[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81757-81758]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-196-000]

Pima Energy Storage System, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Pima Energy Storage System, LLC`s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 30, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 10, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27813 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 32758]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14589]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4421-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Iowa; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4421-DR), dated March 23, 2019, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued June 11, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
March 23, 2019.

    Buchanan, Clayton, Clinton, Des Moines, Jackson, Jones, Lee,
Mitchell, Muscatine, Ringgold, and Worth Counties for Public
Assistance.
    Louisa and Scott Counties for Public Assistance (already
designated for Individual Assistance).
    Winnebago County for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already
designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures
[Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-14589 Filed 7-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 68052]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27044]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-221-000]

Covanta Haverhill Association, LP; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Covanta Haverhill Association, LP's application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is November 25, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 5, 2013.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27044 Filed 11-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35409-35410]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12875]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77928; File No. SR-ISE-2015-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change To Amend Rule 804(g)

May 26, 2016.
    On November 10, 2015, International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to require clearing member approval before a
market maker could resume trading after the activation of a market-wide
speed bump under Exchange Rule 804(g). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on November 30, 2015.\3\
On January 13, 2016, the Commission extended the time period within
which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change, to February 28, 2016.\4\ On February 26, 2016,
the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the
Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.\6\ The Commission has received no comment letters on the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76506 (November 23,
2015), 80 FR 74829.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76893 (January 13,
2016), 81 FR 3217 (January 20, 2016).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77246 (February 26,
2016), 81 FR 11305 (March 3, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act provides that proceedings to determine
whether to disapprove a proposed rule change must be concluded within
180 days of the date of publication of notice of the

filing of the proposed rule change.\7\ The time for conclusion of the
proceedings may be extended for up to 60 days if the Commission
determines that a longer period is appropriate and publishes the
reasons for such determination.\8\ The 180th day for this filing is May
28, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the time period for Commission action
on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider and
take action on the Exchange's proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act \9\
and for the reasons stated above, the Commission designates July 27,
2016, as the date by which the Commission should either approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ISE-2015-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12875 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32606-32615]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14947]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615; FRL-9980-65-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Indiana, Pennsylvania
Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), to EPA on October 11, 2017, for the
purpose of providing for attainment of the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
in the Indiana, Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``Indiana Area'' or ``Area''). The
Indiana Area is comprised of Indiana County and a portion of Armstrong
County (Plumcreek Township, South Bend Township, and Elderton Borough)
in Pennsylvania. The major sources of SO2 in the Indiana
Area emitting over 2,000 tpy of SO2 include several large
electric generating units (EGUs): Keystone Plant, Conemaugh Plant,
Homer City Generation, and Seward Generation Station (hereafter
referred to as ``Keystone,'' ``Conemaugh,'' ``Homer City,'' and
``Seward''). The SIP submission is an attainment plan which includes
the base year emissions inventory, an analysis of the reasonably
available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available control
measure (RACM) requirements, enforceable emission limitations and
control measures, a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, a modeling
demonstration of SO2 attainment, and contingency measures
for the Indiana Area. As part of approving the attainment plan, EPA is
also proposing to approve into the Pennsylvania SIP SO2
emission limits and associated compliance parameters for Keystone,
Conemaugh, Homer City and Seward and proposes to find Pennsylvania has
measures in place to address nonattainment new source review. EPA
proposes to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan and concludes that
the Indiana Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and that the plan meets all
applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0615 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Goold,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action
II. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Indiana Area
III. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the
Indiana Area
    A. Pollutants Addressed
    B. Emissions Inventory Requirements
    C. Air Quality Modeling
    D. RACM/RACT
    E. RFP Plan
    F. Contingency Measures
    G. New Source Review
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule
establishing a new primary SO2 NAAQS as a 1-hour standard of
75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. See 75
FR 35520 (June 22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR 50.17. This action also
revoked the existing 1971 primary annual and 24-hour standards, subject
to certain conditions.\1\ EPA established the NAAQS based on
significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that
serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to
SO2 emissions ranging from five minutes to 24 hours with an
array of adverse respiratory effects including narrowing of the airways
which can cause difficulty breathing (bronchoconstriction) and
increased asthma symptoms. For more information regarding the health
impacts of SO2, please refer to the June 22, 2010 final
rulemaking. See 75 FR 35520. Following promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the
United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation
process is described in section 107(d)(1)-(2) of the CAA. On August 5,
2013, EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for 29 areas for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (78 FR 47191), which

became effective on October 4, 2013, based on violating air quality
monitoring data for calendar years 2009-2011, where there were
sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's June 22, 2010 final action revoked the two 1971
primary 24-hour standard of 140 ppb and the annual standard of 30
ppb because they were determined not to add additional public health
protection given a 1-hour standard at 75 ppb. See 75 FR 35520.
However, the secondary 3-hour SO2 standard was retained.
Currently, the 24-hour and annual standards are only revoked for
certain of those areas the EPA has already designated for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.4(e).
    \2\ EPA is continuing its designation efforts for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Pursuant to a court-order finalized March 2,
2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, EPA must complete the remaining designations for the
rest of the country on a schedule that contains three specific
deadlines. Sierra Club, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency,
13-cv-03953-SI (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective on October 4, 2013, the Indiana Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for an area that
encompasses the primary SO2 emitting sources of Keystone,
Conemaugh, Homer City, and Seward. The October 4, 2013 final
designation triggered a requirement for Pennsylvania to submit by April
4, 2015, a SIP revision with an attainment plan for how the Area would
attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than October 4, 2018, in accordance with CAA sections
172(c) and 191-192.
    For a number of areas, including the Indiana Area, EPA published a
notice on March 18, 2016, effective April 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania
and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required
SO2 attainment plan by this submittal deadline. See 81 FR
14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for
the potential imposition of new source review and highway funding
sanctions. However, pursuant to Pennsylvania's submittal of October 11,
2017, and EPA's subsequent letter dated October 13, 2017, to
Pennsylvania finding the submittal complete and noting the stopping of
the sanctions' deadline, these sanctions under section 179(a) will not
be imposed as a consequence of Pennsylvania having missed the April 4,
2015 deadline. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the March 18,
2016, finding triggered a requirement that EPA promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the effective date of the
finding unless, by that time, the state has made the necessary complete
submittal and EPA has approved the submittal as meeting applicable
requirements. This FIP obligation will no longer apply if and when EPA
makes final the approval action proposed here.
    Attainment plans must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA,
and specifically CAA sections 172, 191, and 192. The required
components of an attainment plan submittal are listed in section 172(c)
of Title 1, part D of the CAA. EPA's regulations governing
nonattainment SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific
procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at
subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990
Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs, in a
document entitled the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' published at 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the
General Preamble addressed SO2 SIPs and fundamental
principles for SIP control strategies. Id. at 13545-49, 13567-68.
    On April 23, 2014, EPA issued recommended guidance (hereafter 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance) for how state submissions could
address the statutory requirements for SO2 attainment
plans.\3\ In this guidance, EPA described the statutory requirements
for an attainment plan, which include: An accurate base year emissions
inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within
the nonattainment area (172(c)(3)); an attainment demonstration that
includes a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures taken by the state will provide
for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (172(c) and (c)(6));
demonstration of RFP (172(c)(2)); implementation of RACM, including
RACT (172(c)(1)); new source review (NSR) requirements (172(c)(5)); and
adequate contingency measures for the affected area (172(c)(9)). A
synopsis of these requirements is also provided in the notice of
proposed rulemaking on the Illinois SO2 nonattainment plans,
published on October 5, 2017 at 82 FR 46434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area
SIP Submissions'' (April 23, 2014), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for the EPA to fully approve a SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 110, 172 and 191-192 and EPA's regulations
at 40 CFR part 51, the SIP for the affected area needs to demonstrate
to EPA's satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements have
been met. Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, the EPA may not approve a
SIP that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement, and no
requirement in effect (or required to be adopted by an order,
settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990) in
any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant, may be
modified in any manner unless it ensures equivalent or greater emission
reductions of such air pollutant.
    CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states with areas designated as
nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for
attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates
the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and EPA has long
required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four fundamental
principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and
accountability (General Preamble, at 13567-68). SO2
attainment plans must consist of two components: (1) Emission limits
and other control measures that assure implementation of permanent,
enforceable and necessary emission controls, and (2) a modeling
analysis which meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W
which demonstrates that these emission limits and control measures
provide for timely attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the attainment date
for the affected area. In all cases, the emission limits and control
measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to
determine compliance with the respective emission limits and control
measures and must be quantifiable (a specific amount of emission
reduction can be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable
(specifying clear, unambiguous and measurable requirements for which
compliance can be practicably determined), replicable (the procedures
for determining compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective
so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain
the same result), and accountable (source specific limits must be
permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the SIP
demonstrations).
    EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance recommends that
the emission limits established for the attainment demonstration be
expressed as short-term average limits (e.g., addressing emissions
averaged over one or three hours), but also describes the option to
utilize emission limits with longer averaging times of up to 30 days so
long as the state meets various suggested criteria. See 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, pp. 22 to 39. The guidance
recommends that--should states and sources utilize longer averaging
times--the longer term

average limit should be set at an adjusted level that reflects a
stringency comparable to the 1-hour average limit at the critical
emission value shown to provide for attainment that the plan otherwise
would have set.
    The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides an
extensive discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that
appropriately set comparably stringent limitations based on averaging
times as long as 30 days can be found to provide for attainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. In evaluating this option, EPA considered
the nature of the standard, conducted detailed analyses of the impact
of 30-day average limits on the prospects for attaining the standard,
and carefully reviewed how best to achieve an appropriate balance among
the various factors that warrant consideration in judging whether a
state's plan provides for attainment. Id. at pp. 22-39, and Appendices
B, C, and D.
    As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb. In a year with 365 days
of valid monitoring data, the 99th percentile would be the fourth
highest daily maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
including this form of determining compliance with the standard, was
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit in Nat'l Envt'l Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d
803 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Because the standard has this form, a single
exceedance does not create a violation of the standard. Instead, at
issue is whether a source operating in compliance with a properly set
longer term average could cause exceedances, and if so the resulting
frequency and magnitude of such exceedances, and in particular, whether
EPA can have reasonable confidence that a properly set longer term
average limit will provide that the average fourth highest daily
maximum value will be at or below 75 ppb. A synopsis of how EPA
evaluates whether such plans ``provide for attainment,'' based on
modeling of projected allowable emissions and in light of the NAAQS'
form for determining attainment at monitoring sites follows.
    For SO2 attainment plans based on 1-hour emission
limits, the standard approach is to conduct modeling using fixed
emission rates. The maximum modeled emission rate that results in
attainment is labeled the ``critical emission value.'' The modeling
process for identifying this critical emission value inherently
considers the numerous variables that affect ambient concentrations of
SO2, such as meteorological data, background concentrations,
and topography. In the standard approach, the state would then provide
for attainment by setting a continuously applicable 1-hour emission
limit at this critical emission value.
    EPA recognizes that some sources have highly variable emissions,
for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating
rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed
control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given
hour do not exceed the critical emission value. EPA also acknowledges
the concern that longer term emission limits can allow short periods
with emissions above the ``critical emission value,'' which, if
coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high
SO2 concentrations, could in turn create the possibility of
a NAAQS exceedance occurring on a day when an exceedance would not have
occurred if emissions were continuously controlled at the level
corresponding to the critical emission value. However, for several
reasons, EPA believes that the approach recommended in its guidance
document suitably addresses this concern. First, from a practical
perspective, EPA expects the actual emission profile of a source
subject to an appropriately set longer term average limit to be similar
to the emission profile of a source subject to an analogous 1-hour
average limit. EPA expects this similarity because it has recommended
that the longer term average limit be set at a level that is comparably
stringent to the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit (reflecting a
downward adjustment from the critical emissions value) and that takes
the source's emissions profile (and inherent level of emissions
variability) into account. As a result, EPA expects either form of
emission limit to yield comparable air quality.
    Second, from a more theoretical perspective, EPA has compared the
likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions
under an appropriately set longer term limit, as compared to the likely
air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under
the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average
limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the
critical emission level, and in the longer term average limit scenario,
the source is presumed occasionally to emit more than the critical
emission value but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit
well below the critical emission value. In an ``average year,'' \4\
compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three
exceedance days (i.e., three days with hourly values above 75 ppb) and
a fourth day with a maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By comparison, with
the source complying with a longer term limit, it is possible that
additional exceedances would occur that would not occur in the 1-hour
limit scenario (if emissions exceed the critical emission value at
times when meteorology is conducive to poor air quality). However, this
comparison must also factor in the likelihood that exceedances that
would be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario would not occur in the
longer term limit scenario. This result arises because the longer term
limit requires lower emissions most of the time (because the limit is
set below the critical emission value), so a source complying with an
appropriately set longer term limit is likely to have lower emissions
at critical times than would be the case if the source were emitting as
allowed with a 1-hour limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An ``average year'' is used to mean a year with average air
quality. While 40 CFR 50 appendix T provides for averaging three
years of 99th percentile daily maximum hourly values (e.g., the
fourth highest maximum daily hourly concentration in a year with 365
days with valid data), this discussion and an example below uses a
single ``average year'' in order to simplify the illustration of
relevant principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate this point, EPA conducted a statistical analysis
using a range of scenarios using actual plant data. The analysis is
described in Appendix B of EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance. Based on the analysis described in its 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, EPA expects that an emission profile with
maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set comparably
stringent 30-day average limit is likely to have the net effect of
having a lower number of exceedances and better air quality than an
emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under a 1-hour
emission limit at the critical emission value. This result provides a
compelling policy rationale for allowing the use of a longer averaging
period, in appropriate circumstances where the facts indicate this
result can be expected to occur.
    The question then becomes whether this approach, which is likely to
produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may
produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value,
meets the requirement in section 110(a)(1) and 172(c)(1) for SIPs to
``provide for

attainment'' of the NAAQS. For SO2, as for other pollutants,
it is generally impossible to design a nonattainment plan in the
present that will guarantee that attainment will occur in the future. A
variety of factors can cause a well-designed attainment plan to fail
and unexpectedly not result in attainment, for example if meteorology
occurs that is more conducive to poor air quality than was anticipated
in the plan. Therefore, in determining whether a plan meets the
requirement to provide for attainment, EPA's task is commonly to judge
not whether the plan provides absolute certainty that attainment will
in fact occur, but rather whether the plan provides an adequate level
of confidence of prospective NAAQS attainment. From this perspective,
in evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, EPA must weigh the likely
net effect on air quality. Such an evaluation must consider the risk
that occasions with meteorology conducive to high concentrations will
have elevated emissions leading to exceedances that would not otherwise
have occurred, and must also weigh the likelihood that the requirement
for lower emissions on average will result in days not having
exceedances that would have been expected with emissions at the
critical emissions value. Additional policy considerations, such as in
this case the desirability of accommodating real world emissions
variability without significant risk of violations, are also
appropriate factors for EPA to consider when evaluating whether a plan
provides a reasonable degree of confidence that the plan will lead to
attainment. Based on these considerations, especially given the high
likelihood that a continuously enforceable limit averaged over as long
as 30 days, determined in accordance with EPA's guidance, will result
in attainment, EPA believes as a general matter that such limits, if
appropriately determined, can reasonably be considered to provide for
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance offers specific
recommendations for determining an appropriate longer term average
limit. The recommended method starts with determination of the 1-hour
emission limit that would provide for attainment (i.e., the critical
emission value), and applies an adjustment factor to determine the
(lower) level of the longer term average emission limit that would be
estimated to have a stringency comparable to the otherwise necessary 1-
hour emission limit. This method uses a database of continuous emission
data reflecting the type of control that the source will be using to
comply with the SIP emission limits, which (if compliance requires new
controls) may require use of an emission database from another source.
The recommended method involves using these data to compute a complete
set of emission averages, computed according to the averaging time and
averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation (i.e.,
using 1-hour historical emission values from the emissions database to
calculate 30-day average emission values). In this recommended method,
the ratio of the 99th percentile among these long term averages to the
99th percentile of the 1-hour values represents an adjustment factor
that may be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour emission limit (critical
emission value) to determine a longer term average emission limit that
may be considered comparably stringent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, if the critical emission value is 1000 pounds
of SO2 per hour, and a suitable adjustment factor is
determined to be 70 percent, the recommended longer term average
limit would be 700 pounds per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance also addresses a
variety of related topics, such as the potential utility of setting
supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits, to reduce the
likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that might
occur under the longer term emission rate limit.
    Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are
described in Appendix A of the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models
(40 CFR part 51, appendix W).\6\ In 2005, the EPA promulgated AERMOD as
the Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range
of regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example
in estimating SO2 concentrations) in all types of terrain
based on extensive developmental and performance evaluation.
Supplemental guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating
attainment of the SO2 standard is provided in Appendix A to
the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. Appendix A provides
extensive guidance on the modeling domain, the source inputs, assorted
types of meteorological data, and background concentrations.
Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance is generally
necessary for the attainment demonstration to offer adequately reliable
assurance that the plan provides for attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The EPA published revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality
Models on January 17, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate future attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment
(i.e., not just at the violating monitor) by using air quality
dispersion modeling (see Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) to show that the
mix of sources and enforceable control measures and emission rates in
an identified area will not lead to a violation of the SO2
NAAQS. For a short-term (i.e., 1-hour) standard, the EPA believes that
dispersion modeling, using allowable emissions and addressing
stationary sources in the affected area (and in some cases those
sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect
attainment in the area) is technically appropriate, efficient and
effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment areas because it
takes into consideration combinations of meteorological and emission
source operating conditions that may contribute to peak ground-level
concentrations of SO2.
    The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be
processed with the most recent version of AERMET. Estimated
concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should
follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described
in section <IP_ADDRESS> of the August 23, 2010 clarification memo on
``Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (U.S. EPA,
2010a).

II. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Indiana Area

    In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania
attainment plan for the Indiana Area includes: (1) An emissions
inventory for SO2 for the plan's base year (2011); and (2)
an attainment demonstration. The attainment demonstration includes the
following: Analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of
emissions contributing to violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS;
a determination that the control strategy for the primary
SO2 sources within the nonattainment areas constitutes RACM/
RACT; a dispersion modeling analysis of an emissions control strategy
for the primary SO2 sources (Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer
City, and Seward), showing attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by
the October 4, 2018, attainment date; requirements for RFP toward
attaining the SO2 NAAQS in the Area; contingency measures;
the assertion that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved NSR program
meets the applicable requirements for SO2; and the request
that emission limitations

and compliance parameters for Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer City, and
Seward be incorporated into the SIP.

III. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the Indiana
Area

    Consistent with CAA requirements (see section 172), an attainment
demonstration for an SO2 nonattainment area must include a
showing that the area will attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must also meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, and
include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reductions
analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment. EPA is
proposing that the attainment plan submitted by Pennsylvania meets all
applicable requirements of the CAA, and EPA is proposing to approve the
plan submitted by Pennsylvania to ensure ongoing attainment in the
Indiana Area.

A. Pollutants Addressed

    Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment plan evaluates
SO2 emissions for the Indiana Area comprised of Indiana
County and a portion of Armstrong County (Plumcreek Township, South
Bend Township, and Elderton Borough) that is designated nonattainment
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. There are no precursors to consider
for the SO2 attainment plan. SO2 is a pollutant
that arises from direct emissions, and therefore concentrations are
highest relatively close to the sources and much lower at greater
distances due to dispersion. Thus, SO2 concentration
patterns resemble those of other directly emitted pollutants like lead,
and differ from those of photochemically-formed (secondary) pollutants
such as ozone. Pennsylvania's attainment plan appropriately considered
SO2 emissions for the Indiana Area.

B. Emissions Inventory Requirements

    States are required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop
comprehensive, accurate and current emissions inventories of all
sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment
area. These inventories provide detailed accounting of all emissions
and emissions sources by precursor or pollutant. In addition,
inventories are used in air quality modeling to demonstrate that
attainment of the NAAQS is as expeditious as practicable. The
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides that the emissions
inventory should be consistent with the Air Emissions Reporting
Requirements (AERR) at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The AERR at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51 cover overarching
federal reporting requirements for the states to submit emissions
inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's Emissions Inventory
System. EPA uses these submittals, along with other data sources, to
build the National Emissions Inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the base year inventory of actual emissions, a ``comprehensive,
accurate and current'' inventory can be represented by a year that
contributed to the three-year design value used for the original
nonattainment designation. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance notes that the base year inventory should include all sources
of SO2 in the nonattainment area as well as any sources
located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in
the area. Pennsylvania appropriately elected to use 2011 as the base
year as the designation of nonattainment was based on data from 2009-
2011. Actual emissions from all the sources of SO2 in the
Indiana Area were reviewed and compiled for the base year emissions
inventory requirement. The primary SO2-emitting point
sources located within the Indiana Area are Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer
City, and Seward, all coal-fired power plants. Keystone and Conemaugh
each have two pulverized coal-fired (PC) boilers; Homer City has three
coal-fired boilers; and Seward has two circulating fluidized bed (CFB)
waste coal-fired boilers. More information about the emissions
inventory for the Indiana Area (and analysis of the inventory) can be
found in Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017, submittal as well as EPA's
emissions inventory Technical Support Document (TSD), which can be
found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615 and online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Table 1 shows the level of emissions, expressed in tons per year
(tpy), in the Indiana Area for the 2011 base year by emissions source
category. The point source category includes all sources within the
Area.

  Table 1--2011 Base Year SO2 Emissions Inventory for the Indiana Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          SO2 Emissions
                Emission source category                      (tpy)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..................................................      144,269.017
Area...................................................          555.610
Non-road...............................................            1.025
On-road................................................            7.730
Total..................................................      144,833.382
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory
for the Indiana Area and has made the preliminary determination that
this inventory was developed in a manner consistent with EPA's
guidance. Therefore, pursuant to section 172(c)(3), EPA is proposing to
approve Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory for the
Indiana Area as it meets CAA requirements.
    The attainment demonstration also provides for a projected
attainment year inventory that includes estimated emissions for all
emission sources of SO2 which are determined to impact the
nonattainment area for the year in which the area is expected to attain
the NAAQS. Pennsylvania provided a 2018 projected emissions inventory
for all known sources included in the 2011 base year inventory. The
projected 2018 emissions are shown in Table 2. Pennsylvania's submittal
asserts that the SO2 emissions are expected to decrease by
approximately 75,340 tons, or 40%, by 2018 from the 2011 base year.
More information about the projected emissions for the Indiana Area can
be found in Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017, submittal which can be
found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615 and online at
www.regulations.gov.

  Table 2--2018 Anticipated Actual Projected SO2 Emission Inventory for
                            the Indiana Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          SO2 Emissions
                Emission source category                      (tpy)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..................................................       68,545.292
Area...................................................          944.688
Non-road...............................................            0.460
On-road................................................            3.260
Total..................................................       69,493.700
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Air Quality Modeling

    The SO2 attainment demonstration provides air quality
dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate that control strategies
chosen to reduce SO2 source emissions will bring the Area
into attainment by the statutory attainment date of October 4, 2018.
The modeling analyses, conducted pursuant to recommendations outlined
in Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (EPA's Modeling Guidance), are used to
assess the control strategy for a nonattainment area and establish
emission limits that will provide for attainment. The analysis requires
five years of meteorological data to simulate the dispersion of
pollutant plumes from multiple point, area, or volume sources across
the averaging times of interest. The modeling demonstration typically
also relies on maximum allowable emissions from sources in the
nonattainment area. Though the actual

emissions are likely to be below the allowable emissions, sources have
the ability to run at higher production rates or optimize controls such
that emissions approach the allowable emissions limits. A modeling
analysis that provides for attainment under all scenarios of operation
for each source must therefore consider the worst case scenario of both
the meteorology (e.g. predominant wind directions, stagnation, etc.)
and the maximum allowable emissions.
    PADEP provided two sets of modeling analyses: One analysis was
developed in accordance with EPA's Modeling Guidance and the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, and was prepared using the
default option in EPA's preferred dispersion modeling system, AERMOD; a
second modeling analysis also utilized AERMOD but included a procedure
called AERMOIST, an alternative model option which accounts for
additional plume rise associated with the latent heat release of
condensation due to moisture in a stack's plume. AERMOIST is currently
not approved by EPA for regulatory use. A more detailed discussion of
PADEP's modeling analysis for the Indiana Area can be found in
Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017 submittal.
    In addition to submitting the Indiana Area attainment plan to EPA
on October 11, 2017, PADEP also submitted a request to EPA to review
AERMOIST for use in the Indiana Area attainment plan. EPA has completed
a review and determined that the AERMOIST procedure is not an
appropriate option for use in the Indiana attainment plan for the
following reasons: (1) There is no multi-monitor database of
SO2 monitoring data available for the four major sources of
SO2 in the Indiana Area to conduct a source-specific
statistical test to determine if AERMOIST provides a definitive
improvement over the current regulatory default version of AERMOD; (2)
AERMOIST was universally applied to all the major sources in the
Indiana Area regardless of whether the source plumes are actually
saturated; and (3) there is a lack of supporting analysis for using
relative humidity measurements in AERMOIST. For these reasons, EPA is
rejecting the AERMOIST modeling analysis for the Indiana Area
attainment plan. A detailed discussion of the deficiencies of the
AERMOIST modeling analysis submitted for the Indiana Area can be found
in EPA's AERMOIST modeling TSD for the Indiana which can be found under
Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615 and available online at
www.regulations.gov.
    EPA has reviewed the default AERMOD analysis without the AERMOIST
module submitted for the Indiana Area. The Indiana Area was divided
into two separate modeling domains. Refer to EPA's Modeling TSD for the
Indiana Area under Docket ID EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615, available at
www.regulations.gov for EPA's review of the modeling domains. One
domain included portions of Armstrong County which only addressed
emissions from Keystone as a source. The other domain covered all of
Indiana County and addressed emissions from all four sources in the
nonattainment area. For both domains, background concentrations
included impacts from non-modeled sources. Each separate model domain
used its own (different) background concentration.
    AERMOD was used to determine the critical emission values (CEV) for
Conemaugh, Keystone, and Seward where the modeled 1-hour emission rates
demonstrate compliance with the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
SO2 emission rates for Homer City were based on the unit 1,
unit 2, and unit 3 combined mass-based SO2 emission limits
established in Plan Approval 32-00055H,\8\ which authorized the
installation of Novel Integrated Desulfurization (NID) systems, often
referred to as Dry Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) systems on unit 1
and unit 2. This 1-hour SO2 limit was based on air
dispersion modeling that demonstrated compliance with the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The CEV rates used in the demonstration analysis
for each of the four sources are summarized in the following table. The
modeled emission rate in grams per second was converted to pounds per
hour, which is the CEV limit.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Plan Approval 32-00055H was issued on April 2, 2012, and
modified on April 4, 2013, by the DEP.
    \9\ Based on the National Institute of Standards and Technology
conversion: 1 pound = 453.59237 grams.

     Table 3--Critical Emission Values From Indiana, PA SIP Modeling
                              Demonstration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Modeled rate   CEV limit (lbs/
                Facility                       (g/s)            hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conemaugh Generating Station............          426.00        3,381.00
Homer City Generating Station, Unit 1...          195.30        1,550.02
Homer City Generating Station, Unit 2...          195.30        1,550.02
Homer City Generating Station, Unit 3...          410.76        3,260.02
Keystone Generating Station.............        1,223.58        9,711.10
Seward Generating Station...............          640.00        5,079.44
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the EPA conversion factor for the SO2 NAAQS, the
final 1-hour CEV model run design values for the Armstrong County
portion (196.28 [mu]g/m\3\) and the Indiana County portion (196.44
[mu]g/m\3\) of the Indiana Area are less than 75 ppb.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The SO2 NAAQS level is expressed in ppb but
AERMOD gives results in [mu]g/m\3\. The conversion factor for
SO2 (at the standard conditions applied in the ambient
SO2 reference method) is 1ppb = approximately 2.619
[mu]g/m\3\.
    See Pennsylvania's SO2 Round 3 Designations Proposed
Technical Support Document at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/35_pa_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PADEP also provided air dispersion modeling with randomly
reassigned emissions (RRE) to provide support for establishing longer
term emission limits for Keystone and Seward that would provide for
attainment of the NAAQS. EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance and Section I of this proposed rulemaking provide an extensive
discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that emission limits that
are appropriately set based on averaging times longer than 1 hour and
up to as long as 30 days can be found to provide for attainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. When determining longer term emission
limits, EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance states,

    ``[T]he EPA is not precluding states from using other approaches
to determine appropriate longer term average limits. However, the
EPA would recommend in all cases that the analysis begin with
determination of the critical emission values. A comparison of the
1-hour limit and the proposed longer term limit, in particular an
assessment of whether the longer term

average limit may be considered to be of comparable stringency to a
1-hour limit at the critical emission value, would be a critical
element of a demonstration that any longer term average limits in
the SIP will help provide adequate assurance that the plan will
provide for attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour NAAQS.''

    As discussed in the RACM/RACT section below, a 24-hour block
average SO2 emission limit for Keystone and a rolling 30-day
average SO2 emission limit for Seward were developed by
conducting additional modeling with SO2 emissions
distributions representative of future operations which were derived
for each facility by evaluating emissions for 2014-2016. For each
facility, the emissions were randomly reassigned to develop 100 hourly
emission files for use in 100 AERMOD simulations. These AERMOD
simulations included CEV rates for three facilities, and hourly
emissions for either Seward or Keystone. EPA believes that the
distribution of emissions modeled in the 100 RRE methodology, which
were based on historical operating levels and scaled to conform with
the longer term limits, are a reasonable representation of an allowable
emissions distribution for both Seward and Keystone. EPA believes that
the 100 RRE analyses and model results for Keystone and Seward provide
adequate assurance that the longer term emission limits for both of
these facilities will result in attainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS by the attainment date. A more detailed discussion of the RRE
modeling is provided in EPA's Modeling TSD for the Indiana Area under
Docket ID EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615, available at www.regulations.gov.
    EPA has reviewed the modeling that Pennsylvania submitted to
support the attainment demonstration for the Indiana Area and has
determined that the default AERMOD modeling is consistent with CAA
requirements, Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51, and EPA's 2014
SO2 Guidance for SO2 attainment demonstration
modeling. Because the AERMOD analysis employing AERMOIST has not been
approved by EPA for use in the attainment demonstration for the Indiana
Area, EPA is not proposing to approve the modeling submitted by PADEP
which employed AERMOIST. EPA is proposing to approve the default non-
AERMOIST modeling, including the CEV and RRE simulations, provided in
the attainment plan and EPA believes that the modeling reasonably
demonstrates that the Indiana Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS by the attainment date.

D. RACM/RACT

    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide
for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures
(i.e., RACM) as expeditiously as practicable and shall provide for
attainment of the NAAQS. Section 172(c)(6) requires SIPs to contain
enforceable emission limitations and control measures as may be
necessary or appropriate to provide for NAAQS attainment. EPA
interprets RACM, including RACT, under section 172, as measures that a
state determines to be both reasonably available and contribute to
attainment as expeditiously as practicable ``for existing sources in
the area.''
    Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017, submittal discusses federal and
state measures that Pennsylvania asserts will provide emission
reductions leading to attainment and maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. With regards to state rules, Pennsylvania cites
its low sulfur fuel rules, which were SIP-approved on July 10, 2014 (79
FR 39330). Pennsylvania's low sulfur fuel oil provisions apply to
refineries, pipelines, terminals, retail outlet fuel storage
facilities, commercial and industrial facilities, and facilities with
units burning regulated fuel oil to produce electricity and domestic
home heaters. These low sulfur fuel oil rules reduce the amount of
sulfur in fuel oils used in combustion units, thereby reducing
SO2 emissions and the formation of sulfates that cause
decreased visibility.
    Pennsylvania's submittal discusses that the main SO2
emitting sources at Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone, and Seward are all
equipped with FGD systems (wet limestone scrubbers, dry FGD, or in-
furnace limestone injection systems) to reduce SO2
emissions. Table 4 lists the control technology at each of the main
SO2 emitting sources at each facility.

                  Table 4--Control Technology at the Four Major SO2 Sources in the Indiana Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Control
                Facility                             Unit                     SO2 control          installation
                                                                                date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conemaugh...............................  031--Main Boiler 1........  Wet limestone scrubber....           ~1994
                                          031--Main Boiler 2........  Wet limestone scrubber....           ~1995
Homer City..............................  031--Boiler 1.............  Dry FGD...................      11/18/2015
                                          032--Boiler 2.............  Dry FGD...................       5/23/2016
                                          033--Boiler 3.............  Wet limestone scrubber....           ~2002
Keystone................................  031--Boiler 1.............  Wet limestone scrubber....       9/24/2009
                                          032--Boiler 2.............  Wet limestone scrubber....      11/22/2009
Seward..................................  034--CFB Boiler 1.........  In-furnace limestone                 ~2004
                                                                       injection.
                                          035--CFB Boiler 2.........  In-furnace limestone                 ~2004
                                                                       injection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With these controls installed, Pennsylvania's submittal discusses
facility-specific control measures, namely SO2 emission
limits for Conemaugh, Homer City, and Seward, and new SO2
emission limits for Keystone. Keystone's new limits were developed
through air dispersion modeling (default AERMOD) submitted by PADEP.
The modeling analysis is discussed in section III.C. Air Quality
Modeling of this proposed rulemaking and in the Modeling TSD. In order
to ensure that the Indiana Area demonstrates attainment with the
SO2 NAAQS, PADEP asserts that the following combination of
emission limits at the four facilities is sufficient for the Indiana
Area to meet the SO2 NAAQS and serve as RACM/RACT:
     Conemaugh's current SO2 emission limits
contained in the Title V Operating Permit (TVOP) 32-00059 because the
emission limits for Conemaugh determined by the modeling as necessary
for SO2 attainment would be less stringent;
     Seward's current SO2 emission limit in TVOP 32-
00040 because the emission limits for Seward determined by the modeling
as necessary for SO2 attainment would be less stringent;
     Homer City's current SO2 emission limits
established in Plan Approval 32-00055H and Plan Approval 32-00055I; and

     A new, more stringent combined SO2 emission
limit for Keystone Unit 1 and Unit 2 of 9,600 pounds per hour (lbs/hr)
block 24-hour average limit.
    The emission limits for each of the SO2-emitting
facilities are listed in Table 5.

                            Table 5--SO2 Emission Limits for Indiana Area Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Emission limit (lbs/
             Facility                 Source description            hr)                  Averaging period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conemaugh.........................  Unit 1...............  1,656 (TVOP 32-       3-hour block.
                                    Unit 2...............   00059).
Homer City........................  Unit 1...............  6,360 (Plan Approval  1-hour block.
                                    Unit 2...............   32-00055H) and
                                    Unit 3...............   limits specified in
                                                            Plan Approval 32-
                                                            00055I.
Keystone..........................  Unit 1...............  9,600 (New limit      24-hour block.
                                    Unit 2...............   based on default
                                                            AERMOD).
Seward............................  Unit 1...............  3,038.4 (TVOP 32-     30-day rolling.
                                    Unit 2...............   00040).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emission limits for Conemaugh, Keystone and Seward have
averaging times greater than 1-hour (ranging between three hours and 30
days). The default non-AERMOIST modeling analysis for the Indiana Area
was used to establish CEVs for each facility. These (1-hour) CEVs were
used for developing longer than 1-hour emission limits for Seward,
Conemaugh, and Keystone. SO2 limits at Conemaugh are set to
a 3-hour block average. This average is roughly in line with the CEV
modeled limit and the ratio from Appendix C in EPA's 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. Keystone's limits were set to a
24-hour block average based on the 100 RRE simulation method discussed
in Section III.C. Air Quality Modeling in this proposed rulemaking. A
similar approach was used to establish a 30-day rolling average for
Seward. Appendices C-1a and C-4 of Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017 SIP
submittal provide a detailed explanation of the longer term emission
limits. EPA believes the 100 RRE iteration approach used in
Pennsylvania's submittal for determining longer term emission limits
for Seward and Keystone can be used to demonstrate compliance with the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA's analysis of the default AERMOD
modeling analysis using longer term emission limits shows, as discussed
in detail in the Modeling TSD, that the emission limits listed in Table
5 are sufficient for the Indiana Area to attain the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. EPA's analysis of the longer term emission limits
is discussed in more detail in the Modeling TSD for the Indiana Area
under Docket ID EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615, available at
www.regulations.gov.
    The emission limits or compliance parameters, such as contingency
measures, or both, were established through Consent Orders and
Agreements (COAs) and Consent Orders (COs) between PADEP and the
respective facility (see Appendices B-1 through B-4 of the October 11,
2017, SIP submittal). The collective emission limits and all related
compliance parameters (i.e. the measures which include system audits,
record-keeping and reporting, and corrective actions) have been
proposed for incorporation into the SIP to make these changes
permanently federally enforceable. PADEP affirms that the
implementation of existing and new emission limits and corresponding
compliance parameters for the four EGUs will enable the Indiana Area to
attain and maintain the SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's determination that the
proposed SO2 control strategy at Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer
City, and Seward constitutes RACM/RACT for each SO2 source
in the Indiana Area based on the modeling analysis previously
described. EPA finds Pennsylvania's control strategy for RACM/RACT
including emission limits and compliance parameters for the four EGUs
will enable the Indiana Area to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
    Furthermore, PADEP requests that the unredacted portions of the
COAs, COs, Plan Approvals, and TVOP submitted by PADEP with the
attainment plan be approved into the Pennsylvania SIP. Including the
emission limits listed in the CO for Keystone, the Plan Approval for
Homer City, and the TVOPs for Conemaugh and Seward (see Table 4), and
corresponding compliance parameters found in the COAs and COs for
Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer City, and Seward in the Pennsylvania SIP
means that these measures will become permanent and enforceable SIP
measures to meet the requirements of the CAA. EPA, therefore, proposes
to approve Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017 SIP submittal as meeting the
RACM/RACT requirements of section 172(c)(1) and the enforceable
emission limitation and control measures requirements of section
172(c)(6) of the CAA.

E. RFP Plan

    Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan
includes a demonstration that shows reasonable further progress (i.e.,
RFP) for meeting air quality standards will be achieved through
generally linear incremental improvement in air quality. Section 171(1)
of the CAA defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part
(part D) or may reasonably be required by EPA for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.'' As stated in the 1994 SO2 Guidelines
Document \11\ and repeated in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance, EPA continues to believe that this definition is most
appropriate for pollutants that are emitted from numerous and diverse
sources, where the relationship between particular sources and ambient
air quality are not directly quantified. In such cases, emissions
reductions may be required from various types and locations of sources.
The relationship between SO2 and sources is much more
defined, and usually there is a single step between pre-control
nonattainment and post-control attainment. Therefore, EPA interpreted
RFP for SO2 as adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule
in both the 1994 SO2 Guideline Document and the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. EPA finds the control measures
included in Pennsylvania's submittal demonstrate attainment for the
Area with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on the modeling submitted
by

Pennsylvania. The permits and compliance orders submitted by
Pennsylvania for inclusion in the SIP require these control measures
and resulting emission reductions to be achieved as expeditiously as
practicable. As a result, based on air quality modeling reviewed by
EPA, this is projected to yield a sufficient reduction in
SO2 emissions from the major sources in the Indiana Area
resulting in modeled attainment of the SO2 NAAQS for the
Indiana Area. Therefore, EPA has determined that PADEP's SO2
attainment plan for the Indiana Area fulfills the RFP requirements for
the Indiana Area. EPA does not anticipate future nonattainment, or that
the Area will not attain the NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment
date. EPA proposes to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan with
respect to the RFP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994.
Located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Contingency Measures

    In accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency
measures are required as additional measures to be implemented in the
event that an area fails to meet the RFP requirements or fails to
attain the standard by its attainment date. These measures must be
fully adopted rules or control measures that can be implemented quickly
and without additional EPA or state action if the area fails to meet
RFP requirements or fails to meet its attainment date, and should
contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule. However,
SO2 presents special considerations. As stated in the final
2010 SO2 NAAQS promulgation on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520)
and in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA concluded
that because of the quantifiable relationship between SO2
sources and control measures, it is appropriate that state agencies
develop a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of
the SO2 NAAQS and undertake an aggressive follow-up for
compliance and enforcement.
    The COAs or COs for Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone, and Seward
(see Appendices B-1 through B-4 of the October 11, 2017 submittal) each
contain the following measures that are designed to keep the Indiana
Area from triggering an exceedance or violation of the SO2
NAAQS: (1) Upon execution of the COA or CO, if SO2 emissions
from the combined SO2 emitting sources at the facility
exceed 99% of the SO2 emissions limit for the facility
(listed in Table 3), within 48 hours the facility is required to
undertake a full system audit of the SO2 emitting sources
and submit a written report to PADEP within 15 days, and corrective
actions shall be identified by PADEP as necessary; and (2) Upon
execution of the COA or CO, if the Strongstown monitor (ID 42-063-0004)
measures a 1-hour concentration exceeding 75 ppb, PADEP will notify the
facility in the Area, and the facility in the Area is required to
identify whether any of the SO2-emitting sources at the
respective facility were running at the time of the exceedance, and
within a reasonable time period leading up to the exceedance, not to
exceed 24 hours. If any of the SO2-emitting sources were
running at the time of the exceedance, the facility must then analyze
the meteorological data on the day the daily exceedance occurred to
ensure that the daily exceedance was not due to SO2
emissions from the respective facility. The facility's findings must be
submitted to PADEP within 30 days of being notified of the exceedance.
    Additionally, if PADEP identifies a daily maximum SO2
concentration exceeding 75 ppb at a PADEP-operated SO2
ambient air quality monitor in the Indiana Area, within five days,
PADEP will contact Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone, and Seward to
trigger the implementation of the daily exceedance report contingency
measure described in section VIII.C. of the October 11, 2017 submittal.
If necessary, section 4(27) of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control
Act (APCA) authorizes PADEP to take any action it deems necessary or
proper for the effective enforcement of APCA and the rules and
regulations promulgated under APCA. Such actions include the issuance
of orders and the assessment of civil penalties. A more detailed
description of the contingency measures can be found in section VIII of
the October 11, 2017 submittal as well as the COAs and COs included in
the submittal and included for incorporation by reference into the SIP.
    EPA is proposing to find that Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017
submittal includes sufficient measures to expeditiously identify the
source of any violation of the SO2 NAAQS and for aggressive
follow-up including enforcement measures within PADEP's authority as
necessary. Therefore, EPA proposes that the contingency measures
submitted by Pennsylvania follow the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance and meet the section 172(c)(9) requirements.

G. New Source Review 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The CAA new source review (NSR) program is composed of
three separate programs: Prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD), NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I
of the CAA and applies in undesignated areas and in areas that meet
the NAAQS--designated ``attainment areas''--as well as areas where
there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the
NAAQS--designated ``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR program is
established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas
that are not in attainment of the NAAQS--designated ``nonattainment
areas.'' The Minor NSR program addresses construction or
modification activities that do not qualify as ``major'' and applies
regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is
located. Together, these programs are referred to as the NSR
programs. Section 173 of the CAA lays out the NNSR program for
preconstruction review of new major sources or major modifications
to existing sources, as required by CAA section 172(c)(5). The
programmatic elements for NNSR include, among other things,
compliance with the lowest achievable emissions rate and the
requirement to obtain emissions offsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan
require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified
major stationary sources in a nonattainment area. Pennsylvania has a
fully implemented Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program for
criteria pollutants in 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E,
which was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997 (62 FR
64722). On May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28261), EPA approved a SIP revision
pertaining to the pre-construction permitting requirements of
Pennsylvania's NNSR program to update the regulations to meet EPA's
2002 NSR reform regulations. EPA then approved an update to
Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41276). These
rules provide for appropriate NSR as required by CAA sections 172(c)(5)
and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 for SO2 sources undergoing
construction or major modification in the Indiana Area without need for
modification of the approved rules. Therefore, EPA concludes that the
Pennsylvania SIP meets the requirements of section 172(c)(5) for this
Area.

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision for the
Indiana Area, as submitted through PADEP to EPA on October 11, 2017,
for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the
base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of
SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, enforceable
emission limitations and control measures, a RFP plan, and contingency
measures for the Indiana Area and is proposing that the Pennsylvania
SIP has met requirements for NSR for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve into the Pennsylvania
SIP specific SO2 emission limits,

compliance parameters, and contingency measures established for the
SO2 sources impacting the Indiana Area.
    EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment
plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Indiana County meets
the applicable requirements of the CAA. Thus, EPA is proposing to
approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the Indiana Area as
submitted on October 11, 2017. EPA's analysis for this proposed action
is discussed in Section III of this proposed rulemaking. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action. Final
approval of this SIP submittal will remove EPA's duty to promulgate and
implement a FIP under CAA section 110(c).

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the portions of the COAs or COs entered
between Pennsylvania and Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone, and Seward
that are not redacted, as well as the unredacted portions of the TVOPs
or Plan Approval included in the October 11, 2017 submittal. These
include emission limits and associated compliance parameters (i.e. the
measures which include system audits, record-keeping and reporting, and
corrective actions). EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and at
the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rulemaking for
more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 proposed rule, concerning the SO2
attainment plan for the Indiana nonattainment area in Pennsylvania,
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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: June 27, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-14947 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52040-52042]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21176]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65137; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-040]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Supplementary Material to
FINRA Rule 1230(b)(6) (Operations Professional)

August 15, 2011.
    On August 12, 2011, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by FINRA. The
Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comment on
the proposed rule change and approve the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.

I. Description of Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to amend the supplementary material to FINRA
Rule 1230(b)(6) (Operations Professional), FINRA Rule 1230.06 (Scope of
Operations Professional Requirement), to clarify the application of the
Operations Professional requirements to employees of a foreign broker-
dealer whose activities, relating to certain transactions in foreign
securities on behalf of a member's customers, as further detailed
herein, are limited to facilitating the clearance and settlement of
such transactions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On June 16, 2011, the Commission approved SR-FINRA-2011-013, which
adopted FINRA Rule 1230(b)(6) (Operations Professional), and its
accompanying supplementary material in FINRA Rule 1230.06 (Scope of
Operations Professional Requirement), to establish a registration
category and qualification examination requirement for certain
operations personnel (Operations Professionals).\1\ FINRA Rule
1230(b)(6), and its accompanying supplementary material in FINRA Rule
1230.06, takes effect on October 17, 2011.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64687 (June 16,
2011), 76 FR 36586 (June 22, 2011) (Order Approving Proposed Rule
Change; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-013). This rule change also
established continuing education requirements for Operations
Professionals and adopted NASD Rule 1120 (Continuing Education
Requirements) as FINRA Rule 1250 (Continuing Education Requirements)
in the consolidated FINRA rulebook with certain changes.
    \2\ See Regulatory Notice 11-33 (July 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questions have been raised regarding the application of the
Operations Professional requirements to employees of a foreign broker-
dealer whose activities, relating to certain transactions in foreign
securities on behalf of a member's customers, are limited to
facilitating the clearance and settlement of such transactions. These
arrangements between the member and the foreign broker-dealer involve
transactions in foreign securities to be executed by the foreign
broker-dealer on the foreign market, where the foreign broker-dealer
accepts the member's customer's instructions to settle the transactions
on a DVP/RVP basis through the foreign clearing system and settle
directly with the customer's custodian.
    To provide clarification with respect to the application of FINRA
Rule 1230(b)(6) to such arrangements, the proposed rule change would
amend supplementary material .06 to FINRA Rule 1230(b)(6) to provide
that an employee of a foreign broker-dealer whose activities, relating
to a transaction in foreign securities on behalf of a customer of a
member, are limited to facilitating the clearance and settlement of the
transaction shall not be required to register as an Operations
Professional pursuant to FINRA Rule 1230(b)(6)(A) where: (1) The member
sending the order for a transaction in foreign securities on behalf of
the customer to the foreign broker-dealer is not a direct participant
of the applicable foreign clearing system; and (2) in executing such
order in the foreign market, the foreign broker-dealer accepts the
member's customer's instructions to settle the transaction in foreign
securities on a DVP/RVP basis through the foreign clearing system and
settle directly with a custodian for the customer.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We are approving this rule change as it addresses the
application of FINRA Rule 1230(b)(6) to the fact pattern described
above. No statement in the proposed rule or this order otherwise
affects the Commission's interpretation of any provision of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or any rule thereunder, including
Rule 15c3-3 (17 CFR 240.15c3-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effective date of the proposed rule change will be October 17,
2011, the effective date of FINRA Rule 1230(b)(6) (Operations
Professional) and its accompanying supplementary material in FINRA Rule
1230.06 (Scope of Operations Professional Requirement).
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\4\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes the proposed rule change would provide
clarification in response to questions raised regarding the application
of the Operations Professional requirements to employees of a foreign
broker-dealer facilitating the clearance and settlement of certain
transactions in foreign securities on behalf of a member's customers
pursuant to the arrangements described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA 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.

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. Commission's Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to FINRA and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 15A of the Act \5\ and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has requested that the Commission find good cause pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ for approving the proposed rule change
prior to the 30th day after publication in the Federal Register. The
Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2), for
approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after
publication of notice of the filing in the Federal Register. The
proposed rule change is intended to clarify the scope of application of
FINRA's Rule 1230(b)(6), which rule comes into effect on October 17,
2011.\7\ By accelerating the approval of the proposed rule, and
allowing it to become effective on October 17, 2011, the Commission can
eliminate uncertainty about the rule's applicability to the persons who
are the subject of this interpretation, improve the ability of FINRA
members to plan accordingly for the upcoming compliance date of Rule
1230(b)(6), and avoid undue burdens associated with preparing for the
registration of persons who will not be required to register under this
interpretation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \7\ See Regulatory Notice 11-33 (July 2011) (Operations
Professionals).
    \8\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-FINRA-2011-040 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-FINRA-2011-040. 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 website (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 website
viewing and printing 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 such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA.
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-FINRA-2011-040
and should be submitted on or before September 9, 2011.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2011-040) is approved
on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21176 Filed 8-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P