 2 USEPA 153 C LETTER List of AML issues for discussion at EPRI meeting on 04/ 26/ 96 04/ 16/ 1996 Babu Nott William Telliard 3 USEPA 154 C MEMO Summary of April 26, 1996 meeting with Inter Industry Analytical Group 05/ 1996 Tudor Davies William Telliard 9 USEPA 155 C LETTER Response to IIAG letter dated 05/ 28/ 96 to Tudor Davies 06/ 20/ 1996 Babu Nott William Telliard 1 USEPA 157 C MEMO Summary of phone calls and meetings associated with the ASTM D19 Committee meetings in Louisville, KY,

June 13 17, 1999 06/ 21/ 1999 Bill Telliard Dale Rushneck 2 Interface 160 C PRESENT Quantitation / Detection Limits for the Analysis of Environmental Samples 1990 Record WG Krochta, LI Bone, BA Cucherini, TL Dawson, KJG Hillig,

RA Javick, NE Prange, BM Hughes, FI Saksa, 27 Norfolk Conference 224 C LETTER Quantification Levels 09/ 11/ 1998 Charles Fox Inter Industry Analytical Group 5 Inter Industry Analytical Group DCN Section Type of Item Title Date Recipient Sender Number of Pages Source E Docket # OW 2003 0002 February 26, 2003 8 225 C BALLOT Negatives on D19.02 items in ASTM Ballot D19 ( 98 02) Item 2

Interlaboratory Quantitation Estimate 1998 Record ASTM 13 ASTM 267 C TRANSCRI PT Detection/ Quantitation Workshop transcript from Norfolk 2001 Conference 05/ 10/ 2001 Record DynCorp 61 DynCorp 268 C NOTES Detection/ Quantification Study Planning Matrix 08/ 17/ 2001 Geoff Grubbs Steve Koorse 11 Hunton & Williams 282 C LETTER Detection/ Quantification Assessment 08/ 17/ 2001 Geoffrey Grubbs Steven Koorse 10 Hunton & Williams 308 C PRESENT Method Detection Limits: Application to Organic Environmental Chemistry Data 08/ 2002 Record T. L. Wade, J. L.

Sericano, Y. Qian,

G. Wolff, G.

Denoux 12 ACS Annual Meeting, Boston, MA 2002 309 C PRESENT Environmental Quality: Closing the Decision Data Loop 8/ 21/ 2002 Record Deana Crumbling 37 224th ACS National Meeting,

Boston, MA 320 C CORRESPO ND DL/ QL Assessment 11/ 11/ 2002 Maria Gomez Taylor James Christman 3 Hunton & Williams 330 C EMAIL Replicates for MDL 02/ 03/ 2003 Dale Rushneck John Glaser 2 Email 02/ 03/ 03 331 C MEMO MDL Improvement  DRAFT 7/ 16/ 1998 Joe Slayton William Telliard 2 USEPA 332 C LETTER Invitation to present at meeting on 04/ 26/ 96 04/ 26/ 1996 Babu Nott William Telliard 3 USEPA 333 C LETTER Thank you for allowing EPRI to present at the 04/ 26/ 96 meeting 05/ 03/ 1996 James Taft Babu Nott 1 EPRI 334 C PRESENT EPRI's presentation materials from the 04/ 26/ 96 meeting 04/ 26/ 1996 Record Babu Nott 19 EPRI 335 C LETTER Response to " Analytical Detection and Quantification" letter dated 04/ 30/ 97 06/ 09/ 1997 William Sonntag Jr. Robert Perciasepe 3 USEPA 339 C LETTER Negative on Interlaboratory Quantitation Estimate ( IQE) 10/ 10/ 1999 ASTM D 19 Members William Telliard,

Richard Reding,

Dale Rushneck 3 USEPA, Interface 340 C PRESENT Statistically Valid Detection Limits and Quantitation Limits Record David Coleman 110 Alcoa DCN Section Type of Item Title Date Recipient Sender Number of Pages Source E Docket # OW 2003 0002 February 26, 2003 9 341 C MEMO Detection/ Quantitation Limit Issues;

EMMC Draft Paper Dated September 10, 1996  DRAFT EMMC QA Panel William Telliard 2 USEPA 342 C PAPER Detection/ Quantitation Limit Issues

DRAFT 09/ 10/ 1996 EMMC QA Panel 4 EMMC QA Panel 343 C MEMO Approval of EMMC Levels of Method Performance Documentation 09/ 12/ 1996 Nancy Barmakian,

Wendy Blake Coleman,

Laurie Schuda 3 EMMC QA Panel 345 C PRESENT Estimation of Precision of Low Concentration Chemical Analytical Measurements and Establishing Detection and Quantification Limits 04/ 01/ 1997 Record Henry Kahn,

Kathleen Stralka,

Raphael Kuznetsovski 31 USEPA 12th Annual Conference on Statistics, April 1 3, 1997 346 C MEMO August 2 3, 1995 Meeting on the Draft " National Guidance for the Permitting,

Monitoring, and Enforcement of Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations Set Below Analytical Detection or Quantitation Levels" 07/ 14/ 1995 Meeting Attendees James Taft 16 USEPA 347 C PAPER The Problem with EPA's MDLs and MLs 06/ 21/ 1995 USEPA R. Gibbons, R.

Maddalone, D.

Coleman, B. Nott,

L. LaFleur, J. Rice 29 Inter Industry Analytical Group 348 C PAPER An Alternative Minimum Level 06/ 21/ 1995 USEPA R. Gibbons, R.

Maddalone, D.

Coleman, B. Nott,

L. LaFleur, J. Rice 61 Inter Industry Analytical Group 352 C PAPER White Paper on EPA's Draft " National Guidance for the Permitting, Monitoring,

and Enforcement of Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations Set Below Analytical Detection/ Quantitation Levels" Michael Cook Steven Koorse 13 Hunton & Williams DCN Section Type of Item Title Date Recipient Sender Number of Pages Source E Docket # OW 2003 0002 February 26, 2003 10 355 C PRESENT Much Ado about Next to Nothing

Judging Compliance at the Limit of Detection 05/ 14/ 1991 Record P. M. Berthouex 16 64th Annual Meeting og the Central States Water Pollution Control Association 367 C PAPER A Simple Rule for Judging Compliance Using Highly Censored Samples 01/ 1991 Record P. M. Berthouex,

Ian Hau 19 The Consortium for Water Pollution Control Research 368 C PAPER The Method Detection Limit: Fact or Fantasy? 1997 Record Richard Burrows,

Jack Hall 4 15th Annual Waste Testing and Quality Assurance Symposium 369 C PRESENT EPA's Efforts on Detection and Quantitation 06/ 2001 Record Maria Gomez Taylor 21 2001 AOAC Meeting 370 C PRESENT Hypothesis Tests with Censored Data 04/ 2001 Record USEPA Quality Staff 39 2001 Annual EPA QA Conference,

St. Louis, MO 371 C PRESENT Analyzing Censored Data 04/ 2001 Record USEPA Quality Staff 42 2001 Annual EPA QA Conference,

St. Louis, MO 372 C PRESENT Detection Limits 04/ 2001 Record USEPA Quality Staff 36 2001 Annual EPA QA Conference,

St. Louis, MO 374 C PRESENT Alternative Estimates of Detection 1997 Record H. D. Kahn, C. E.

White, K. Stralka,

R. Kuznetsovski 14 20th Annual Conference on Analysis of Pollutants in the Environment, May 7 8, 1997,

Norfolk, VA 376 C MEMO Updated Annotated Bibliography 02/ 27/ 1998 Chuck White Raphael Kuznetsovski 30 SAIC 377 C LETTER Thank for 10/ 17/ 96 IIAG meeting ( with AML software user manual) 10/ 23/ 96 Sheila Frace Babu Nott 1+ att( 25p) Inter Industry Analytical Group 378 C LETTER Summary of 10/ 16/ 96 IIAG EPA meeting 11/ 5/ 96 Sheila Frace Babu Nott 9 Inter Industry Analytical Group 379 C PRESENT Quantification Level Properties Explanations 10/ 17/ 96 IIAG EAD 16 USEPA 380 C LETTER Discussions with IIAG, suggested meeting 09/ 17/ 96 Sheila Frace Babu Nott 5 IIAG 387 C CORRESPO ND DL/ QL Assessment 06/ 06/ 2002 Sheila Frace Steven Koorse 5 Hunton & Williams DCN Section Type of Item Title Date Recipient Sender Number of Pages Source E Docket # OW 2003 0002 February 26, 2003 11 415 C MEMO June 6, 2002 Letter from Steven J.

Koorse ( Hutton Williams) on behalf of the Inter Industry Analytical group ( IIAG)

regarding EPA's ongoing assessment of detection and quantitation limit 2/ 2003 Record Maria Gomez

Taylor 3 USEPA 419 C LETTER IIAG Proposal for Sensitivity Test and Full Range Interlaboratory Validation Study 12/ 27/ 02 Maria Gomez

Taylor James Christman 10 Hunton & Williams 130 D PAPER Some Statistical and Conceptual Issues in the Detection of Low Level Environmental Pollutants 07/ 12/ 1995 G. P. Patil Robert Gibbons 43 University of Illinois at Chicago,

Biometrics Laboratory 134 D DOC Analytical Detection Limit Guidance and Laboratory Guidance for Determining Method Detection Limits 04/ 1996 Record Wisconsin Dept.

Natural Res. 33 Wisconsin Dept. Natural Res.

PUBL TS 056 96 135 D REPORT Method Detection Limit Survey Results and Analysis 12/ 1998 Record Kerilynn Carden 36 Wisconsin Dept. Natural Res.

PUBL SS 930 98 147 D GUIDELINE S Guideline for Calibration in Analytical Chemistry Part 1. Fundamentals and Single Component Calibration 1998 Record IUPAC 21 IUPAC 270 D TEXT Statistical Methods of Detection and Quantification of Environmental Contamination 2001 Record Robert Gibbons,

David Coleman 2 select John Wiley & Sons 286 D DOC Literature Search Regarding Detection and Quantitation Limit Concepts  June 2002 6/ 2002 Chuck White Chip McCarty 12 DynCorp 312 D TEXT Chapter 10: Testing Differences Between Monitoring Records when Censored Data Records Exist 1998 Record E. A. McBean, F. A.

Rovers 23 select In: Statistical Procedures for Analysis of Environmental Monitoring Data and Risk Assessment pp222 242 315 D TEXT Chapter 5: Errors and Detection Limits 1992 Record M. J. Adams 19 In Methods of Environmental Data Analysis by Elsevier Applied Science, p. 181 213 DCN Section Type of Item Title Date Recipient Sender Number of Pages Source E Docket # OW 2003 0002 February 26, 2003 12 349 D DOC Estimating the 99th Percentile: Methods and Difficulties 06/ 1989 Record P. Mac Berthouex,

Ian Hau 28 The Consortium for Water Pollution Control Research 350 D DOC A Study of the Precision of Lead Measurements at Concentrations Near the Method Limit of Detection 12/ 1991 Record P. M. Berthouex 25 The Consortium for Water Pollution Control Research 351 D DOC A New Model for Measurement Precision at Low Concentrations 02/ 1992 Record P. M. Berthouex,

D. R. Gan 13 The Consortium for Water Pollution Control Research 393 E FRN Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants;

Procedures for Detection and Quantitation; Proposed Rule TBD Record USEPA TBD Federal Register ( TO BE DETERMINED)

394 E FRN Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants;

Procedures for Detection and Quantitation; Notice of Document Availability and Public Comment Period TBD Record USEPA TBD Federal Register ( TO BE DETERMINED)

395 E FRN Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants;

Procedures for Detection and Quantitation; Public Meeting 02/ 24/ 2003 Record USEPA 2 Federal Register ( 68 FR 8596)

396 E DOC Technical Support Document for the Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Concepts 02/ 03 Record USEPA 485 DynCorp


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40068-40069]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15871]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2146]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before October 25, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2146, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
exception occurred on : 2021-15871.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-15871.htm
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) pa[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://

hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective Community
Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with
multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by
the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the
tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for
each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Paulding County, Ohio and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 14-05-4448S Preliminary Date: October 16, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Paulding County  Paulding County Commissioners
                                          Office, 115 North Williams
                                          Street, Paulding, OH 45879.
Village of Antwerp.....................  Village Hall, 118 North Main
                                          Street, Antwerp, OH 45813.
Village of Cecil.......................  Village Hall, 301 West 3rd
                                          Street, Cecil, OH 45821.
Village of Grover Hill.................  Village Hall, 104 South Main
                                          Street, Grover Hill, OH 45849.
Village of Haviland....................  Village Hall, 201 North Vine
                                          Street, Haviland, OH 45851.
Village of Melrose.....................  Council House, 705 State
                                          Street, Melrose, OH 45861.
Village of Oakwood.....................  Village Hall, 228 North 1st
                                          Street, Oakwood, OH 45873.
Village of Paulding....................  Village Hall, 116 South Main
                                          Street, Paulding, OH 45879.
Village of Payne.......................  Village Hall, 119 North Main
                                          Street, Payne, OH 45880.
Village of Scott.......................  Paulding County Commissioners
                                          Office, 115 North Williams
                                          Street, Paulding, OH 45879.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-15871 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

03/07/2008 09:08 AM

To

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: Fw: NCEE comments on Ozone RIA -  Appendix 9B

Generally, there are reductions occurring between 2020 and 2030 in SJ and SC which Houston obviously does not get advantage of.   More specifically, the locomotive/marine rule gets 120,000 tons of reduction in that area.  See chapter 9, Appendix B

  "Overall, the loco-marine 2030 inventory contains about 120,000 fewer tons of NOx than the 2020 loco-marines inventory for the geographic area in California being analyzed."

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US

03/06/2008 06:01 PM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: Fw: NCEE comments on Ozone RIA -  Appendix 9B

Can I ask a follow up?  Houston also has to reduce to meet the current standard -- or anothe way of saying it is that LA, SJ an dHouston are all starting from the same place -- attainment of the existing standard.    Why does Houston need over twice as many tons reduced as either LA or SJ?   So, I am not sure why the increment to meet the current standard being so high in SC and SJ would suggest much about the tons needed to attain the new standard.

Al McGartland, PhD.

Director, National Center for Environmental Economics

US EPA

1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

202.566.2244

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

03/06/2008 05:47 PM

To

Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: NCEE comments on Ozone RIA -  Appendix 9B

Here is a response to your question about Houston

Your question:    Consequently, the extrapolated cost estimates also appear low to us.  For example, how is it that both South Coast and San Joaquin will reach attainment of 0.075 for $680M (using the $15,000 fixed cost approach) (Table 9b.4) and $1B using the mid hybrid approach (Table 9b-6), but Houston’s extrapolated cost for 0.075 using fixed approach was $1.6B (from Table 5a.19), and  $2.4B using mid hybrid approach (Table 5a.23)?

Houston needs an additional 110,000 tons to reach 0.075ppm in the year 2020.  LA, and SJ needs 45,000 tons for the year 2030.  As discussed on page 2 of Appendix 9b, the locomotive marine rule will results in an additional 120,000 tons of emission reductions.  This along with the increment to meet the current standard being so high, results in SC & SJ not needing as many reductions as Houston.

----- Forwarded by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/06/2008 04:28 PM -----

Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US

03/06/2008 04:25 PM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: NCEE comments on Ozone RIA -  Appendix 9B

Hi Ron,

Thanks for getting back to us, but we are still confused.  The figures we cited below for Houston were the reductions and costs necessary to reach attainment of tighter standards incremental to full attainment of the current standard.  So the large difference between the South Coast/San Joaquin and Houston (to take one example) results are still perplexing.

But if you'd prefer, we can talk about this further once OMB has had a chance to comment on this chapter too.

Thanks,

Elizabeth and Cynthia

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

03/06/2008 03:39 PM

To

Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: NCEE comments on Ozone RIA -  Appendix 9B

See comments in blue.   Let me know if you have additional questions.

Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US

03/06/2008 12:13 PM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

NCEE comments on Ozone RIA -  Appendix 9B

Hi Ron,

In order to get our reactions to you as quickly as possible, we are keeping our comments on Appendix 9B to major ones only.  Our main concern is that the 2030 emissions reductions (and hence costs) needed to bring South Coast and San Joaquin into attainment appear to us to be very low.

Most of the reductions need to occur as part of meeting the current ozone standard.  See Table 9b.2  Therefore the costs of going a little further are not dramatic.

On p. 2, you note that the NOx reductions needed to get the Los Angeles and San Joaquin Valley areas into attainment by 2030 (Table 9b.2) are based on the NOx targets for Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin in Table 9b.1.   Does that mean that you are assuming if emissions are reduced by 90+% in South Coast then San Joaquin will also come into full attainment, or are you reducing both South Coast and San Joaquin emissions by 90+%??   What are  the  emission reductions needed to meet the various standards in San Joaquin, assuming the estimates in Table 9b.2 are based on South Coast only?

The 90% is to get both areas into attainment.  The geographic area for CA includes most of the state.  Therefore we reduce both to get the most extreme area into attainment.  9b.2 includes a large area.  See Maps from Chapter 4.

In Table 9b.3, something doesn’t seem right.  When compared to extrapolated tons needed in other areas, the estimates in Table 9b.3 appear to us to be so low as to not pass the laugh test, but perhaps we are missing something?   For example, how is it that only 78,000 tons are needed to bring BOTH South Coast and San Joaquin into attainment with 0.065, yet 180,000 extrapolated tons were needed (post application of supplemental controls) to bring Houston into attainment of 0.065 (see Table 5.2)?   Even with the additional emissions reductions expected from mobile programs between 2020 and 2030, the magnitude of these differences seem strange to us.

This is due to the large amount of emissions needed to meet the current standard.

Consequently, the extrapolated cost estimates also appear low to us.  For example, how is it that both South Coast and San Joaquin will reach attainment of 0.075 for $680M (using the $15,000 fixed cost approach) (Table 9b.4) and $1B using the mid hybrid approach (Table 9b-6), but Houston’s extrapolated cost for 0.075 using fixed approach was $1.6B (from Table 5a.19), and  $2.4B using mid hybrid approach (Table 5a.23)?

Thanks,

Elizabeth and Cynthia


_____________________

Ex Parte Meeting Summary:  Ozone NAAQS

Date:  December 21, 2007, 10:00 – 11:00 am.

Attendees:

Visitors:

In Person:

John Balbus, MD, Environmental Defense

Gary Ewart, American Thoracic Society (also representing ALA)

Tee Guidotti, MD, MPH, American Thoracic Society

Janice E. Nolen, American Lung Association

Deborah Shprentz, American Lung Association

By Phone:

Jonathan Levy, ScD (Professor at Harvard School of Public Health, but
representing own views)

William F. McDonnell, MD (requested by ALA, but views are own)

Jerome Paulson, MD, American Academy of Pediatrics

EPA attendees:

George Gray, ORD

Pamela Williams, ORD

Bob Fegley, ORD

John Vandenberg, ORD

Ila Cote, ORD

Debra Walsh, ORD

Mary Ross, ORD

Susan Stone, OAQPS

David McKee, OAQPS

Summary of discussion:

Janice Nolen provided an introduction on behalf of the American Lung
Association (ALA) , in which she stated that it is their belief that
there is powerful and conclusive evidence that the current standard is
not protective of public health and should be much tighter (along the
lines of what CASAC recommended).  Specifically, she indicated that ALA
supports 0.06 ppm as the appropriate standard.

John Balbus, representing the Environmental Defense, next provided a
general overview of several issues.  First, he indicated that ozone is a
simpler chemical than particulate matter and there is less uncertainty
regarding the nature of exposure to ozone.  Second, he stated that there
is strong evidence from multiple studies (e.g., controlled studies of
healthy adults and EPI studies that include sensitive populations) that
show health effects from exposure to ozone at the current standard or
lower levels.  Third, he indicated that he wanted to ensure that the
uncertainty regarding the health effects of ozone were appropriately
characterized and not overinflated.  Finally, he stated that both CASAC
and the Children’s Health Advisory had called on EPA to lower the
standard to 0.06 ppm.

Tee Guidotti, representing the American Thoracic Society, also stated
that there was a large body of evidence that indicated the current ozone
standard was not protective of human health.  He indicated that there is
a tight exposure-response relationship on both an individual and
population-level basis, and that based on what is known about its
mechanism, there is no threshold for ozone.  He stated that because of
this, ideally the standard should be set as low as possible.  However,
he believes that 0.06 ppm is an acceptable comprise, given the natural
background levels of ozone.  He also indicated that the prevalence of
asthma has increased in the US, and although the reasons for this are
unknown and there is no known causal association with ozone, there is no
question that ozone is a strong trigger for asthma.

Jonathan Levy, a Professor at the Harvard School of Public Health (but
representing his own views), highlighted some of the more salient
aspects of some of the ozone epidemiology studies.  He stated that the
findings in the more recent literature are extremely consistent and
demonstrate health effects at or below the current standard (with
greater effects in the summer than winter and synergistic relationships
with some factors such as temperature and humidity).  In particular, he
stated that the three meta-analyses (of which he is the lead author of
one) had good comparability and showed that the variability in studies
was due to lag time (e.g., effects greater on same day than after 1 or
more days) and prevalence of air conditioning.  He indicated that the
Bell et al. NMAPs study also found significant effects associated with
ozone, although the estimates were lower than those from the EPI studies
(he believes that this is due primarily to methodological differences).
 He also indicated that a later Bell et al. study showed linearity down
to 20 ppb (as did other studies), and there is an extremely consistent
body of evidence about ozone’s exposure-response relationship.  He
stated that exposure assessments are tricky for ozone, due to its
reactivity and lower indoor/outdoor ratio, but studies have shown that
there are cross-correlations between ambient and personal exposures
(i.e., when ozone levels increase so do personal exposures based on
longitudinal data, especially for people who spend a lot of time
outdoors).  He also stated that the Staff paper and the CASAC present
studies that together show effects of ozone less than the current
standard.

William McDonnell, whose presentation was at the request of ALA,
indicated that he is not advocating any particular level for ozone, but
is a scientist who has been involved in some of the clinical studies on
ozone (which are currently under consideration).  He indicated that the
1997 standard was based on two EPA studies, which showed effects in
health adults at 0.08 ppm, but there was too much uncertainty about
whether the standard should be lowered based on such few data points.
Since then, he stated that several studies by Adams et al. have shown
the same results.  He also indicated that we know individuals vary
considerably in their response to ozone and that combined, and we now
know with certainty that some percentage of the population will
experience effects at the current standard (e.g., >10% change in FEV1 or
>20% change in FEV1, the latter of which is clearly adverse).  He
indicated that although effects less than 0.08 ppm are less certain, it
is unlikely that they would drop to zero immediately below this level.
He also indicated that the Adams (2006) study has been widely
misinterpreted.  He stated that because this study was interested in the
temporal pattern of response, it required multiple comparison tests
(e.g., the purpose was not to assess the effects at 0.06  ppm versus
filtered air, which would have entailed a different study design and
methodology).  Because of its design, he stated that the failure of this
study to find significant differences may have been due to a Type II
error, and that this study can only be considered to be
“inconclusive” in regards to effects at 0.06 ppm.  He also stated
that it is unlikely that the differences observed between 0.06 and 0.08
ppm are due to chance alone, and that these effects are not just driven
by one or two responses (and the results were found to be symmetrical
around the mean).  He also mentioned that he had recently published a
2007 paper in Inhalation Toxicology regarding an exposure-response model
for ozone.

Jerome Paulson, representing the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated
that he sees more children wheezing when ozone levels are up.  He
indicated that these children are extremely uncomfortable and often miss
school or playing with friends.  He also stated that these events can be
frightening to parents and siblings and that acute treatment takes hours
to days and requires many days of medication.  He stated that he also
sees non-asthmatics with sore throats and irritated eyes when ozone
levels are increased.   He indicated that he is worried about the
long-term consequences of ozone exposures on children who may have
decreased lung function later in life.  He is advocating a strong ozone
standard that will be protective of children.

Janice Nolen concluded by stating that because effects are observed in
health adults at the current standard and we know children are more
susceptible, that we cannot keep the current standard.  John Balbus also
questioned what sort of evidence would be compelling to say that CASAC
was wrong.

Two written materials were provided during the meeting: (1) list of
medical societies and public health organizations supporting a primary
8-hr ozone NAAQS of 0.060 ppm and (2) recent epidemiological studies
reporting respiratory effects and low concentrations (see attached).


[Federal Register: January 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 4023]
[DOCID:fr23ja08-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week
of January 21, 2008:
    A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, January 24, 2008 at 2
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of
the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
January 24, 2008 will be:

Formal orders of investigations;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
A regulatory matter regarding a financial institution; and
Other matters related to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 17, 2008.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary
[FR Doc. E8-1072 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55370-55371]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1967]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Biosimilars User Fee
Program

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
December 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written

comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to
[email protected]. All comments should be identified with the
OMB control number 0910-0718. Also include the FDA docket number found
in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Biosimilars User Fee Program

OMB Control Number 0910-0718--Extension

    This information collection supports FDA's Biosimilars User Fee
Program. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009
(BPCI Act), amended the Public Health Service Act by adding section
351(k) (42 U.S.C. 262(k)) to create an abbreviated approval pathway for
biological products shown to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with
an FDA-licensed reference biological product. This allows a company to
apply for licensure of a biosimilar or interchangeable biological
product (351(k) application). The BPCI Act also amended section 735 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379g) to include
351(k) applications as a type of application under ``human drug
application'' for the purposes of the prescription drug user fee
provisions.
    The Biosimilar User Fee Act of 2012 (BsUFA) authorized FDA to
assess and collect user fees for certain activities in connection with
biosimilar biological product development (BPD). BsUFA was reauthorized
for an additional 5 years in August 2017 (BsUFA II). FDA's biosimilar
biological product user fee program requires FDA to assess and collect
user fees for certain meetings concerning biosimilar BPD (BPD
meetings), investigational new drug applications (INDs) intended to
support a biosimilar biological product application, and biosimilar
biologic license applications (BLAs).
    Form FDA 3792, entitled ``Biosimilars User Fee Cover Sheet'', is
submitted by each new BPD entrant (identified via a new meeting request
or IND submission) and new BLAs. Form FDA 3792 requests the minimum
necessary information to identify the request and determine the amount
of the fee to be assessed, and to account for and track user fees. The
form provides a cross-reference of the fees submitted for an activity
with the actual submission or activity by using a unique number
tracking system. The information collected is used by FDA's Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research to initiate the administrative screening of biosimilar
biological product INDs, and BLAs, and to account for and track user
fees associated with BPD meetings.
    In addition to the Biosimilars User Fee Cover Sheet, the
information collection includes an annual survey of all BsUFA II
participants designed to provide information to FDA of anticipated
BsUFA II activity in the upcoming fiscal year. This information helps
FDA set appropriate annual BsUFA II fees.
    FDA has also developed the guidance entitled, ``Assessing User Fees
Under the Biosimilar User Fee Amendments of 2017'' to assist industry
in understanding when fees are incurred and the process by which
applicants can submit payments. The guidance also explains how
respondents can request discontinuation from the BPD program as well as
how respondents can request to move products to the discontinued
section of the biosimilar list. Finally, the guidance provides
information on the consequences of failing to pay BsUFA II fees, as
well as processes for submitting reconsideration and appeal requests.
The guidance is available on our website at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM584984.pdf.
    In the Federal Register of June 29, 2018 (83 FR 30746), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                    Average burden
  Information collection title       Number of     responses per   Total annual    per  response    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses        (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biosimilar User Fee Cover Sheet;              35               1              35           * 0.5            17.5
 Form FDA 3792..................
Annual Survey...................              35               1              35               1              35
Request for discontinuation from               2               1               2               1               2
 BPD program....................
Request to move products to                    5               1               5           * 0.5             2.5
 discontinued section of the
 biosimilar list................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.
* 30 minutes.

    We have increased our estimate by an additional 15 respondents
since last OMB approval of the information collection. This estimated
increase is based on our expectation that participation in the BPD
program will continue to grow, consistent with our experience since
establishment of the information collection in 2012.

    Dated: October 30, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-24130 Filed 11-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: January 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1726-1730]
[DOCID:fr13ja09-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 28579; 812-13397]

Macquarie Global Infrastructure Total Return Fund Inc., et al.;
Notice of Application

January 6, 2009.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 19(b) of
the Act and rule 19b-1 under the Act.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit certain
closed-end investment companies to make periodic distributions of long-
term capital gains with respect to their outstanding common stock as
frequently as twelve times each year, and as frequently as
distributions are specified by or in accordance with the terms of any
outstanding preferred stock that such investment companies may issue.

Applicants: Macquarie Global Infrastructure Total Return Fund Inc. (the
``Fund'') and Macquarie Capital Investment Management LLC (the
``Adviser'').

Filing Dates: June 15, 2007 and September 10, 2008.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on February 2, 2009, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 125 West 55th Street, New
York, NY 10019, attention Richard C. Butt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Friedlander, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6837, or James M. Curtis, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Chief Counsel).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-1520 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Fund is a registered closed-end management investment
company organized as a Maryland corporation that has total return and
capital appreciation as its investment objectives.\1\ The common shares
issued by the Fund are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The Fund
has not issued preferred stock but may do so in the future. Applicants
believe that the Fund's stockholders are generally conservative,
dividend-sensitive investors who desire current income periodically and
may favor a fixed distribution policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that any order issued granting the relief
requested in the application also apply to any closed-end investment
company (``fund'') that in the future: (a) Is advised by the Adviser
(including any successor in interest) or by any entity controlling,
controlled by, or under common control (within the meaning of
section 2(a)(9) of the Act) with the Adviser; and (b) complies with
the terms and conditions of the requested order. A successor in
interest is limited to entities that result from a reorganization
into another jurisdiction or a change in the type of business
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Adviser is registered under the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 and is responsible for the overall management of the Fund. The
Adviser is a subsidiary of MIHI LLC, which is an indirect subsidiary of
Macquarie Group Limited, which provides, with its affiliated entities,
international financial and investment banking services.
    3. Applicants represent that prior to adopting any distribution
policy in reliance on the requested order, the Fund's Board of
Directors (the ``Board''), including a majority of the members of the
Board who are not ``interested persons'' of the Fund (the ``Independent
Directors'') as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, will request,
and the Adviser will provide, such information as is reasonably
necessary for the Board to make an informed decision of whether the
Fund should adopt a distribution policy. Applicants represent that, in
particular, the Board and the Independent Directors will review
information regarding the purpose and terms of a proposed distribution
policy, the likely effects of such policy on the Fund's long-term total
return (in relation to market price and net asset value (``NAV'') per
common share) and the relationship between the Fund's distribution rate
on its common shares under the policy and the Fund's total return on
NAV per share. Applicants state that the Independent Directors also
will consider what conflicts of interest the Adviser and the affiliated
persons of the Adviser and the Fund might have with respect to the
adoption or implementation of such policy. Applicants further state
that after considering such information the Board, including the
Independent Directors may approve a distribution policy and related
plan (a ``Plan'') with respect to the Fund's common shares if they
determine that such policy and Plan would be consistent with the Fund's
investment objectives and in the best interests of the Fund's common
shareholders.
    4. Applicants state that the purpose of the Plan would be to permit
the Fund to distribute to its stockholders as frequently as monthly a
fixed percentage of the Fund's market price or a fixed percentage of
the Fund's NAV per share, any of which may be adjusted from time to
time. Applicants state that, under the Plan, the minimum annual
distribution rate with respect to the Fund's common stock would be
independent of the Fund's performance during any particular period, but
would be expected to correlate with the Fund's performance over time.
Applicants further state that, except for extraordinary distributions
and potential increases or decreases in the final dividend periods in
light of the Fund's performance for the entire calendar year and to
enable the Fund to comply with the distribution requirements of
Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
``Code''), each distribution on the common stock would be at the stated
rate then in effect.
    5. Applicants state that the Board also will adopt policies and
procedures under rule 38a-1 under the Act that will be reasonably
designed to ensure that all notices sent to stockholders with
distributions under the Plan (``Notices'') comply with condition II
below, and that all other written communications by the Fund or its
agents regarding distributions under the Plan include the disclosure
required by condition III below. Applicants state that the Board also
will adopt policies and procedures that will require the Fund to keep
records that demonstrate the Fund's compliance with all of the
conditions of the requested order and that are necessary for the Fund
to form the basis for, or demonstrate the calculation of, the amounts
disclosed in its Notices. Applicants state that such records will be
maintained for a period of at least six years from the date of the
Board meeting at which the Plan is adopted, the first two years in an
easily accessible place, or such longer period as may otherwise be
required by law.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 19(b) generally makes it unlawful for any registered
investment company to make long-term capital gains distributions more
than once each year. Rule 19b-1 limits the number of capital gains
dividends, as defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code
(``distributions''), that a fund may make with respect to any one
taxable year to one, plus a supplemental ``clean up'' distribution made
pursuant to section 855 of the Code not exceeding 10% of the total
amount distributed for the year, plus one additional capital gain
dividend made in whole or in part to avoid the excise tax under section
4982 of the Code.
    2. Section 6(c) provides that the Commission may, by order upon
application, conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person,
security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons,
securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act, if and to
the extent that the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
    3. Applicants state that the one of the concerns underlying section
19(b) and rule 19b-1 is that shareholders might be unable to
differentiate between regular distributions of capital gains and
distributions of investment income. Applicants state, however, that
rule 19a-1 effectively addresses this concern by requiring that a
separate statement showing the sources of a distribution (e.g.,
estimated net income, net short-term capital gains, net long-term
capital gains and/or return of capital) accompany any distributions (or
the confirmation of the reinvestment of distributions) estimated to be
sourced in part from capital gains or capital. Applicants state that
the same information also is included in annual reports to shareholders
and on its IRS Form 1099-DIV, which is sent to each common and
preferred shareholder who received distributions during the year.
    4. Applicants further state that the Fund will make the additional
disclosures required by the conditions set forth below, and will adopt
compliance policies and procedures in accordance with rule 38a-1 to
ensure that all required Notices and disclosures are sent to
shareholders. Applicants argue that by providing the information

required by section 19(a) and rule 19a-1, and by complying with the
procedures adopted under the Plan and the conditions listed below, the
Fund will ensure that its shareholders are provided sufficient
information to understand that their periodic distributions are not
tied to the Fund's net investment income (which for this purpose is the
Fund's taxable income other than from capital gains) and realized
capital gains to date, and may not represent yield or investment
return. Applicants also state that compliance with the Fund's
compliance procedures and condition III set forth below will ensure
that prospective shareholders and third parties are provided with the
same information. Accordingly, applicants assert that continuing to
subject the Fund to section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 would afford
shareholders no extra protection.
    5. Applicants note that section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 also were
intended to prevent certain improper sales practices, including, in
particular, the practice of urging an investor to purchase shares of a
fund on the basis of an upcoming capital gains dividend (``selling the
dividend''), where the dividend would result in an immediate
corresponding reduction in NAV and would be in effect a taxable return
of the investor's capital. Applicants assert that the ``selling the
dividend'' concern should not apply to closed-end investment companies,
such as, which do not continuously distribute shares. According to
Applicants, if the underlying concern extends to secondary market
purchases of shares of closed-end funds that are subject to a large
upcoming capital gains dividend, adoption of a Plan actually helps
minimize the concern by avoiding, through periodic distributions, any
buildup of large end-of-the-year distributions.
    6. Applicants also note that common shares of closed-end funds that
invest primarily in equity securities often trade in the marketplace at
a discount to their NAV. Applicants believe that this discount may be
reduced for closed-end funds that pay relatively frequent dividends on
their common shares at a consistent rate, whether or not those
dividends contain an element of long-term capital gain.
    7. Applicants assert that the application of rule 19b-1 to a Plan
actually could have an undesirable influence on portfolio management
decisions. Applicants state that, in the absence of an exemption from
rule 19b-1, the implementation of a Plan imposes pressure on management
(i) not to realize any net long-term capital gains until the point in
the year that the fund can pay all of its remaining distributions in
accordance with rule 19b-1, and (ii) not to realize any long-term
capital gains during any particular year in excess of the amount of the
aggregate pay-out for the year (since as a practical matter excess
gains must be distributed and accordingly would not be available to
satisfy pay-out requirements in following years), notwithstanding that
purely investment considerations might favor realization of long-term
gains at different times or in different amounts. Applicants thus
assert that the limitation on the number of capital gain distributions
that a fund may make with respect to any one year imposed by rule 19b-
1, may prevent the efficient operation of a Plan whenever that fund's
realized net long-term capital gains in any year exceed the total of
the periodic distributions that may include such capital gains under
the rule.
    8. In addition, Applicants assert that rule 19b-1 may cause fixed
regular periodic distributions under a Plan to be funded with returns
of capital \2\ (to the extent net investment income and realized short-
term capital gains are insufficient to fund the distribution), even
though realized net long-term capital gains otherwise could be
available. To distribute all of a fund's long-term capital gains within
the limits in rule 19b-1, a fund may be required to make total
distributions in excess of the annual amount called for by its Plan, or
to retain and pay taxes on the excess amount. Applicants thus assert
that the requested order would minimize these effects of rule 19b-1 by
enabling the funds to realize long-term capital gains as often as
investment considerations dictate without fear of violating rule 19b-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Returns of capital as used in the application means return
of capital for financial accounting purposes and not for tax
accounting purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Applicants state that Revenue Ruling 89-81 under the Code
requires that a fund that has both common stock and preferred stock
outstanding designate the types of income, e.g., investment income and
capital gains, in the same proportion as the total distributions
distributed to each class for the tax year. To satisfy the
proportionate designation requirements of Revenue Ruling 89-81,
whenever a fund has realized a long-term capital gain with respect to a
given tax year, the fund must designate the required proportionate
share of such capital gain to be included in common and preferred stock
dividends. Applicants state that although rule 19b-1 allows a fund some
flexibility with respect to the frequency of capital gains
distributions, a fund might use all of the exceptions available under
the rule for a tax year and still need to distribute additional capital
gains allocated to the preferred stock to comply with Revenue Ruling
89-81.
    10. Applicants assert that the potential abuses addressed by
section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 do not arise with respect to preferred
stock issued by a closed-end fund. Applicants assert that such
distributions are fixed or determined in periodic auctions by reference
to short-term interest rates rather than by reference to performance of
the issuer and Revenue Ruling 89-81 determines the proportion of such
distributions that are comprised of the long-term capital gains.
    11. Applicants also submit that the ``selling the dividend''
concern is not applicable to preferred stock, which entitles a holder
to no more than a periodic dividend at a fixed rate or the rate
determined by the market, and, like a debt security, is priced based
upon its liquidation value, credit quality, and frequency of payment.
Applicants state that investors buy preferred shares for the purpose of
receiving payments at the frequency bargained for, and do not expect
the liquidation value of their shares to change.
    12. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) granting an
exemption from the provisions of section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 to permit
the Fund's common stock to distribute periodic capital gains dividends
(as defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code) as often as monthly in
any one taxable year in respect of its common shares and as often as
specified by or determined in accordance with the terms thereof in
respect of its preferred shares.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Applicants state that a future fund that relies on the
requested order will satisfy each of the representations in the
application except that such representations will be made in respect
of actions by the board of directors of such future fund and will be
made at a future time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that, with respect to each fund seeking to rely on
the order, the order will be subject to the following conditions:

I. Compliance Review and Reporting

    The fund's chief compliance officer will: (a) Report to the fund
Board, no less frequently than once every three months or at the next
regularly scheduled quarterly board meeting, whether (i) the fund and
the Adviser have complied with the conditions to the requested order,
and (ii) a Material Compliance Matter, as defined in rule 38a-1(e)(2),
has occurred with respect to

compliance with such conditions; and (b) review the adequacy of the
policies and procedures adopted by the fund no less frequently than
annually.

II. Disclosures to Fund Shareholders

    A. Each Notice to the holders of the fund's common shares, in
addition to the information required by section 19(a) and rule 19a-1:
    1. Will provide, in a tabular or graphical format:
    (a) The amount of the distribution, on a per common share basis,
together with the amounts of such distribution amount, on a per common
share basis and as a percentage of such distribution amount, from
estimated: (A) Net investment income; (B) net realized short-term
capital gains; (C) net realized long-term capital gains; and (D) return
of capital or other capital source;
    (b) The fiscal year-to-date cumulative amount of distributions, on
a per common share basis, together with the amounts of such cumulative
amount, on a per common share basis and as a percentage of such
cumulative amount of distributions, from estimated: (A) net investment
income; (B) net realized short-term capital gains; (C) net realized
long-term capital gains; and (D) return of capital or other capital
source;
    (c) The average annual total return in relation to the change in
NAV for the 5-year period (or, if the fund's history of operations is
less than five years, the time period commencing immediately following
the fund's first public offering) ending on the last day of the month
prior to the most recent distribution declaration date compared to the
current fiscal period's annualized distribution rate expressed as a
percentage of NAV as of the last day of the month prior to the most
recent distribution declaration date; and
    (d) The cumulative total return in relation to the change in NAV
from the last completed fiscal year to the last day of the month prior
to the most recent distribution declaration date compared to the fiscal
year-to-date cumulative distribution rate expressed as a percentage of
NAV as of the last day of the month prior to the most recent
distribution declaration date.
    Such disclosure shall be made in a type size at least as large and
as prominent as the estimate of the sources of the current
distribution; and
    2. Will include the following disclosure:
    (a) ``You should not draw any conclusions about the fund's
investment performance from the amount of this distribution or from the
terms of the fund's Plan'';
    (b) ``The fund estimates that it has distributed more than its
income and net realized capital gains; therefore, a portion of your
distribution may be a return of capital. A return of capital may occur
for example, when some or all of the money that you invested in the
fund is paid back to you. A return of capital distribution does not
necessarily reflect the fund's investment performance and should not be
confused with `yield' or `income' ''; \4\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This disclosure will be included only if the current
distribution or the fiscal year-to-date cumulative distributions are
estimated to include a return of capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) ``The amounts and sources of distributions reported in this
Notice are only estimates and are not being provided for tax reporting
purposes. The actual amounts and sources of the amounts for [accounting
and] tax reporting purposes will depend upon the fund's investment
experience during the remainder of its fiscal year and may be subject
to changes based on tax regulations. The fund will send you a Form
1099-DIV for the calendar year that will tell you how to report these
distributions for federal income tax purposes.''
    Such disclosure shall be made in a type size at least as large as
and as prominent as any other information in the Notice and placed on
the same page in close proximity to the amount and the sources of the
distribution.
    B. On the inside front cover of each report to shareholders under
rule 30e-1 under the Act, the fund will:
    1. Describe the terms of the Plan (including the fixed amount or
fixed percentage of the distributions and the frequency of the
distributions);
    2. Include the disclosure required by condition II.A.2.a above;
    3. State, if applicable, that the Plan provides that the Board may
amend or terminate the Plan at any time without prior notice to fund
shareholders; and
    4. Describe any reasonably foreseeable circumstances that might
cause the fund to terminate the Plan and any reasonably foreseeable
consequences of such termination.
    C. Each report provided to shareholders under rule 30e-1 and in
each prospectus filed with the Commission on Form N-2 under the Act,
will provide the fund's total return in relation to changes in NAV in
the financial highlights table and in any discussion about the fund's
total return.

III. Disclosure to Shareholders, Prospective Shareholders and Third
Parties

    A. The fund will include the information contained in the relevant
Notice, including the disclosure required by condition II.A.2 above, in
any written communication (other than a Form 1099) about the Plan or
distributions under the Plan by the fund, or agents that the fund has
authorized to make such communication on the fund's behalf, to any fund
common shareholder, prospective common shareholder or third-party
information provider;
    B. The fund will issue, contemporaneously with the issuance of any
Notice, a press release containing the information in the Notice and
will file with the Commission the information contained in such Notice,
including the disclosure required by condition II.A.2 above, as an
exhibit to its next filed Form N-CSR; and
    C. The fund will post prominently a statement on its (or the
Adviser's) Web site containing the information in each Notice,
including the disclosure required by condition II.A.2 above, and will
maintain such information on such Web site for at least 24 months.

IV. Delivery of 19(a) Notices to Beneficial Owners

    If a broker, dealer, bank or other person (``financial
intermediary'') holds common stock issued by the fund in nominee name,
or otherwise, on behalf of a beneficial owner, the fund: (a) Will
request that the financial intermediary, or its agent, forward the
Notice to all beneficial owners of the fund's shares held through such
financial intermediary; (b) will provide, in a timely manner, to the
financial intermediary, or its agent, enough copies of the Notice
assembled in the form and at the place that the financial intermediary,
or its agent, reasonably requests to facilitate the financial
intermediary's sending of the Notice to each beneficial owner of the
fund's shares; and (c) upon the request of any financial intermediary,
or its agent, that receives copies of the Notice, will pay the
financial intermediary, or its agent, the reasonable expenses of
sending the Notice to such beneficial owners.

V. Additional Board Determinations for Funds Whose Shares Trade at a
Premium

    If:
    A. The fund's common shares have traded on the exchange that they
primarily trade on at the time in question at an average premium to NAV
equal to or greater than 10%, as determined on the basis of the average
of the discount or premium to NAV of the fund's common shares as of the
close of each trading day over a 12-week rolling period (each such 12-
week

rolling period ending on the last trading day of each week); and
    B. The fund's annualized distribution rate for such 12-week rolling
period, expressed as a percentage of NAV as of the ending date of such
12-week rolling period, is greater than the fund's average annual total
return in relation to the change in NAV over the 2-year period ending
on the last day of such 12-week rolling period; then:
    1. At the earlier of the next regularly scheduled meeting or within
four months of the last day of such 12-week rolling period, the Board
including a majority of the Independent Directors:
    (a) Will request and evaluate, and the Adviser will furnish, such
information as may be reasonably necessary to make an informed
determination of whether the Plan should be continued or continued
after amendment;
    (b) Will determine whether continuation, or continuation after
amendment, of the Plan is consistent with the fund's investment
objective(s) and policies and in the best interests of the fund and its
shareholders, after considering the information in condition V.B.1.a
above; including, without limitation:
    (1) Whether the Plan is accomplishing its purpose(s);
    (2) The reasonably foreseeable effects of the Plan on the fund's
long-term total return in relation to the market price and NAV of the
fund's common shares; and
    (3) The fund's current distribution rate, as described in condition
V.B above, compared with the fund's average annual total return over
the 2-year period, as described in condition V.B., or such longer
period as the board deems appropriate; and
    (c) Based upon that determination, will approve or disapprove the
continuation, or continuation after amendment, of the Plan; and
    2. The Board will record the information considered by it and the
basis for its approval or disapproval of the continuation, or
continuation after amendment, of the Plan in its meeting minutes, which
must be made and preserved for a period of not less than six years from
the date of such meeting, the first two years in an easily accessible
place.

VI. Public Offerings

    The fund will not make a public offering of the fund's common
shares other than:
    A. A rights offering below net asset value to holders of the fund's
common stock;
    B. An offering in connection with a dividend reinvestment plan,
merger, consolidation, acquisition, spin-off or reorganization of the
fund; or
    C. An offering other than an offering described in conditions VI.A
and VI.B above, unless, with respect to such other offering:
    1. The fund's average annual distribution rate for the six months
ending on the last day of the month ended immediately prior to the most
recent distribution declaration date,\5\ expressed as a percentage of
NAV per share as of such date, is no more than 1 percentage point
greater than the fund's average annual total return for the 5-year
period ending on such date;\6\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ If the fund has been in operation fewer than six months, the
measured period will begin immediately following the fund's first
public offering.
    \6\ If the fund has been in operation fewer than five years, the
measured period will begin immediately following the fund's first
public offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The transmittal letter accompanying any registration statement
filed with the Commission in connection with such offering discloses
that the fund has received an order under section 19(b) to permit it to
make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to
its common stock as frequently as twelve times each year, and as
frequently as distributions are specified in accordance with the terms
of any outstanding preferred stock that such fund may issue.

VII. Amendments to Rule 19b-1

    The requested relief will expire on the effective date of any
amendment to rule 19b-1 that provides relief permitting certain closed-
end investment companies to make periodic distributions of long-term
capital gains with respect to their outstanding common stock as
frequently as twelve times each year.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-440 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P