[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44485-44488]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18316]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0809; FRL-9705-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida;
Sections 128 and 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve in part, and disapprove
in part, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, submitted by
the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) on December 13, 2007, and supplemented on April 18,
2008 and May 24, 2012, to demonstrate that the State meets the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. FDEP certified that the Florida SIP contains
provisions that ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented,
enforced, and maintained in Florida (hereafter referred to as
``infrastructure submission''). EPA is now taking three related actions
on FDEP's infrastructure submissions for Florida. First, EPA is taking
final action to disapprove in part portions of sections 110(a)(2)(C)
and 110(a)(2)(J) of the December 13, 2007, submittal as it relates to
the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Second, EPA is taking
final action to approve FDEP's May 24, 2012, submission, which
addresses the substantive requirements of section 128 relating to State
board requirements as applicable to the infrastructure SIP pursuant to
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and the substantive requirements of section
110(a)(2)(G), which relates to the authority to implement emergency
powers under section 303 of the CAA. Third, and with the exception of
the aforementioned portions of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA is
finalizing its determination that Florida's infrastructure submission,
provided to EPA on December 13, 2007, supplemented on April 18, 2008,
addresses all other required infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective August 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0809. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information 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 through 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 to 4:30 excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, 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. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. This Action
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS.
    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone
NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As already mentioned, these
requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the
subject of this final rulemaking are listed below \1\ and in EPA's
October 2,

2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time the nonattainment
area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's final rulemaking
does not address infrastructure elements related to section
110(a)(2)(I) or (C). In a March 14, 2012, final rulemaking, EPA
addressed the section 110(a)(2)(C) requirements for Tennessee. See
77 FR 14976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Today's final rule does not address element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
(Interstate Transport) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Interstate
transport requirements were formerly addressed by Florida consistent
with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). On December 23, 2008,
CAIR was remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, without
vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C.
Cir. 2008). Prior to this remand, EPA took final action to approve
Florida's SIP revision, which was submitted to comply with CAIR. See
72 FR 58016 (October 12, 2007). In so doing, Florida's CAIR SIP
revision addressed the interstate transport provisions in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In response to the
remand of CAIR, EPA has recently finalized a new rule to address the
interstate transport of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides
(SOx) in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011)
Transport Rule). EPA's action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be
addressed in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' but
as mentioned above is not relevant to today's rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-
hour average concentrations, thus states were required to provide
submissions to address sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for this
new NAAQS. Florida provided its infrastructure submission for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS on December 13, 2007. On March 27, 2008, Florida was
among other states that received a finding of failure to submit because
its infrastructure submission was deemed incomplete for element
110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by March 1, 2008. See 73
FR 16205. Section 110(a)(2)(G) relates to the requirement for states to
provide ``emergency power'' authority comparable to that in section 303
of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
    In FDEP's December 13, 2007, submission, and in a letter dated
April 18, 2008, FDEP cited State statutes as evidence that Florida has
the authority to implement emergency powers for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS as required by section 110(a)(2)(G). EPA, however, proposed a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) with respect to this element of the
infrastructure SIP because the statutes cited by FDEP had not been
approved into the Florida SIP. See 77 FR 23181 (April 18, 2012).\5\ On
April 19, 2012, FDEP submitted, for parallel processing, draft changes
to address the deficiencies of the Florida SIP regarding the
substantive requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G). EPA published a
supplemental proposed rulemaking action on this draft revision on May
18, 2012, to (1) incorporate provisions to address Florida's authority
for emergency powers and adequate contingency plans to implement such
authority; and (2) propose approval for element 110(a)(2)(G) of
Florida's infrastructure SIP. See 77 FR 29581. On May 24, 2012, FDEP
submitted a final submission to EPA to satisfy to CAA section
110(a)(2)(G). Therefore, in today's rulemaking, EPA will not finalize
the FIP for section 110(a)(2)(G) as it is no longer necessary and is
instead finalizing full approval of this substantive SIP revision to
address the section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements. As a result of this
substantive revision to the SIP, EPA is also finalizing its approval of
section 110(a)(2)(G) of Florida's infrastructure SIP among the other
infrastructure elements approved today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On March 23, 2012, FDEP sent a letter to EPA requesting
conditional approval of section 110(a)(2)(G). In this letter,
Florida committed to submit a SIP revision to address the
substantive requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) by June 2012. The
letter Florida submitted to EPA can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0809. EPA
notes that a conditional approval cannot satisfy an obligation for
the Agency to implement a FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA's April 18, 2012,
proposed rulemaking described EPA's intention to conditionally approve
FDEP's December 13, 2007, infrastructure submission regarding this sub-
element. EPA proposed conditional approval of this sub-element because
the State's implementation plan did not contain provisions to address
the requirements of CAA section 128. However, on March 13, 2012, FDEP
submitted a letter to EPA that included a commitment to submit a SIP
revision to address the CAA section 128 requirements. See 77 FR 23181.
The letter Florida submitted to EPA can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0809. On April
19, 2012, FDEP submitted, for parallel processing, a draft SIP revision
to fully address the deficiencies within the Florida SIP to address CAA
section 128 requirements. EPA proposed action on this draft revision on
May 18, 2012, which included both a proposed substantive revision to
the Florida SIP to incorporate rules satisfying section 128 of the CAA,
and a proposed approval for sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Florida's
infrastructure SIP. See 77 FR 29581. On May 24, 2012, FDEP submitted a
final submission to EPA to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 128.
    With respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA has issued two
regulatory revisions--the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule
New Source Review (NSR) Update--Phase 2 final rule (hereafter referred
to as the ``Ozone Implementation NSR Update'' or ``Phase 2 Rule'') (70
FR 71612 (November 29, 2005)); and the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
(hereafter referred to as the ``GHG Tailoring Rule'') (75 FR 31514
(EPA's June 3, 2010))--that necessitated updates to Florida's SIP in
order for EPA to approve these infrastructure elements for purposes of
the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Florida's authority to regulate new and modified sources of
the ozone precursors, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX), to assist in the protection of air quality
in nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable areas is established
in Chapters 62-210, Stationary Sources--General Requirements,
Section 200--Definitions, and 62-212, Stationary Sources--
Preconstruction Review, Section 400--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of the Florida SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the Phase 2 Rule, on October 19, 2007, and July 1, 2011,
FDEP submitted revisions to EPA, for approval into the Florida SIP, to
adopt federal requirements for NSR permitting

promulgated in the Phase 2 Rule. These revisions also modified
provisions of Florida's SIP at Chapter 62-210 and 62-212 to recognize
NOX as an ozone precursor. EPA finalized approval of these
revisions into the SIP on June 15, 2012. See 77 FR 35862.
    Regarding the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA has identified errors in
Florida's federally-approved SIP that result in the State's failure to
address, or provide adequate legal authority for, the implementation of
a GHG PSD program in Florida. Approval of a revision to address GHGs is
required to meet sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J). On December
30, 2010, EPA promulgated a FIP \7\ because Florida failed to submit,
by its December 22, 2010, deadline, the corrective SIP revision to
apply its PSD program to sources of GHGs consistent with the thresholds
described in the GHG Tailoring rule. Since Florida currently does not
have adequate legal authority to address the new GHG PSD permitting
requirements at or above the levels of emissions set in the GHG
Tailoring Rule, or at other appropriate levels, its SIP does not
satisfy portions of section 110(a)(2)(C) and section 110(a)(2)(J) of
the infrastructure SIP requirements. As a result, on April 18, 2012,
EPA proposed to disapprove FDEP's submission for sections 110(a)(2)(C)
and 110(a)(2)(J) as they relate to GHG PSD permitting requirements. See
77 FR 23181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan--Final Rule,
75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. This Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve in part, and disapprove in
part, Florida's infrastructure submissions as demonstrating that the
State meets the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA,
which is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. Florida,
through FDEP, certified that the Florida SIP contains provisions that
ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and
maintained in Florida. EPA received no adverse comments on its April
18, 2012, and May 18, 2012, proposed rulemakings of Florida's December
13, 2007, infrastructure submission and April 19, 2012, draft SIP
revision regarding the substantive requirements of CAA sections 128 and
110(a)(2)(G).
    Today's disapprovals of Florida's infrastructure submissions are
limited to the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C) and section110(a)(2)(J)
related to GHG PSD permitting as proposed on April 18, 2012. See 77 FR
23181. EPA's disapproval of this portion of these elements does not
result in any further obligation on the part of Florida because EPA has
already promulgated a FIP for the Florida PSD program to address
permitting GHGs at or above the GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds (76 FR
25178). Thus, today's final action to disapprove FDEP's submission for
elements related to the GHG PSD permitting portion of sections
110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J) will not require any further action by
either FDEP or EPA. The FIP that is currently in place to address GHG
requirements in Florida will remain unless and until Florida submits a
final submission to EPA for federal approval and EPA takes final action
on that submission.
    In addition to the above-described infrastructure submission final
actions, EPA is also today finalizing two substantive SIP actions
related to infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and (G) proposed in
EPA's May 18, 2012, supplemental proposed rule. See 77 FR 29581. EPA is
also announcing that it does not intend to finalize the proposed FIP
for section 110(a)(2)(G) as it is no longer necessary due to the
substantive SIP revisions for this element finalized today. The
substantive revisions were submitted by Florida to EPA on May 24, 2012.
See 77 FR 29581.
    Based upon the aforementioned, EPA has determined that Florida's
infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on December 13, 2007, and
supplemented on April 18, 2008, addresses all the required
infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the
exception of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), pertaining to CAA section
128 requirements and section 110(a)(2)(G). Florida's May 24, 2012,
submission addresses the substantive requirements of CAA sections 128,
110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(G). EPA has determined that the
remaining infrastructure elements addressed in Florida's December 13,
2007, submission, supplemented on April 18, 2008, and May 24, 2012,
with the exception of the portions of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J)
related to GHG PSD permitting, are consistent with section 110 of the
CAA.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve in part, and disapprove in
part, the December 13, 2007, submission, supplemented on April 18,
2008, and the May 24, 2012, submission, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
because these submissions are consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
FDEP has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP
requirements pursuant to EPA's October 2, 2007, guidance to ensure that
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained
in Florida. EPA is also taking final action to approve a substantive
SIP revision submitted by Florida on May 24, 2012, to address
requirements related to sections 128, 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and (G) of the
CAA because these revisions are consistent with the Act.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 28, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 16, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 52.520 in paragraph (e) is amended by adding three new
entries for ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' ``Section
128 Requirements,'' and ``Sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and (G)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         State       EPA approval      Federal Register
             Provision              effective date       date               notice              Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure        12/13/2007       7/30/2012  [Insert citation of    .....................
 Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour                                    publication].
 Ozone National Ambient Air
 Quality Standards.
Section 128 Requirements..........       5/24/2012       7/30/2012  [Insert citation of    .....................
                                                                     publication].
Sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and (G)        5/24/2012       7/30/2012  [Insert citation of    .....................
 Infrastructure Requirements for                                     publication].
 the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.523 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.523  Control strategy: Ozone

    (a) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving portions of Florida's
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS regarding the
State's ability to provide adequate legal authority for the
implementation of a Greenhouse Gas Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program, specifically with respect to sections
110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J). A FIP is currently in place and approved
for Florida at 40 CFR 52.37 for these requirements.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2012-18316 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 33425]
[DOCID:fr13jy09-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13452-000]

McGinnis, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing
Applications

July 2, 2009.
    On April 29, 2009, McGinnis, Inc. filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Cannelton Hydrokinetic
Project, located on the Ohio River, in Hancock County, Kentucky, and
Perry County, Indiana. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A 100 to 300-foot-long
by 20 to 52-foot-wide barge spudded down to the riverbed; (2) 10 6-8-
foot-long by 6-8-foot-diameter turbine-generators mounted in line along
the side of the barge; (3) one armored, high-voltage cable transmitting
the generated power to the existing transmission line located adjacent
to the proposed project area; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed project would generate about 1,533 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Bruce D. McGinnis, Sr., McGinnis, Inc., P. O.
Box 534, 502 Second St., Ext., South Point, OH 45680, phone: (740) 377-
4391.
    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13452) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16441 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 216)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57975-57978]
[DOCID:fr10no09-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0686]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lower Grand River, Iberville
Parish, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulations governing
the operation of the LA 75 pontoon bridge and the LA 77 swing bridge
across the Lower Grand River, mile 38.4 and 47.0 respectively, in
Iberville Parish, Louisiana. The Iberville Parish School Board has
requested that the operating regulations of these bridges be changed to
allow an additional 30 minutes to the end of each scheduled closure
period to provide more time for school buses to transit across the
bridge.

DATES: Comments, requests for public meetings, and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 11, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0686 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Lindsey Middleton, Bridge Administration Branch,
Eighth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0686), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online
via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the
Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax,
hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having
been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rules'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0686'' in the ``Keyword''

box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the
``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them
by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-0686'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We
have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the
Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

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

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Iberville Parish School Board has requested a change in the
operation regulation for the LA 75 pontoon bridge and the LA 77 swing
bridge across the Lower Grand River, mile 38.4 and 47.0, respectively,
in Iberville Parish, Louisiana. The change would add an additional 30
minutes to the end of each scheduled closure period to provide more
time for school buses to transit across the bridge. Extra time is now
needed because one of Iberville Parish's high schools has been closed.
As a result, students have been redistricted creating the need for
buses to have more time to transit the students over the bridges to get
to and from school.
    Presently, 33 CFR 117.478 (a) states: The draw of the LA 75 bridge,
mile 38.4 (Alternate Route) at Bayou Sorrel, shall open on signal;
except that, from about August 15 to about June 5 (the school year),
the draw need not be opened from 6 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except holidays. The draw shall open
on signal at any time for an emergency aboard a vessel.
    Presently, 33 CFR 117.478 (b) states: The draw of the LA 77 bridge,
mile 47.0 (Alternate Route) at Grosse Tete, shall open on signal;
except that from about August 15 to about June 5 (the school year), the
draw need not be opened from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. The draw
shall open on signal at any time for an emergency aboard a vessel.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed changes will allow the bridges to operate as follows:
The draw of the LA 75 bridge, mile 38.4 (Alternate Route) at Bayou
Sorrel, shall open on signal; except that, from about August 15 to
about June 5 (the school year), the draw need not be opened from 6 a.m.
to 8 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday except
holidays. The draw shall open on signal at any time for an emergency
aboard a vessel. The draw of the LA 77 bridge, mile 47.0 (Alternate
Route) at Grosse Tete, shall open on signal; except that from about
August 15 to about June 5 (the school year), the draw need not be
opened from 6 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday except Federal holidays. The draw shall open on signal
at any time for an emergency aboard a vessel.
    A Test Deviation, following the aforementioned operating schedules
under docket number USCG-2009-0686, is being issued in conjunction with
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to test the proposed schedules and
to obtain data and public comments. The test period will be in effect
from November 25, 2009 until December 28, 2009. The Coast Guard will
review the logs of the drawbridges and evaluate public comments for
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the above referenced Temporary
Deviation to determine if a permanent special drawbridge operating
regulation is warranted.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The proposed
changes would allow the bridges to remain closed-to-navigation for an
additional 30 minutes in the morning and afternoon. Very few vessels
will be impacted or backed up, and those few vessels should be able to
modify their transit times accordingly.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    The proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
needing to transit through the LA 75 bridge from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. and
from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays and the owners or operators of
vessels needing to transit through the LA 77 bridge from 6 a.m. to 8:30
a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays. Due to the minimal time
adjustment of each bridge closure there should only be a small number
of vessels that may be impacted by the proposed rule.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the

following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only 30 additional
minutes in the morning and in the afternoon on weekdays when school is
in session. Once that time period has ended, vessels can safely transit
through the bridge. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime
advisories which will be widely available to users of the river.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Lindsey Middleton, Bridge
Administration Branch, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this proposed
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. In Sec.  117.478 revise paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) to read
as follows:

Sec.  117.478  Lower Grand River.

    (a) The draw of the LA 75 bridge, mile 38.4 (Alternate Route) at
Bayou Sorrel, shall open on signal; except that from about August 15 to
about June 5 (the school year), the draw need not be opened from 6 a.m.
to 8 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday except
holidays. The draw shall open on signal at any time for an emergency
aboard a vessel.

    (b) The draw of the LA 77 bridge, mile 47.0 (Alternate Route) at
Grosse Tete, shall open on signal; except that, from about August 15 to
about June 5 (the school year), the draw need not be opened from 6 a.m.
to 8:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday except
Federal holidays. The draw shall open on signal at any time for an
emergency aboard a vessel.
* * * * *

    Dated: October 14, 2009.
J.E. Tunstall,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 8th Coast Guard District, Acting.
[FR Doc. E9-26985 Filed 11-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


Long-Term Outcome Measures

As part of its comprehensive reviews, the BOSC will provide ratings of
the program’s progress toward each long-term goal (LTG).

Long-Term Goal	Measure	2007  Actual	2011 Target

LTG 1	Utility of ORD-identified and developed metrics for quantitatively
assessing environmental systems for sustainability	N/A	Baseline1

LTG 2	Utility of ORD-developed decision support tools and methodologies
for promoting environmental stewardship and sustainable environmental
management practices	Exceeds Expectations	Exceeds Expectations

LTG 3	Utility of innovative technologies developed or verified by ORD
for solving environmental problems and contributing to sustainable
outcomes	Meets Expectations	Exceeds Expectations

 The BOSC will not rate the program on LTG 1 until the next review in
2011.

Bibliometric Analysis Measures

Through bibliometric analyses conducted every two years, the program
assesses the extent to which the scientific community uses program
publications. Specifically, the program measures the percentage of
publications that are deemed “highly cited” (within the top 10% of
papers most cited).

Measure	2005 Baseline	2007 Actual	2009

Target	2011

Target

Percentage of Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS)
publications in "high impact" journals	30.4%	34.3%	35.3%	36.0%

Percentage of Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS)
publications rated as highly cited publications	N/A	28.2%	29.2%	30.2%

Annual Output Measures

At the end of each fiscal year, the program reports on its success in
completing its planned annual outputs (Annual Performance Measures).

Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of STS's LTG 1, that
decision makers adopt ORD-identified and developed metrics to
quantitatively assess environmental systems for sustainability.

2000

Baseline	2001

Actual	2002 Actual	2003 Actual	2004 Actual	2005 Actual	2006 Actual	2007
Actual	2008 Actual

N/A	N/A	N/A	100%	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	100%

Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of STS's LTG 2, that
decision makers adopt ORD-developed decision support tools and
methodologies to promote environmental stewardship and sustainable
environmental management practices.

2000

Baseline	2001

Actual	2002 Actual	2003 Actual	2004 Actual	2005 Actual	2006 Actual	2007
Actual	2008 Actual

N/A	N/A	N/A	75%	78%	67%	100%	100%	100%

Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of STS's LTG 3, that
decision makers adopt innovative technologies developed or verified by
ORD to solve environmental problems, contributing to sustainable
outcomes.

2000

Baseline	2001

Actual	2002 Actual	2003 Actual	2004 Actual	2005 Actual	2006 Actual	2007
Actual	2008 Actual

N/A	N/A	N/A	75%	29%	90%	94%	100%	100%

Annual Efficiency Measure

Based on recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations on
research efficiency measurement, this measure utilizes an approach
similar to Earned Value Management.

Percent variance from planned cost and schedule.

2003 Actual	2004 Actual	2005 Actual	2006 Actual	2007 Actual	2008 Actual

N/A	-52.8%	-64.9%	-4.3%	1.1%	Data lag

Science and Technology for Sustainability Research Program

Long-Term and Annual Measures


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82097-82098]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32715]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IA-3126/December 22, 2010]

Order Approving Investment Adviser Registration Depository Filing
Fees

    Section 204(b) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers
Act'') authorizes the Commission to require investment advisers to file
applications and other documents through an entity designated by the
Commission, and to pay reasonable costs associated with such
filings.\1\ Commission staff, representatives of the North American
Securities Administrators Association, Inc. (``NASAA''),\2\ and
representatives of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA''), the IARD system operator, periodically hold discussions on
IARD system finances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-4(b).
    \2\ The IARD system is used by both advisers registering or
registered with the SEC and advisers registered or registering with
one or more state securities authorities. NASAA represents the state
securities administrators in setting IARD filing fees for state-
registered advisers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA wrote to Commission staff in November recommending revised
annual and initial IARD filing fees to commence on January 1, 2011.\3\
The recommended fee levels would increase the fee for advisers with
assets under management of $100 million or higher, but would not change
the fee levels for advisers with assets under management under $100
million.\4\ The recommended annual filing fees due beginning January 1,
2011 are $40 for advisers with assets

under management under $25 million; $150 for advisers with assets under
management from $25 million to $100 million; and $225 for advisers with
assets under management of $100 million or higher. The recommended
initial IARD filing fees due beginning January 1, 2011 are $40 for
advisers with assets under management under $25 million; $150 for
advisers with assets under management from $25 million to $100 million;
and $225 for advisers with assets under management of $100 million or
higher. The revised filing fees would apply to all annual updating
amendments filed by SEC-registered advisers beginning January 1, 2011
and to all initial applications for registration filed by advisers
applying for SEC registration beginning January 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FINRA letter dated November 12, 2010 available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2010/finraletter111210-iardfees.pdf.
    \4\ The revised fee level for advisers in the largest category
would newly include advisers that report assets under management of
exactly $100 million (not just over $100 million). We are making
this revision to track the new mid-sized adviser category for
advisers reporting assets under management of $25 million up to, but
not including, $100 million. See section 410 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, 124
Stat. 1376 (2010)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 2, 2010 we issued a notice indicating our intent to
charge revised fees IARD filing fees for advisers registering or
registered with the Commission. The notice gave interested persons an
opportunity to request a hearing and stated that an order instituting
revised IARD filing fees would be issued unless a hearing was ordered.
No request for a hearing has been filed, and no hearing has been
ordered.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Sections 204(b) and 206(A) of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, that:
    For annual updating amendments to Form ADV filed on or after
January 1, 2011, the filing fee due from SEC-registered advisers is $40
for advisers with assets under management under $25 million; $150 for
advisers with assets under management from $25 million to $100 million;
and $225 for advisers with assets under management of $100 million or
higher.
    For initial applications to register as an investment adviser with
the SEC filed on or after January 1, 2011, the filing fee due from SEC-
registered advisers is $40 for advisers with assets under management
under $25 million; $150 for advisers with assets under management from
$25 million to $100 million; and $225 for advisers with assets under
management of $100 million or higher.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32715 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P