[Federal Register: April 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 18495-18497]
[DOCID:fr12ap07-88]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 27777; 812-13249]

Forward Funds, et al.; Notice of Application

April 5, 2007.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order that would permit
them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without
shareholder approval.

Applicants:  Forward Funds (the ``Trust'') and Forward Management, LLC
(``Forward Management'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 20, 2005, and
amended on April 2, 2007.

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 April 30, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
St., NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 433 California Street,
11th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Attn.: Mary Curran, Esq.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Mann, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-6813, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

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 Desk, 100 F St., NE., Washington, DC
20549-0102 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company.
The Trust has fourteen operating series (the ``Funds''). Applicants
request that the order apply to: (a) The Funds; and (b) any future
series of the Trust and any other registered open-end management
investment companies or series thereof that (1) use the ``manager-of-
managers'' arrangement described in the application, (2) comply with
the terms and conditions of the application, and (3) are advised by a
Manager (as defined below) (the investment companies and series
thereof, as well as the Funds, the ``Sub-Advised Funds'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All existing entities that currently intend to rely on the
order are named as applicants. Any entity that relies on the order
in the future will do so only in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the application. If the name of any Sub-Advised Fund
contains the name of a Sub-Adviser (as defined below), the name of
the Manager that serves as the primary adviser to the Sub-Advised
Fund will precede the name of the Sub-Adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Forward Management is registered as an investment adviser under
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act'') and serves
as investment adviser to the Funds pursuant to an investment advisory
agreement (``Advisory Agreement'') with the Trust, on behalf of the
Funds. The Advisory Agreement has been approved by the Trust's board of
trustees (``Board''), including a majority of the

trustees (``Trustees'') who are not ``interested persons,'' as defined
in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of the Trust (the ``Independent
Trustees''), as well as by the shareholders of the Funds. The term
``Manager'' refers to Forward Management and any existing or future
entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with Forward
Management that is an investment adviser registered under the Advisers
Act or exempt from such registration and any successor in interest
thereto.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Under the terms of the Advisory Agreement, the Manager provides
investment advisory services to each Sub-Advised Fund and has the
authority, subject to Board approval, to enter into investment
subadvisory agreements (``Sub-Advisory Agreements'') with one or more
subadvisers (``Sub-Advisers''). Each Sub-Adviser is registered under
the Advisers Act. The Manager will monitor and evaluate the Sub-
Advisers and recommend to the Board their hiring, retention or
termination. Sub-Advisers recommended to the Board by the Manager are
selected and approved by the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees. Each Sub-Adviser has discretionary authority to
invest the assets or a portion of the assets of the relevant Fund. The
Manager compensates each Sub-Adviser out of the fees paid to the
Manager under the Advisory Agreement.
    4. Applicants request an order that would permit the Manager to
hire Sub-Advisers and materially amend Sub-Advisory Agreements without
obtaining shareholder approval. The requested relief will not extend to
any Sub-Adviser that is an affiliated person, as defined in section
2(a)(3) of the Act, of a Sub-Advised Fund or the Manager, other than by
reason of serving as a Sub-Adviser to one or more of the Sub-Advised
Funds (``Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except under a written contract that has been
approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series company affected by a matter must approve such
matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such 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. Applicants state that their requested relief meets this standard
for the reasons discussed below.
    3. Applicants assert that the Sub-Advised Funds' shareholders are
relying on the Manager's experience to select one or more Sub-Advisers
best suited to achieve a Sub-Advised Fund's investment objectives.
Applicants assert that, from the perspective of an investor in the Sub-
Advised Fund, the role of the Sub-Advisers is comparable to that of the
individual portfolio managers employed by traditional investment
company advisory firms. Applicants state that requiring shareholder
approval of each Sub-Advisory Agreement would impose costs and
unnecessary delays on the Sub-Advised Funds, and may preclude the
Manager from acting promptly in a manner considered advisable by the
Board. Applicants note that the Advisory Agreement and any Sub-Advisory
Agreement with an Affiliated Sub-Adviser will remain subject to section
15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
    4. Applicants note that the Commission has proposed rule 15a-5
under the Act and agree that the requested order will expire on the
effective date of rule 15a-5 under the Act, if adopted.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Investment Company Act Release No. 26230 (Oct. 23, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Sub-Advised Fund may rely on the requested order, the
operation of the Sub-Advised Fund in the manner described in the
application will be approved by a majority of the Sub-Advised Fund's
outstanding voting securities, as defined in the Act, or in the case of
a Sub-Advised Fund whose public shareholders purchase shares on the
basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by
condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder(s) before offering shares
of that Sub-Advised Fund to the public.
    2. Each Sub-Advised Fund will disclose in its prospectus the
existence, substance and effect of the order. In addition, each Sub-
Advised Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing the
manager-of-managers arrangement described in the application. The
prospectus relating to each Sub-Advised Fund will prominently disclose
that the Manager has ultimate responsibility (subject to oversight by
the Board) to oversee Sub-Advisers and to recommend their hiring,
termination, and replacement.
    3. Within 90 days of the hiring of a new Sub-Adviser, the Manager
will furnish shareholders of the applicable Sub-Advised Fund all
information about the new Sub-Adviser that would be included in a proxy
statement. To meet this condition, the Manager will provide
shareholders of the applicable Sub-Advised Fund with an information
statement meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and
Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    4. The Manager will not enter into a Sub-Advisory Agreement with
any Affiliated Sub-Adviser unless such agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, has been approved by the
shareholders of the applicable Sub-Advised Fund.
    5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional
Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-
existing Independent Trustees.
    6. When a change of Sub-Adviser is proposed for a Sub-Advised Fund
with an Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the
Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of such Sub-
Advised Fund and its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of
interest from which the Manager or an Affiliated Sub-Adviser derives an
inappropriate advantage.
    7. The Manager will provide general investment management services
to each Sub-Advised Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility
for the general management and investment of each Sub-Advised Fund's
assets and, subject to review and approval by the Board, will: (i) Set
the Sub-Advised Fund's overall investment strategies; (ii) evaluate,
select, and recommend Sub-Advisers to manage all or a part of the Sub-
Advised Fund's assets; (iii) when appropriate, allocate and reallocate
the Sub-Advised Fund's assets among multiple Sub-Advisers; (iv) monitor
and evaluate the Sub-Advisers' investment performance; and (v)
implement

procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance by the Sub-
Adviser(s) with the Sub-Advised Fund's investment objectives, policies
and restrictions.
    8. No Trustee or officer of the Trust, or director or officer of
the Manager, will own directly or indirectly (other than through a
pooled investment vehicle over which such person does not have control)
any interest in a Sub-Adviser serving in reliance on the order, except
for ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any
class of equity or debt of any publicly traded company.
    9. The requested order will expire on the effective date of rule
15a-5 under the Act, if adopted.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6891 Filed 4-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 122 (Wednesday, June 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 37954]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-P-0678]

Determination That DEXTROSE IN PLASTIC CONTAINER (Dextrose)
Injectable, 30 Grams/100 Milliliters, 40 Grams/100 Milliliters, 60
Grams/100 Milliliters, and 70 Grams/100 Milliliters, Were Not Withdrawn
From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has
determined that DEXTROSE IN PLASTIC CONTAINER (dextrose) injectable, 30
grams (g)/100 milliliters (mL), 40 g/100 mL, 60 g/100 mL, and 70 g/100
mL, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated
new drug applications (ANDAs) for dextrose injectable, 30 g/100 mL, 40
g/100 mL, 60 g/100 mL, and 70 g/100 mL, if all other legal and
regulatory requirements are met.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Faranda, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6258, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-8767<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants
must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are
seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same
strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a version of
the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed
drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that
does not refer to a listed drug.
    DEXTROSE IN PLASTIC CONTAINER (dextrose) injectable, 30 g/100 mL,
40 g/100 mL, 60 g/100 mL, and 70 g/100 mL, are the subject of NDA
017521, held by Baxter Healthcare Corporation, and initially approved
on August 28, 1979. DEXTROSE IN PLASTIC CONTAINER is indicated as a
source of calories for patients requiring parenteral nutrition when
oral or enteral nutrition is not possible, insufficient or
contraindicated. DEXTROSE IN PLASTIC CONTAINER (dextrose) injectable,
30 g/100 mL, 40 g/100 mL, 60 g/100 mL, and 70 g/100 mL, are currently
listed in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange
Book.
    Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, submitted a citizen petition dated
February 6, 2020 (Docket No. FDA-2020-P-0678), under 21 CFR 10.30,
requesting that the Agency determine whether DEXTROSE 70% IN PLASTIC
CONTAINER (dextrose) injectable, 70 g/100 mL, was withdrawn from sale
for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Although the citizen petition
did not address the 30 g/100 mL, 40 g/100 mL, or 60 g/100 mL strengths,
those strengths have also been discontinued. On our own initiative, we
have also determined whether those strengths were withdrawn for safety
or effectiveness reasons.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that DEXTROSE IN PLASTIC CONTAINER (dextrose)
injectable, 30 g/100 mL, 40 g/100 mL, 60 g/100 mL, and 70 g/100 mL,
were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The
petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that
DEXTROSE IN PLASTIC CONTAINER (dextrose) injectable, 30 g/100 mL, 40 g/
100 mL, 60 g/100 mL, and 70 g/100 mL, were withdrawn for reasons of
safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for
records concerning the withdrawal of DEXTROSE IN PLASTIC CONTAINER
(dextrose) injectable, 30 g/100 mL, 40 g/100 mL, 60 g/100 mL, and 70 g/
100 mL, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant
literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have
found no information that would indicate that this drug product was
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list DEXTROSE IN PLASTIC
CONTAINER (dextrose) injectable, 30 g/100 mL, 40 g/100 mL, 60 g/100 mL,
and 70 g/100 mL, in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of
the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' delineates,
among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from
marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that
refer to DEXTROSE IN PLASTIC CONTAINER (dextrose) injectable, 30 g/100
mL, 40 g/100 mL, 60 g/100 mL, and 70 g/100 mL, may be approved by the
Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements
for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this
drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency
will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: June 18, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-13593 Filed 6-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: April 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 66)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18466-18473]
[DOCID:fr04ap08-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130-200725; FRL-8551-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Florida:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed approval and proposed conditional approval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to conditionally approve State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Florida on February 3,
2006. The proposed revisions modify Florida's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting regulations in the SIP to address
changes to the federal New Source Review (NSR) regulations, which were
promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002, and reconsidered with minor
changes on November 7, 2003 (collectively, these two final actions are
referred to as the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules''). The proposed revisions
include provisions for baseline emissions calculations, an actual-to-
projected-actual methodology for calculating emissions changes, options
for plantwide applicability limits, and recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. As part of the conditional approval, Florida will have
twelve months from the date of EPA's final conditional approval of the
SIP revisions in which to revise its PSD recordkeeping requirements and
several definitions in order to be consistent with existing federal
law.
    In addition to and in conjunction with the proposed conditional
approval of Florida's PSD permitting program SIP revisions, EPA is
proposing to approve Florida's concurrent February 3, 2006, request to
make the State's PSD permitting program applicable to electric power
plants which are also subject to the Florida Electrical Power Plant
Siting Act (PPSA). This proposed approval follows the receipt of
adverse comments on, and EPA's subsequent withdrawal of, EPA's May 25,
2007, direct final rule granting full approval to Florida to implement
its PSD permitting program for sources subject to the PPSA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2006-0130, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2006-0130.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Florida
State Implementation Plan, contact Ms. Heidi LeSane, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. LeSane can also be reached via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding New Source Review,
contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at the same address
above. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Adams can also be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What actions are being proposed?
II. What is the background of EPA's proposed action on the Florida
PSD rule revisions?
III. What is EPA's Analysis of Florida's PSD program revisions and
what are the conditions for full SIP-approval?
IV. What is the background of prior EPA action on Florida's PSD
program for electric power plants?
V. What is the basis for EPA's proposed SIP-approval of the
inclusion of electric power plants in Florida's PSD program?
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions are being proposed?

    NSR Reform Revisions. On February 3, 2006, the State of Florida,
through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP),
submitted revisions to the Florida SIP. The submittal consists of
revisions to the following

FDEP rules: Chapter 62-204, ``Air Pollution Control--General
Provisions;'' Chapter 62-210, ``Stationary Sources--General
Provisions;'' and Chapter 62-212, ``Stationary Sources--Preconstruction
Review.'' The revisions were made to update the Florida PSD program to
make it consistent with changes to the federal NSR regulations
published on December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186) and November 7, 2003 (68
FR 63021). EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the February 3,
2006, SIP submittal consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the Clean Air
Act (``CAA'' or ``Act'').
    Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally
approve a portion of a SIP revision based on a commitment from the
state to adopt specific, enforceable measures no later than twelve
months from the date of final conditional approval. If the state fails
to commit to undertake the necessary changes, or fails to actually make
the changes within the twelve month period, EPA will issue a finding of
disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval.
The necessary revisions to the Florida SIP will materially alter the
existing SIP-approved rule. As a result, the State must also provide a
new SIP submittal to EPA for approval that includes the rule changes
within twelve months from the date of EPA's final action conditionally
approving Florida's PSD program. As with any SIP revision, Florida must
undergo public notice and comment, and allow for a public hearing (and
any other procedures required by State law) on the proposed changes to
its rules. If Florida fails to adopt and submit the specified measures
by the end of one year (from the final conditional approval), or fails
to make a SIP submittal to EPA within twelve months following the final
conditional approval, EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. If
Florida timely revises its rules and submits the revised SIP submittal,
EPA will process that SIP revision consistent with the CAA.
    Generally, with regard to the conditional approval of Florida's PSD
program, Florida must revise its PSD recordkeeping requirements and
several definitions in the rules. Section III below provides more
details regarding EPA's analysis of Florida's PSD program and the
changes that are necessary to the Florida rules in order for full
approval of Florida's SIP revision.
    Applicability of Florida's SIP-approved PSD permitting program to
electric power plants. In addition to and in conjunction with the
proposed conditional approval of Florida's PSD SIP revisions, EPA is
proposing to approve Florida's concurrent February 3, 2006, request to
make the State's PSD permitting program applicable to electric power
plants subject to the Florida PPSA. Any final approval of this request
would mean that Florida's SIP-approved PSD permitting program,
including any final conditional approval of the State's PSD revisions
noted above, would apply to electric power plants in Florida in lieu of
the current federally delegated PSD program.

II. What is the background of EPA's proposed action on the Florida PSD
rule revisions?

    On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule
changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 52,
regarding the CAA's PSD and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) programs. On
November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final action
on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002, final rule changes. In
that November 7, 2003, final action, EPA added the definition of
``replacement unit,'' and clarified an issue regarding plantwide
applicability limitations (PALs). Collectively, these two EPA final
actions are referred to as the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules.'' The purpose
of this action is to propose to conditionally approve the SIP submittal
from Florida, which addresses EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of EPA's implementation of Parts
C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD program, which applies in
areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)--
``attainment'' areas--as well as in areas for which there is
insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the
NAAQS--``unclassifiable'' areas. Part D of title I of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the NNSR program, which applies in areas that are
not in attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment'' areas. Collectively,
the PSD and NNSR programs are referred to as the ``New Source Review''
or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these programs are
contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, appendix
S.
    The CAA's NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting
programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air
pollutants regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include
a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control
technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public
health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets
those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for
approval, a SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control
measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to
contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and
modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that
the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air;
to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national
parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls
are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development
consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure
that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full
public consideration of the consequences of the decision.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: (1) Provide a new method for
determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-
projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major
modification has occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply
with plant-wide applicability limits to avoid having a significant
emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR
program; (4) provide a new applicability provision for emissions units
that are designated clean units; and (5) exclude pollution control
projects (PCPs) from the definition of ``physical change or change in
the method of operation.'' On November 7, 2003, EPA published a notice
of final action on its reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules (68
FR 63021), which added a definition for ``replacement unit'' and
clarified an issue regarding PALs. For additional information on the
2002 NSR Reform Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and http://
www.epa.gov/nsr.
    After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March
3, 2003), industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged
numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of
EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005,
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(DC Circuit Court) issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules. New York v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). In
summary, the DC Circuit Court vacated portions of the

rules pertaining to clean units and PCPs, remanded a portion of the
rules regarding recordkeeping, 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR
51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did not comment on the other
provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. On June 13,
2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA took direct final action to revise the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules to remove from federal law all provisions pertaining to
clean units and the PCP exemption that were vacated by the DC Circuit
Court. This proposed action on the Florida SIP is consistent with the
decision of the DC Circuit Court because Florida's submittal does not
include any portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were vacated as
part of the June 2005 decision.
    With regard to the remanded portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules
related to recordkeeping, on December 21, 2007, EPA took final action
on the proposed revisions by establishing that ``reasonable
possibility'' applies where source emissions equal or exceed 50 percent
of the CAA NSR significance levels for any pollutant (72 FR 72607). The
``reasonable possibility'' provision identifies for sources and
reviewing authorities the circumstances under which a major stationary
source undergoing a modification that does not trigger major NSR must
keep records. Florida's regulations do not include the ``reasonable
possibility'' language. Florida's SIP revisions require all
modifications that use the actual-to-projected-actual methodology to
meet the recordkeeping requirements. Thus, with regard to the
reasonable possibility issue, Florida's rules are at least as stringent
as the current federal rules (see, e.g., F.A.C. section 62-212.300).
However, another aspect of Florida's recordkeeping requirements is not
consistent with the recordkeeping provisions set forth in the federal
rules at 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6). As is explained in more detail below,
Florida will have to revise its recordkeeping requirements as part of
the proposed conditional approval.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that state agencies adopt and
submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the
minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than
January 2, 2006. (Consistent with changes to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(6)(i),
state agencies are now required to adopt and submit SIP revisions
within 3 years after new amendments are published in the Federal
Register.) State agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51,
and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with different but equivalent
regulations.
    On February 3, 2006, FDEP submitted a SIP revision for the purpose
of revising the State's PSD permitting provisions. These changes were
made primarily to adopt EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. These revisions
became State-effective on February 2, 2006, and February 12, 2006. Even
though Florida currently has nonattainment rules approved in the SIP,
this submittal did not include revisions to the NNSR rules because
there are currently no nonattainment areas in Florida. Copies of
Florida's revised PSD rules, as well as the State's Technical Support
Document (TSD), can be obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the
ADDRESSES section above.
    As is discussed in further detail below, EPA believes the revisions
contained in the Florida submittal are approvable for inclusion into
the Florida SIP so long as the specific changes described below are
made within twelve months of the date of EPA's final conditional
approval. As a result, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the
Florida SIP revisions, consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the CAA.

III. What is EPA's Analysis of Florida's PSD program revisions and what
are the conditions for full SIP-approval?

    This section summarizes EPA's analysis of the changes being
proposed for inclusion into the Florida SIP.
    F.A.C. Chapter 62-204, entitled ``Air Pollution Control--General
Provisions'' contains general air pollution control requirements that
apply regardless of the type or size of the emissions source. F.A.C.
section 62-204.260 sets forth PSD increments for pollutants for which
EPA has established such increments. Definitions at section 62-204.200
describe those emissions which affect (i.e. expand or consume) PSD
increment. Under previous FDEP rules, some provisions related to
increment consumption and expansion were located at section 62-212.400.
The current rule revisions consolidate all such provisions in the
definitions at section 62-204.200 for greater clarity. In addition,
rule language has been amended to more closely reflect the federal
rules.
    F.A.C. Chapter 62-210, entitled ``Stationary Sources--General
Requirements,'' contains definitions of terms used in Chapter 62-212,
as well as other stationary source rules. Chapter 62-210 also
establishes general permitting, public notice, reporting, and permit
application requirements. Chapter 62-212, entitled ``Stationary
Sources--Preconstruction Review'' contains specific preconstruction
permitting requirements for various types of air construction permits,
including minor source permits, PSD permits, NNSR permits, and the more
recently added PAL permits. Revisions were made to these rules to
incorporate changes resulting from the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with the
exception that F.A.C. section 62-212.500, entitled, ``Preconstruction
Review for Nonattainment Areas'' was not revised since there are no
longer any nonattainment areas in Florida. This rule will need to be
amended if nonattainment areas are designated in Florida in the future.
    F.A.C. section 62-212.400 contains the State's PSD preconstruction
review program as required under Part C of title I of the CAA. The PSD
program applies to major stationary sources or modifications
constructing in areas that are designated as attainment or
unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS. Florida's PSD program was
originally approved into the SIP by EPA on December 22, 1983, and has
been revised several times. The current changes to F.A.C. Chapters 62-
204, 62-210 and 62-212, which EPA is now proposing to conditionally
approve into the Florida SIP, were submitted to update the existing
Florida regulations to be consistent with the current federal PSD
rules, including the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. The SIP revision addresses
baseline actual emissions, actual-to-projected-actual applicability
tests, and PALs.
    EPA's evaluation of the Florida SIP submittal included a line-by-
line comparison of the proposed revisions with the federal
requirements. As a general matter, state agencies may meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with
different but equivalent regulations. While some states choose to
incorporate by reference the applicable federal rules, other states
(such as Florida) choose to draft rules that track the federal language
but contain differences. As part of its February 3, 2006, SIP
submittal, Florida provided EPA with an Equivalency Determination and
Response to Comments (ED and RTC) that address differences from the
federal rules noted by EPA in its comments on Florida's prehearing
submittal. As a point of clarification, although FAC section 62-
204.800, ``Federal Regulations Adopted by Reference,'' includes 40 CFR
part 52, this Florida rule does not legally ``incorporate by
reference'' the entirety of part 52. According to Florida's ED and RTC,
the reference to part 52 does not make those

regulations applicable, but rather, other rules, such as the PSD rule
currently at issue, define how the elements of part 52 will apply in
Florida.
    Although EPA has determined that some of the differences in
Florida's PSD program are acceptable, some differences are not
consistent with the federal rules. Therefore, EPA has determined that
Florida's PSD program does not meet all the program requirements for
the preparation, adoption and submittal of implementation plans for the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, set forth at 40
CFR 51.166 and revisions are necessary for full approval.
    The required changes relate to the definitions of ``new emissions
unit,'' ``PSD pollutant,'' ``significant emissions rate,'' and the
recordkeeping requirements found at 51.166(r)(6). Consistent with
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally approve Florida's
SIP revision based on the State's commitment to adopt specific,
enforceable measures by a date certain, not to exceed one year after
the date of the final conditional approval.
    A discussion of the specific changes to Florida's rules comprising
the SIP revision, as well as the additional changes that must be made
by Florida as part of the conditional approval, follows. The discussion
addresses both acceptable deviations from the federal rules, as well as
the differences that are subject to the conditional approval.

1. New Emissions Unit

    Florida's definition for ``new emissions unit'' for PSD purposes is
found in F.A.C. section 62-210.200(184). \1\ This definition is not
consistent with the federal definition found at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(7)(i).
Pursuant to federal law, a ``new emissions unit'' is ``any emissions
unit that is (or will be) newly constructed and that has existed for
less than 2 years from the date such emissions unit first operated.''
40 CFR 51.166(b)(7)(i). Under Florida law, however, a ``new emissions
unit'' is ``any emissions unit that is or will be newly constructed and
that has enlisted for less than 2 years from the date of beginning
normal operation.'' See, F.A.C. section 62-210.200(184) (emphasis
added). Florida's ED and RTC indicate that the use of the term
``beginning normal operation'' takes into account that most new units
undergo a ``shakedown'' period during which the unit is operating but
may not have normal, representative emissions. FDEP therefore believes
that this term clarifies the intent of the federal requirement. EPA
disagrees that this language is equivalent to the federal rule. Florida
must revise its regulations to better define what is meant by
``beginning normal operation,'' to ensure that the ``shakedown'' period
does not continue for an unbounded period of time. EPA recommends that
Florida adopt the language of the federal rule. However, if Florida
chooses otherwise, FDEP will need to provide EPA with an equivalency
demonstration supporting the new, more specific, regulation. In
addition, EPA also identified a typographical error in this provision
that should be addressed. The language ``* * * that has enlisted for
less than * * *'' should read ``* * * that has existed for less than *
* *.'' F.A.C. section 62-210.200(184) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The references to the Florida regulations in this notice
correspond to the numbering in the SIP submittal. Since Chapter 62-
210 contains definitions for other stationary source rules and these
definitions are maintained in alphabetical order, the references
given in this notice do not correspond to the current Florida
regulations due to subsequent amendments to Florida stationary
rules. This is the case for all definitions being discussed in this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Pollution Control Project (PCP)

    As mentioned previously, the PCP exemption provisions of the
federal rules, including the definition of ``pollution control
project,'' were vacated by the DC Circuit Court. Florida's regulations
still include a definition for ``pollution control project'' (found at
F.A.C. section 62-210.200(209)). In its ED and RTC, Florida explains
that this term is no longer used anywhere within the Florida
regulations and the intent is to exclude clean coal technology
demonstration projects from triggering a major modification. However,
such projects are excluded at 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(j), and F.A.C. section
62-210.200(161)(c)9. Even though Florida's definition of ``pollution
control project'' is not the same as the vacated federal definition,
EPA believes that the use of the term ``PCP'' in the Florida
regulations may be confusing to both the public and the regulated
community, and could be misconstrued as the vacated portion of the
federal rules. Because the clean coal technology demonstration project
exemption is already independently defined and included in F.A.C.
section 62-210.200(190)(c)9, EPA recommends that the term ``pollution
control project'' be removed from the rules to be included in the
Florida SIP.

3. Regulated NSR Pollutant

    Florida's definition of ``PSD Pollutant'' found at F.A.C. section
62-210.200(219) is intended to be equivalent to the federal definition
of ``Regulated NSR pollutant'' at 51.166(b)(49). Florida defines ``PSD
Pollutant'' as ``any pollutant listed as having a significant emissions
rate as defined in F.A.C. section 62-210.200.'' The definition of
``significant emissions rate,'' found at F.A.C. section 62-
210.200(243), includes ``a rate listed at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) * * *
specifically the following rates,'' and proceeds to list rates for
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter,
ozone, lead, fluorides, sulfuric acid mist, hydrogen sulfide, total
reduced sulfur, reduced sulfur compounds, municipal waste combustor
organics, metals, and acid gases, municipal solid waste landfills
emissions, and mercury. The federal definition of ``Regulated NSR
Pollutant'' includes: (1) Any pollutant for which a NAAQS has been
promulgated and any constituents or precursors for such pollutants
identified by the Administrator; (2) any pollutant that is subject to
any standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act; (3) any Class I
or II substance subject to a standard promulgated under or established
by title VI of the Act; and (4) any pollutant that otherwise is subject
to regulation under the Act.
    In its ED and RTC, Florida explains that its definition of
significant emissions rate includes all pollutants for which a NAAQS
has been promulgated thus far, all precursors for such pollutants which
have thus far been identified by the Administrator, all pollutants
subject to standards promulgated under section 111 of the Act, and all
pollutants thus far regulated under the Act. Florida acknowledges that
its rules do not include ozone depleting substances (i.e., Class I and
Class II substances subject to a standard under title VI of the CAA) in
the definition of PSD pollutant. Because ozone depleting substances are
regulated NSR pollutants pursuant to federal law, Florida must also
regulate such pollutants in order for its PSD program to meet the
requirements of the federal program. Therefore, as part of the
conditional approval, Florida must revise its rules to include Class I
and Class II substances in its list of PSD pollutants.

4. Significant Emissions Rate

    The definition of ``significant emissions rate,'' found at F.A.C.
section 62-210.200(243), includes ``a rate listed at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(23)(i) * * * specifically the following rates,'' and proceeds
to list rates for specific pollutants. Federal regulations define
``significant'' as a rate of emissions that

would equal or exceed a pollutant specific list of emissions rates.
See, 40 CFR Part 51.166(b)(23)(i). In addition, federal law defines
significant as ``any emissions rate'' of a regulated NSR pollutant that
is not listed in Sec.  51.166(b)(23)(i), and ``any emissions rate'' at
a major stationary source constructing within 10 kilometers of a Class
I area, which would have an impact on such area equal to or greater
than 1 microgram per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) over a 24-hour average.
Florida's PSD rules do not include ``any emissions rate'' for a
pollutant that is not listed in the significant emissions rate list,
but that could otherwise be considered a regulated NSR pollutant (i.e.
``any pollutant that is otherwise subject to regulation under the
Act''). In addition, Florida's PSD rules limit the Class I area impact
provision to only those pollutants that are listed in the significant
emissions rates list. See, F.A.C. section 62-210.200(243)(b). In its ED
and RTC, Florida explains that its PSD rules include all pollutants
that are currently regulated under the federal rules, and which fall
within FDEP's existing statutory authority. For those pollutants which
may become regulated NSR pollutants in the future, FDEP commits to
adopting those pollutants into the State's PSD rules as soon as
possible after EPA's promulgation. EPA agrees that Florida's PSD rules
include significant emissions rates for all currently regulated NSR
pollutants, except ozone depleting substances (discussed above), and
that Florida's approach to adopting any other pollutants as part of its
definition of PSD pollutant in an expeditious manner after promulgation
by EPA, is an acceptable approach to ensuring that Florida's PSD
program is consistent with the federal PSD program.

5. Mercury

    As a general matter, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are not
regulated NSR pollutants unless they are also regulated as a
constituent or precursor of a general pollutant listed under Section
108 of the Act. Pursuant to Section 112(b)(6) of the CAA, the PSD
provisions of the CAA ``shall not apply to pollutants listed in''
Section 112. Mercury is specifically listed as a HAP in Section
112(b)(1). As a result, the CAA's PSD program does not apply to
mercury. Section 110 of the CAA, governing SIP review and approval,
describes what types of regulations should be included in the SIP;
specifically, regulations supporting attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. Mercury is not identified as a criteria pollutant for which a
NAAQS is established, nor is it identified as a constituent of such a
pollutant or a precursor of such a pollutant. As a result, regulations
governing mercury should not be included in SIPs. As previously
mentioned, Florida's definition of ``significant emissions rate,''
found at F.A.C. section 62-210.200(243), includes ``a rate listed at 40
CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) * * * specifically the following rates,'' and it
proceeds to list rates for among other pollutants, mercury.
    In its ED and RTC, Florida explains that its PSD program has
included a significant emission rate for mercury since the 1980s.
However, following the enactment of the 1990 amendments to the CAA, EPA
advised states to remove HAPs from PSD rules included in the SIP.
Florida did remove some HAPs, but retained mercury. Because the 1990
CAA Amendments (and the addition of Section 112(b)(6)) has altered
EPA's approach with regard to mercury, EPA is now seeking to remedy the
inclusion of mercury in the Florida SIP as a PSD pollutant. Notably,
Florida may retain mercury as a regulated pollutant pursuant to State
authority and State law. However, mercury cannot be included as a
regulated pollutant in the SIP. As part of the conditional approval,
Florida must withdraw its request that EPA include a significant
emissions rate for mercury in the Florida SIP, specifically section
200.243(a)2 of F.A.C. Chapter 62-210.

6. Recordkeeping Requirements

    Federal rules at 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6)(i)(c) require that the owner
or operator document and maintain a record of the description of the
applicability test used to determine that the project is not a major
modification for any regulated NSR pollutant, including the baseline
actual emissions, the projected actual emissions, the amount of
emissions excluded under the definition of ``projected actual
emissions'' (i.e. that portion of the unit's emissions following the
project that an existing unit could have accommodated during the
consecutive 24-month period used to establish the baseline actual
emissions and that are also unrelated to the particular project,
including any increased utilization due to product demand growth) and
an explanation as to why this amount was excluded, and any netting
calculations if applicable. F.A.C. section 62-212.300(3)(a) requires
each applicant to provide at a minimum, the nature and amounts of
emissions from the emissions unit, including baseline actual emissions
and projected actual emissions when used to determine PSD
applicability, and when used to establish a PAL. However, Florida rules
do not specifically require a record of the amount of emissions
excluded pursuant to the projected actual emissions requirements, an
explanation as to why these emissions were excluded, and any netting
calculations if applicable. As part of the conditional approval,
Florida must revise its rules to make the recordkeeping requirements
consistent with the federal recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR
51.166(r)(6).

7. Replacement Unit

    As previously mentioned, on November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA
added a definition of ``replacement unit'' to federal NSR rules. See,
40 CFR 51.166(32). EPA also revised the definition of ``emissions
unit'' to clarify that a replacement unit is considered an existing
emissions unit and therefore is eligible for the actual-to-projected-
actual test for major NSR applicability determinations. Florida rules
do not include a definition of replacement unit, and do not specify in
the definition of existing emissions unit that a replacement unit is
considered an existing emissions unit. As stated in the preamble to the
November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021) rule amendments, the December 2002
rules, ``* * * as supplemented by the discussion in the December 2002
preamble, are self-implementing for replacement units.'' Florida
intends to implement these provisions consistent with federal
regulations. In other words, in Florida a replacement unit is
considered an existing emissions unit and therefore is eligible for the
actual-to-projected-actual test for major NSR applicability test
determinations. Therefore, based on Florida's intent to implement these
provisions consistent with federal regulations, EPA does not believe
that this difference from the federal regulations makes Florida's PSD
program less stringent than the federal program.

8. Malfunction Emissions

    Federal regulations require the inclusion of emissions associated
with malfunctions in the calculation of ``projected actual emissions''
and ``baseline actual emissions.'' Florida's definitions of ``projected
actual emissions'' and ``baseline actual emissions'' at F.A.C. sections
62-210.200(34) and (215) respectively, do not require the inclusion of
emissions associated with malfunctions. Florida will be relying only on
quantifiable emissions that can be verified. Given that Florida will be
consistently applying this approach for both ``projected actual
emissions'' and

``baseline actual emissions'' and that this approach will not prevent
malfunctions from being exceedances of applicable standards, EPA has
determined that this difference does not make Florida's PSD program
less stringent than the federal program. These changes do not affect
source obligations regarding excess emissions related notifications
that may be required by State or federal law.

9. Major Stationary Source

    One of the changes proposed in the Florida submittal is to replace
the State definition of ``major stationary source'' with the federal
definition contained at 40 CFR 52.21(b). For the most part, the effect
of this change is simply to reword the State definition so that it
reads the same as the federal definition. EPA notes, however, that in
replacing the Florida definition with the federal definition, the State
has adopted the phrase ``except the activities of any vessel.'' This
phrase was remanded and vacated by the DC Circuit Court, and Florida
had explicitly excluded this language from the State rule when it
initially adopted the State PSD regulations. See, Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 725 F.2d 761 (DC Cir. 1984). This change may
have the effect of excluding activities that were previously covered by
the state rule. Hence, EPA requests clarification as to whether it is
the state's intention to amend the SIP to include this language, or
whether it was an unintended consequence of adopting the federal
definition verbatim.
    In summary, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve, into
Florida's SIP, revisions to Florida's PSD permitting program. As part
of the conditional approval mechanism, within twelve months of EPA's
final action on the conditional approval, the State must: (1) Revise
the definition of ``new emissions unit'' to be consistent with the
federal definition or revise the definition to define what is meant by
``beginning normal operation'' and provide an equivalency demonstration
supporting the revised definition; (2) revise the definition of
``significant emissions rate'' to include ozone depleting substances;
(3) withdraw the request that EPA include a significant emissions rate
for mercury in the Florida SIP, specifically section 200.243(a)2 of
F.A.C. Chapter 62-210; and (4) revise the recordkeeping requirements at
F.A.C. section 62-212.300 to be consistent with federal requirements.
If Florida fails to comply with these four requirements in the
specified period of time, EPA will issue a finding of disapproval.

IV. What is the background of prior EPA action on Florida's PSD program
for electric power plants?

    For reasons described further below, electric power plants subject
to the Florida PPSA have historically been permitted by FDEP (through a
federal delegation of authority from EPA) under the federal PSD program
rather than the Florida SIP-approved PSD permitting program. With the
reasons for the necessity of such delegation of federal authority
removed, Florida requests that electric power plants within the State
now be permitted under the State's SIP-approved PSD permitting program.
Because EPA agrees with Florida that the necessity for such federal
delegation no longer exists, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's
request to make the State's PSD permitting program (rather than the
federal PSD permitting program) applicable to electric power plants in
the State.
    As noted earlier, Part C of the CAA establishes the PSD permitting
program--a preconstruction review program that applies to areas of the
country that have attained the NAAQS. CAA 160-169, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7479.
In such areas, a major stationary source may not begin construction or
undertake certain modifications without first obtaining a PSD permit.
In broad overview, the program (1) limits the impact of new or modified
major stationary sources on ambient air quality and (2) requires the
application of state-of-the-art pollution control technology, known as
best available control technology. CAA 165, 42 U.S.C. 7475.
    EPA has promulgated two largely identical sets of regulations to
implement the PSD program. One set, at 40 CFR 52.21, contains EPA's own
federal PSD program under which EPA is the permitting authority in
states operating without an EPA-approved state program. The other set
of regulations contains minimum requirements that state PSD programs
must meet to be approved by EPA as part of a SIP. 40 CFR 51.166. Over
time, most states have received EPA approval for their PSD programs.
    In order to comply with the established minimum requirements of the
CAA, Florida adopted its own PSD regulations on June 10 and October 28,
1981. The Florida PSD program was proposed for approval on December 14,
1982 (47 FR 55964) and initially approved by EPA into the Florida SIP
on December 22, 1983 (48 FR 52713). The approval transferred to FDEP
the legal authority to process and issue PSD permits to sources in
Florida that are required to obtain PSD permits.
    One category of sources not covered by EPA's 1983 approval of
Florida's PSD program was electric power plants. This was because, at
the time, a separate Florida law known as the Florida Electrical Power
Plant Siting Act (PPSA), Florida Statutes Section 403.501 et seq.,
required permits for electric power plants to be issued solely by the
Power Plant Site Certification Board under the PPSA, rather than by
FDEP under Florida's PSD regulations. Such a conflict between the PPSA
and Florida's PSD program created impediments to implementation and
enforcement of the State's PSD program by FDEP for such power plants
and precluded EPA's SIP-approval of Florida's PSD program as to these
sources. As a result, on November 5, 1985, EPA delegated partial
authority to FDEP to conduct the technical and administrative portion
of the federal PSD program for power plants subject to the Florida PPSA
(with EPA retaining final permitting authority). Letter from Jack E.
Ravan, EPA Region 4, to Victoria J. Tschinkel, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (November 5, 1985).
    On July 1, 1986, the Florida Legislature amended the PPSA in an
effort to extricate the implementation of PSD regulations from the
State's non-SIP power plant siting regulations and thereby allow FDEP
to issue PSD permits to those sources subject to the PPSA. On its face,
the 1986 Florida legislative amendment appeared to provide FDEP with
authority to fully implement (i.e., issue and enforce) federal PSD
regulations for sources subject to the PPSA. Thus, on September 25,
1986, EPA restored full delegation of federal authority to Florida for
these sources. Public notice of this restoration of full federal
delegation was published on October 27, 1986 (51 FR 37972).
    Although full federal delegation was restored to FDEP in October
1986, Florida did not subsequently submit to EPA a SIP revision
requesting approval to apply its SIP-approved State PSD program to
electrical power plants subject to the PPSA (in lieu of the fully
delegated federal PSD program). Thus, FDEP continued to issue permits
to sources subject to the PPSA under its federally-delegated authority
until 1992. However, in February 1992, EPA became aware of an issued
Florida court opinion wherein the state court expressly declared that
Florida's 1986 legislative amendments to the PPSA did not confer on
FDEP the authority to issue federally-enforceable PSD permits

containing conditions which differed from those imposed by the PPSA
Siting Board during the source's site certification. Letter from Greer
C. Tidwell, EPA Region 4, to Carol M. Browner, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (February 5, 1992); TECO Power Services Corp.
v. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, First District Court
of Appeal, Case No, 91-300 (December 20, 1991). In response to EPA's
inquiries concerning this state court opinion, FDEP responded that
``the practical effect of the decision is to render ineffective the
1986 amendments and return the law to the same essential configuration
as it appeared in 1985. Therefore, in the absence of further amendment
to the PPSA, it would appear necessary for EPA to resume final
permitting authority over PSD for new PPSA sources.'' Letter from Carol
M. Browner, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, to Greer C.
Tidwell, EPA Region 4 (April 27, 1992). EPA agreed with FDEP, and
consequently, on August 7, 1992, we revoked Florida's full federal
delegation of PSD authority for PPSA sources. FDEP, however, retained
partial federal delegation to conduct the technical and administrative
portion of the federal PSD program for power plants subject to the
Florida PPSA (with EPA again retaining final permitting authority).
Letter from Greer C. Tidwell, EPA Region 4, to Carol M. Browner,
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (August 7, 1992).
    In 1993, the Florida Legislature again amended the PPSA to address
concerns over the inappropriate influence of the Florida Power Plant
Siting Board's certification decisions on the PSD permitting process.
The amendments, which took effect on April 22, 1993, expressly provided
that the ``Department's action on a federally required new source
review or prevention of significant deterioration permit shall differ
from the actions taken by the siting board regarding the certification
if the federally approved state implementation plan requires such a
different action to be taken by the department. Nothing in this part
the PPSA shall be construed to displace the federally approved permit
program.'' In light of this 1993 amendment to the PPSA, FDEP requested
that EPA grant it full federal delegation of PSD permitting authority
for sources subject to both the federal PSD regulations and the PPSA.
Letter from Virginia B. Wetherell, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, to Patrick Tobin, EPA Region 4 (September 27, 1993) .
Because the 1993 PPSA amendment made clear that FDEP is the final
permitting authority for PSD and new source review permits and can act
in a manner different from the PPSA Siting Board if Florida's PSD or
new source review regulations require such a different action, EPA once
again granted full federal delegation to FDEP on October 26, 1993.
Letter from Patrick Tobin, EPA Region 4, to Virginia Wetherell, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. (October 26, 1993).
    The statutory amendment to the PPSA made by the Florida Legislature
in 1993 forms the basis of the State's 2006 request for EPA approval to
make Florida's SIP-approved State PSD program, rather than the federal
PSD program, applicable to sources subject to the PPSA. In addition,
during EPA's review of this request, the PPSA was again amended (on
June 19, 2006), to among other things, further extricate Florida's PSD
permitting process from its PPSA process. See, Florida Public Health
Code 403.0872. Specifically, language requiring that a PPSA application
for certification include ``documents necessary for the department to
render a decision on any permit required pursuant to any federally
delegated or approved permit program'' was deleted from the PPSA;
language requiring that FDEP's action on a PSD permit be based on the
recommended order of the PPSA certification hearing was removed; and
requirements that administrative procedures used in the issuance of PSD
and operating permits follow the administrative procedures of the PPSA
were also removed.
    Following our review of both the 1993 and June 19, 2006, amendments
to the PPSA, the Agency published a direct final rule on May 25, 2007,
finding that the PPSA amendments provided FDEP the authority to fully
implement and enforce Florida's PSD program for electric power plants
located within the State and we granted it full approval to implement
the State's PSD program for electric power plants subject to the PPSA.
72 FR 29287 (May 25, 2007). However, because adverse comments on the
direct final rule were received, we withdrew the rule on June 28, 2007
(72 FR 35355) and indicated that the rule would not take effect.

V. What is the basis for EPA's proposed SIP-approval of the inclusion
of electric power plants in Florida's PSD program?

    EPA continues to believe, for the reasons detailed above, that the
1993 and June 2006 Florida legislative amendments to the State's PPSA
rectified past concerns that the Florida PPSA infringed on FDEP's
authority to issue State PSD permits to sources subject to both the
State's PSD regulations and the Florida PPSA in such a manner that SIP-
approval of the State's PSD program for those sources was precluded. We
also believe that by proposing this SIP-approval through this
rulemaking (rather than by direct final rulemaking) and in conjunction
with our proposed action on the Florida PSD program SIP revisions, we
have addressed the main concerns raised by commenters in response to
our May 25, 2007, direct final rule. For example, a number of
environmental organizations, in jointly submitted comments, expressed
concern that a direct final rulemaking was not the proper process for
this particular SIP action because of public interest in providing
comments, that any SIP-approval to make the State's PSD program, rather
than the federal PSD program, applicable to electric power plants in
Florida required a full review of the State's PSD regulations to ensure
compliance with federal law, and that any such SIP-approval should be
done in conjunction with a review of the State's PSD regulatory
revisions made for purposes of addressing EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
    While EPA disagrees that our previous direct final rulemaking for
this matter was not procedurally appropriate and that a wholesale
revisiting of all Florida PSD regulations is required in order to make
the State's PSD program applicable to sources covered by the PPSA, we
believe that there is value-added to the public's review of this matter
by including it with our proposed action on the State's current PSD
revisions. In addition, we have, in response to other comments made on
our May 2007 direct final rule, added more detail and Docket material
in this proposed rulemaking action in support of the various
delegations of federal authority made to FDEP since 1985 in response to
the PPSA problem. Finally, with regard to several remaining comments on
the May 2007 direct final rule, EPA notes that SIP approval actions,
whether done through a direct final rulemaking process or a proposed/
final rulemaking process are not Section 307(d) rulemakings under the
CAA and do not require the inclusion of elements listed in Section
307(d)(3). Rather, EPA chooses to use the Administrative Procedure
Act's notice and comment rulemaking process to ensure public notice of
EPA action. In any event, we believe that today's proposed rulemaking
includes all information

necessary for informed public comment on the proposed approval.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the Florida
SIP (F.A.C. Chapters 62-204, 62-210 and 62-212) submitted by FDEP on
February 3, 2006. As part of the conditional approval, Florida must (1)
revise the definition of ``new emissions unit'' to be consistent with
the federal definition or revise the definition to define what is meant
by ``beginning normal operation'' and provide an equivalency
demonstration supporting the revised definition; (2) revise the
definition of ``significant emissions rate'' to include ozone depleting
substances; (3) withdraw the request that EPA include a significant
emissions rate for mercury in the Florida SIP, specifically section
200.243(a) 2 of F.A.C. Chapter 62-210; and (4) revise the recordkeeping
requirements at 62-212.300 to be consistent with federal requirements.
    In addition to and in conjunction with the proposed conditional
approval of Florida's PSD SIP revisions, EPA is proposing to approve
Florida's concurrent February 3, 2006, request to make the State's PSD
permitting program applicable to electric power plants subject to the
Florida PPSA. Any final approval of this request would mean that
Florida's SIP-approved PSD permitting program, including any final
conditional approval of the State's PSD revisions noted above, would
apply to electric power plants in Florida in lieu of the current
federally delegated PSD program.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), these
proposed actions are not ``significant regulatory actions'' and
therefore are not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, these actions are also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001). These proposed actions merely propose to approve
State law as meeting Federal requirements and impose no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that the proposed approvals in this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). These proposed actions
also do not have Federalism implications because they do not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
These proposed actions merely propose to approve State rules
implementing a Federal standard, and do not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves State rules
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 27, 2008.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
 [FR Doc. E8-7073 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 60393]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24422]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ20-3-000]

City of Vernon, California; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on October 28, 2019, the City of Vernon,
California submitted its tariff filing: Filing 2020 TRR and TRBAA to be
effective 1/1/2020.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 18, 2019.

    Dated: November 4, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24422 Filed 11-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61639-61640]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24320]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0530; FRL-9916-56-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Application for Reference and Equivalent
Method Determination (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Application for Reference and
Equivalent Method Determination (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 0559.12, OMB
Control No. 2080-0005) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through October 31, 2014. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 37309) on July 1,
2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 13,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2005-0530, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Robert W. Vanderpool, Environmental
Protection Agency, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division,
Process Modeling Research Branch, Mail Drop D205-03, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 919-541-
1153; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center,

WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The
telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: To determine compliance with the NAAQS, State air
monitoring agencies are required to use, in their air quality
monitoring networks, air monitoring methods that have been formally
designated by the EPA as either reference or equivalent methods under
EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 53. A manufacturer or seller of an air
monitoring method (e.g., an air monitoring sampler or analyzer) that
seeks to obtain such EPA designation of one of its products must carry
out prescribed tests of the method. The test results and other
information must then be submitted to the EPA in the form of an
application for a reference or equivalent method determination in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 53. The EPA uses this information, under
the provisions of Part 53, to determine whether the particular method
should be designated as either a reference or equivalent method. After
a method is designated, the applicant must also maintain records of the
names and mailing addresses of all ultimate purchasers of all analyzers
or samplers sold as designated methods under the method designation. If
the method designated is a method for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and coarse particulate matter (PM10-2.5),
the applicant must also submit a checklist signed by an ISO-certified
auditor to indicate that the samplers or analyzers sold as part of the
designated method are manufactured in an ISO 9001-registered facility.
Also, an applicant must submit a minor application to seek approval for
any proposed modifications to previously designated methods.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Private manufacturers, states.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory per 40 CFR 53.15.
    Estimated number of respondents: 22.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 7,492 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $650,494 (per year), includes $132,668
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in the hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-24320 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21386-21387]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9608]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Philadelphia International Airport, Capacity Enhancement Program,
Environmental Impact Statement, Announcement of a Preferred Alternative

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Announcement.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA has identified Alternative A as the Preferred
Alternative for the Philadelphia International Airport, Capacity

Enhancement Program, Environmental Impact Statement.

DATES: Effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan L. McDonald, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Harrisburg
Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 508, Harrisburg,
PA 17011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Aviation Administration is in the
process of completing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) Capacity Enhancement Program
(CEP). The purpose of the CEP is to enhance airport capacity in order
to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia
Metropolitan Area during all weather conditions. The Draft EIS was
published on September 26, 2008. The DEIS presented three alternatives;
the No Action and two on-airport construction alternatives
(Alternatives A and B), but did not identify a Preferred Alternative.
FAA has now identified Alternative A as its Preferred Alternative.
    Alternative A would extend Runway 8-26 to the east, extend Runway
9R-27L to the east, and add a third parallel east-west runway.
Alternative A would also reconstruct and enlarge the terminal complex,
increasing it from 120 to approximately 150 gates. Alternative A will
accommodate all forecasted operations with annualized average delays of
5.2 minutes in 2020 and 8.4 minutes in 2025. Alternative A is estimated
to cost $5.2 billion.
    Alternative A is FAA Preferred Alternative for the following
reasons:
    1. Alternative A meets the Purpose and Need by adding capacity and
significantly reducing delay in all weather conditions in the long
term.
    2. Alternative A allows for greater flexibility of construction
phasing or scheduling.
    3. Alternative A maintains a crosswind runway (Runway 17-35).
    4. Alternative A minimizes disruption of local surface
transportation, and does not result in construction impacts to
Interstate 95.
    5. On the average, Alternative A has less average annualized delays
during the prolonged construction period.
    6. With mitigation, significant environmental impacts can be
avoided or minimized.
    A Draft General Conformity Determination, based on FAA's Preferred
Alternative, is expected to be released for public comment April 27,
2010. The Final EIS is expected to be released late August 2010. The
Final EIS will address all comments received on the Draft EIS and
provides the rationale behind FAA's selection of Alternative A as the
Preferred Alternative. Further information on the project and the EIS
process can be found at the project Web site: http://www.phl-cep-eis.com.

    Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, April 16, 2010.
Oscar D. Sanchez,
Acting Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-9608 Filed 4-21-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 32216-32217]
[DOCID:fr07jy09-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60193; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
the Nasdaq Listing Rules To Make Certain Technical Changes and
Typographical Corrections

June 30, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 16, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq proposes a rule change to make technical changes and
typographical corrections to Nasdaq's Listing Rules. The text of the
proposed rule change is available from Nasdaq's Web site at http://
nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at Nasdaq's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below, and is set forth in sections A, B, and C below.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On March 12, 2009, Nasdaq filed a proposed rule change to revise
the rules relating to the qualification, listing, and delisting of
companies listed on, or applying to list on, Nasdaq to improve the
organization of the rules, eliminate redundancies and simplify the rule
language.\3\ These rules (the ``New Listing Rules'') were operative
April 13, 2009. Nasdaq has observed that the March filing introduced a
handful of typographical errors to the New Listing Rules and certain
rules require clarification or other technical changes. As a
consequence, Nasdaq proposes to add clarifying language and correct
typographical errors (such as adding omitted words, deleting
unnecessary words, and adding omitted punctuation) in Rules 5000, 5110,
5400, 5500, 5810, 5815, 5835, and IM-5605. In addition, Nasdaq proposes
to update a cross-reference in Rule 5710(a), which was not updated at
the time of the adoption of the New Listing Rules, and correct
references in Rules 5705(a) and (b). Nasdaq is also proposing to add
descriptive titles and language to Rules 5550 and 5810 and to correct
the title of Rule 5630 so that it is consistent with the underlying
requirement of that rule. Last, Nasdaq is proposing to assign rule
numbers to introductory paragraphs to certain New Listing Rules series,
and renumber certain rules as a consequence in order to facilitate
online navigation of the New Listing Rules. In that regard, Nasdaq is
proposing to adopt a convention to ensure that introductory language to
the rule series is numbered consistently throughout the New Listing
Rules, and kept separate from the titles of the rule series to which
such introductory language applies. As a

result, Rules 5000, 5100, 5400, 5500, 5600, 5700, 5800, and 5900 will
be renumbered as 5001, 5101, 5401, 5501, 5601, 5701, 5801, and 5901
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59663 (March 31, 2009),
74 FR 15552 (April 6, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change is
designed to bring consistency to the numbering and structure of certain
rules, and to conform certain other rules to conventions already
applied to other New Listing Rules. In addition, the proposed rule
change corrects certain typographical errors inadvertently included
when adopting the New Listing Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-
4 \7\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\9\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay will benefit the market and
investors by making technical changes to conform the presentation of
certain rules to be consistent to the conventions used in the New
Listing Rules and correcting minor typographical errors, which should
help to avoid confusion among Nasdaq's members and other market
participants. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change as operative upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78(c)(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-052 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-052. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-052 and should
be submitted on or before July 28, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15904 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P