CALPUFF modeling ADEQ relied on in its SO2 BART
determination for White Bluff is consistent with the BART Guidelines
and Appendix W. Nearly every BART determination made since the
promulgation of the Regional Haze Rule and the BART Guidelines has
utilized the CALPUFF modeling method in analyzing impacts. Absent any
additional information that would justify not using the CALPUFF model
in this particular case, it is appropriate for the state to rely on
CALPUFF modeling as it has done to support the White Bluff BART
determination, consistent with the modeling for nearly every other BART
determination EPA has reviewed and acted upon. EPA also concluded from
the evaluation of the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling
(IWAQM) Phase 2 Report case studies that the CALPUFF dispersion model
performs in a reasonable manner and has no apparent bias toward over or
under prediction, so long as the transport distance is limited to less
than 300 km.94 95 We note that since the BART Guidelines
were finalized in 2005

there has been more modeling with CALPUFF for BART and PSD primary
impact purposes and the general community has utilized CALPUFF in the
300-450 km range many times. EPA has indicated historically that use of
CALPUFF was generally acceptable at 300 km and for larger emissions
sources with elevated stacks EPA and FLM representatives have also
allowed or supported the use of CALPUFF results beyond 400 km in some
cases.\96\ EPA and FLM representatives have weighed the additional
potential uncertainties with the magnitude of the modeled impacts in
comparison to screening/impact thresholds on a case-by-case basis in
approving the use of CALPUFF results at these extended ranges.
Furthermore, we note that White Bluff is located within 200 km of Caney
Creek and Upper Buffalo. Therefore, we find that ADEQ appropriately
considered CALPUFF modeling for White Bluff in the SIP revision. We
invite the reader to examine our detailed responses to comments arguing
against the use of CALPUFF modeling in making BART determinations in
the RTC Document associated wih this rulemaking \97\ as well as the RTC
Document associated with the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP.\98\ We find
that Arkansas' reliance on CALPUFF modeling in the SIP revision is
reasonable and appropriate since it meets the requirements of the CAA
and the Regional Haze Rule and is consistent with the BART Guidelines
and Appendix W. Therefore, we find no reason to disapprove the SIP's
reliance on CALPUFF modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, III(A)(1): ``As a general matter, any
threshold that you use for determining whether a source
``contributes'' to visibility impairment should not be higher than
0.5 deciviews.''
    \92\ 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, III(A)(3): ``CALPUFF is the best
regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting a
single source's contribution to visibility impairment''.
    \93\ 70 FR 39123: ``. . . we also recommend that the States use
CALPUFF as a screening application in estimating the degree of
visibility improvement that may reasonably be expected from
controlling a single source in order to inform the BART
determination.''
    \94\ Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase
2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long-Range
Transport Impacts. Publication No. EPA-454/R-98-019. Office of Air
Quality Planning & Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1998.
    \95\ See also 68 FR 18458, 2003 Revisions to Appendix W,
Guideline on Air Quality Models.
    \96\ For example, South Dakota used CALPUFF for Big Stone's BART
determination, including its impact on multiple Class I areas
further than 400 km away, including Isle Royale, which is more than
600 km away. See 76 FR 76656. Nebraska relied on CALPUFF modeling to
evaluate whether numerous power plants were subject to BART where
the ``Class I areas [were] located at distances of 300 to 600
kilometers or more from'' the sources. See Best Available Retrofit
Technology Dispersion Modeling Protocol for Selected Nebraska
Utilities, p. 3. EPA Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0158-0008. Texas
relied on CALPUFF to screen BART-eligible non-EGU sources at
distances of 400 to 614 km for some sources. See 79 FR 74818 (Dec.
16, 2014), 81 FR 296 (Jan. 5, 2016).
    \97\ See ``Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP Revision Response
to Comments,'' which can be found in the docket associated with this
final rulemaking.
    \98\ See ``Response to Comments for the Federal Register Notice
for the State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility
Transport Federal Implementation Plan,'' dated 8/31/2016. See Docket
ID. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189, Document ID. AR020.0187.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the comment that CAMx modeling would show that
visibility improvements from each of the SO2 controls
evaluated are negligible and that SO2 BART should therefore
be the use of low sulfur coal even without Entergy's voluntary decision
to cease coal combustion at White Bluff, we emphasize that the issue of
what would constitute BART in the absence of Entergy's enforceable
measure to cease burning coal in 2028 is not before the agency in this
action. We also note that the CALPUFF results are not an apples to
apples comparison to the CAMx model results referred to by the
commenter due to differences in metrics, models and model inputs.\99\
We discuss this issue and our assessment of CAMx modeling in detail in
the RTC Document associated with this rulemaking.\100\ In sum, the
visibility modeling provided in the SIP revision demonstrates that
scrubber controls are anticipated to result in significant visibility
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Some of the major differences are: (1) CALPUFF modeling
used maximum 24-hour emission rates, while the CAMx modeling used
annual average emission rates; (2) CALPUFF focuses on the day with
the 98th percentile highest visibility impact from the source being
evaluated, whereas the CAMx modeling analysis was focused on the
average visibility impacts across the 20% worst days regardless of
whether the impacts from a specific facility are large or small; and
(3) CAMx models all sources of emissions in the modeling domain,
which includes all of the continental U.S., whereas CALPUFF only
models the impact of emissions from one facility without explicit
chemical interaction with other sources' emissions.
    \100\ See ``Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP Revision
Response to Comments,'' which can be found in the docket associated
with this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Legal

    Comment: EPA cannot approve Arkansas's SIP submission because ADEQ
failed to comply with Arkansas's statutory legislative review process
for rulemaking by not submitting the Regional Haze SIP for legislative
review; the SIP is therefore invalid and unenforceable until ADEQ
complies with the law.
    Response: It is EPA's position that Arkansas' SIP revision has met
applicable requirements for an enforceable SIP, including enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques
as well as schedules and timetables for compliance as required under
section 110(a)(2)(A). The SIP also includes a program to provide for
enforcement of the measures described above, as required by section
110(a)(2)(C). Furthermore, the ADEQ has shown the SIP meets Section
110(a)(2)(F)(i) through (iii) (monitoring and recordkeeping for
sources) and section 110(a)(2)(K) (modeling). Section 169A(b)(2)
requires a regional haze SIP to contain such emission limits, schedules
of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable
progress, including a long-term strategy and certain defined major
stationary sources to meet BART. ADEQ's SIP revision included
Administrative Orders entered between ADEQ and the companies that own
the facilities that are required to comply with emission limits and
schedules in compliance with the BART and long-term strategy
requirements. Based upon all of the above, it is appropriate for EPA to
approve Arkansas SIP revision in accordance with section 110(k)(3).
    As part of the state's notice and comment period for the SIP, ADEQ
received a comment that ADEQ lacked the authority to implement the SIP
revision under state law since the SIP (including the Administrative
Orders) did not undergo legislative review. The comment further alleged
that EPA cannot approve the SIP until the Arkansas legislature has
reviewed the SIP revision. ADEQ responded that the SIP did not need to
undergo legislative review per Arkansas state law because, among other
things, it does not fit within the state's statutory definition of a
``rule'', rather state law defines SIPs as a plan, the statutory
construction of provisions pertaining to plans, and in particular SIPs,
exhibits an intent on the part of the Arkansas legislature to create a
separate and distinct set of requirements for SIPs, and the SIP is
issued by the Director and such action is subject to an appeals process
differently from that of a rule. Furthermore, ADEQ has the authority
under state law to enter into Administrative Orders to include as part
of its SIP revision. These all establish that legislative review is not
required for this SIP revision, thereby the state's SIP process met the
state's statutory requirements and when the Director issued the SIP, it
became an enforceable document under state law. See Response 33 of
Arkansas' ``Responsive Summary for State Implementation Plan Revision:
Revisions to Arkansas SIP: Regional Haze SIP Revision for 2008-2018
Planning Period.'' \101\ This is a matter of Arkansas interpreting its
state law. EPA finds it is a reasonable interpretation and defers to
ADEQ's interpretation regarding the resulting requirements for the
process for state rulemaking for enforceable SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/pdfs/regional-haze/public-notice-and-comments-aggregated.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on ADEQ's response to comments explaining the state authority
to issue an enforceable SIP revision without the need to undergo state
legislative review, we find it reasonable

for the state to conclude that ADEQ followed state law in developing
and finalizing its SIP revision. Thus, the state's SIP revision is
enforceable as a matter of state law and ADEQ has met the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 110(a)(2)(E) since its SIP
includes ``necessary assurances'' that the state agency responsible for
implementing the SIP has adequate ``authority'' under state law ``to
carry out such implementation plan'' and ``responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation'' of the plan. It also includes ``enforceable
limitations and other control measures'' as necessary to meet ``the
applicable requirements of the CAA and includes ``a program for
enforcement'' of the required emission limitations and control
measures. Thus, it is appropriate for EPA to finalize approval of
ADEQ's plan since it meets all applicable requirements of the Clean Air
Act. We believe it is reasonable to rely on ADEQ's explanation and
interpretation. Moreover, an Administrative Law Judge and the APCEC
have also upheld the state's interpretation of the state law with
regards to the issuance of SIPs not being a ``rule'' including SIPs
containing administrative orders and there being no statutory
requirement for them to undergo state legislative review. However, we
also acknowledge that an appeal process of the state rulemaking
procedures for the SIP revision is still ongoing. When a rulemaking is
being challenged, the EPA relies on the current legal interpretation of
state law. If circumstances change where Arkansas is no longer found to
have followed the state process for issuing the SIP and the
Administrative Orders and needs to undergo another round of state
rulemaking because the SIP revision is unenforceable, section 110(k)(5)
of the CAA allows for EPA to call for plan revisions and sets out
timetables for a SIP or FIP revision. This is commonly known as a ``SIP
call.''
    Comment: In its attempt to avoid Arkansas' statutory legislative-
review requirement, ADEQ has repeatedly represented to an Arkansas
tribunal that the SIP itself is not actually enforceable. Thus,
according to ADEQ, the SIP itself is not enforceable under state law,
but only enforceable through separate Administrative Orders. Because
ADEQ admits that the SIP revision is not, by itself, enforceable, the
SIP is not approvable under the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A).
EPA cannot approve the SIP revision unless ADEQ corrects the state law
deficiencies or provides the necessary assurances that the state plan
is, in fact, an enforceable implementation plan.
    Response: While we agree with the commenter's statement that a
state must demonstrate that it has the necessary legal authority under
state law to adopt and implement an enforceable SIP, we disagree with
the commenter's assertion that Arkansas has failed to demonstrate that
it has such authority. According to appendix V to 40 CFR part 51,
states are required to submit evidence that they have this authority at
the time they submit a SIP revision. Arkansas submitted such evidence.
See AR020.0267-003 State Legal Authority to Adopt and Implement SIP.
The requirements that need to be met in order for a state to adopt and
implement provisions intended to meet CAA requirements vary from state
to state and are governed by state law. The requirements that govern
SIP submissions for Arkansas are found in Ark. Code Ann. 8-4-317, and,
as explained by the State, there is no legislative review required for
a SIP. See pg. 5 of Ex. A. This position does not make the SIP
unenforceable. The Director issues the decision and an appeal is
processed as a permit appeal. ADEQ is not arguing that the SIP is not
an enforceable decision; rather, it is arguing issuance of the SIP does
not fall within the state statutory definition of a ``rule'' requiring
legislative review. As explained above, the State has already provided
evidence that EPA deemed adequate to meet the requirements in Appendix
V. We are aware that the commenter requested an adjudicatory hearing at
the state level, as is appropriate, and the administrative law judge
ruled in the State's favor. If it is eventually found by a judge or
hearing officer during the appropriate state judicial or administrative
process that the Commenter is correct in their assertion that the State
did not submit an enforceable SIP to EPA, EPA can issue a SIP call
under CAA 110(k)(5) to require the State to correct this deficiency.
    In addition, the commenter states that ADEQ's position is that the
SIP revision as a package is not enforceable, only the individual,
component Administrative Orders. According to the commenter, since the
SIP package as a whole is not enforceable, it does not meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). We reject that the ADEQ's
position is that the SIP package as a whole is not enforceable, as
discussed previously. As explained above, an Administrative Law Judge
and the Commission have determined that the issuance of the SIP
revision by the Director did not need legislative review in order for
the SIP to be adopted and implemented as a matter of state law, thereby
making it enforceable.

F. General

    Comment: Although public utility plant owners and operators will be
responsible initially for installing the pollution controls or taking
other actions required under the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2
and PM SIP Revision, under Arkansas law, such owners and operators are
permitted to directly pass through and recover the costs and expenses
of installing, operating, and maintaining pollution controls from
electric utility customers and ratepayers through electricity rates and
tariffs filed with the APSC. In addition, utility plant owners and
operators are permitted to recover from electric utility customers and
ratepayers the cost of replacement power or capacity needed to replace
the premature retirement of electric generating units, or the costs of
switching fuel at such facilities. These ratepayers, some of which are
providers of goods and services, would be harmed financially if any of
these plants were to curtail or modify operations or prematurely close
pursuant to the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
Revision.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns. We note that the
SIP revision submitted by ADEQ did not contain an analysis of the
impact the requirement of these controls would have on electricity
ratepayers. Neither has the commenter provided such an analysis. There
are many factors that could serve to increase or decrease electric
rates and absent such an analysis, it is not possible to say what
overall effect the SIP's requirements will have on electric rates.
ADEQ, in its drafting of the SIP revision, ensured that the
requirements of the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule were met, including
cost considerations for BART determinations for each of the affected
facilities. While we assure the commenter that we are very sensitive to
the ramifications of our actions in the regional haze program, we note
that we are approving a majority of the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP Revision as it meets the requirements of the
CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. Our proposal and our final action
associated with this document explain the rationale for our approval.
We cannot disapprove a SIP revision and/or substitute our judgment for
that of the state when we find that the SIP revision meets all
requirements of the CAA and applicable federal regulations.

    Comment: Various commenters expressed support for one or more
portions of our proposal, including our proposed approval of ADEQ's
SO2 BART determination for White Bluff Units 1 and 2;
SO2 BART determination for Flint Creek No. 1 Boiler;
SO2, NOX, and PM BART determinations for the
White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler; and ADEQ's reasonable progress
determination.
    Response: We appreciate support of our proposed approval of ADEQ's
SIP revision. After careful consideration of all the comments we
received, we are finalizing our approval of the majority of the SIP
revision without changes from proposal. We identify the portions of the
SIP revision we are approving elsewhere in this final action.

IV. Final Action

    We are approving a portion of the Arkansas SIP revision submitted
on August 8, 2018, as meeting the regional haze requirements for the
first implementation period. This action includes the finding that the
submittal meets the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth
in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.300-308. The EPA is
approving the SIP revision submittal as meeting the following regional
haze requirements for the first implementation period: The core
requirements for regional haze SIPs found in 40 CFR 51.308(d),
including the reasonable progress requirements as well as the long-term
strategy requirements with respect to all sources other than the Domtar
Ashdown Mill; the SO2, PM, and particular NOX
BART requirements for regional haze visibility impairment with respect
to emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from EGUs in 40 CFR
51.308(e); the requirement for coordination with state and FLMs in 40
CFR 51.308(i); and the requirement for coordination and consultation
with states with Class I areas affected by Arkansas sources in 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i).
    Specifically, the EPA is finalizing approval of the following
revisions to the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP submitted to EPA on August
8, 2018: The SO2 and PM BART requirements for the AECC
Bailey Plant Unit 1; the SO2 and PM BART requirements for
the AECC McClellan Plant Unit 1; the SO2 BART requirements
for Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1; the SO2 BART
requirements for the White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2; the
SO2, NOX, and PM BART requirements for the White
Bluff Auxiliary Boiler; and the prohibition on burning of fuel oil at
Lake Catherine Unit 4 until SO2 and PM BART determinations
for the fuel oil firing scenario are approved into the SIP by EPA. We
are also finalizing our approval of the compliance dates and reporting
and recordkeeping requirements associated with these BART
determinations. These BART requirements have been made enforceable by
the state through Administrative Orders that have been adopted and
incorporated in the SIP revision. We are finalizing our approval of
these BART Administrative Orders as part of the SIP. The BART
requirements and associated Administrative Orders are listed under
Table 1 below. We are finalizing our withdrawal of our February 12,
2018,\102\ approval of Arkansas' reliance on participation in the CSAPR
ozone season NOX trading program to satisfy the
NOX BART requirement for the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler
given that Arkansas erroneously identified the Auxiliary Boiler as
participating in CSAPR for ozone season NOX. We are taking
final action to replace our prior approval of Arkansas' determination
for the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler with our final approval of the
source-specific NOX BART emission limit contained in the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP revision. The NOX BART
requirement has been made enforceable by the state through an
Administrative Order that has been adopted and incorporated in the SIP
revision. We are finalizing our approval of the Administrative Order
that contains the NOX BART requirement as part of the SIP.
The NOX BART requirement and associated Administrative Order
is listed under Table 1 below. We are finalizing our approval of ADEQ's
revised identification of the 6A Boiler at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett
Mill as BART-eligible and the determination based on additional
information and technical analysis presented in the SIP revision that
the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill 6A and 9A Boilers are not subject to
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ 83 FR 5927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also finalizing our determination that the reasonable
progress requirements under Sec.  51.308(d)(1) have been fully
addressed for the first implementation period. The Arkansas Regional
Haze Phase I SIP revision, which we approved on February 12, 2018,\103\
addressed the reasonable progress requirements with respect to
NOX emissions and the SIP revision before us addresses the
reasonable progress requirements with respect to SO2 and PM
emissions. Specifically, we are finalizing our approval of the state's
focused reasonable progress analysis and the reasonable progress
determination that no additional SO2 controls at
Independence Units 1 and 2 or any other Arkansas sources are necessary
under reasonable progress for the first implementation period. We are
also in agreement with the state's calculation of revised RPGs for
Arkansas' Class I areas. We are basing our final approval of the
reasonable progress provisions and agreement with the state's
calculation of the revised RPGs on the following: The state's
discussion of the key pollutants and source categories that contribute
to visibility impairment in Arkansas' Class I areas per the CENRAP's
source apportionment modeling; the state's identification of a group of
large SO2 point sources in Arkansas for potential evaluation
of controls under reasonable progress; the state's rationale for
narrowing down its list of potential sources to evaluate under the
reasonable progress requirements; and the state's evaluation and
reasonable weighing of the four statutory factors along with
consideration of the visibility benefits of controls for the
Independence facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ 83 FR 5927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP revision does not address
BART and associated long-term strategy requirements for the Domtar
Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and 2, and the FIP's BART emission
limits for the facility continue to remain in place at this time.
However, ADEQ recently submitted a SIP revision to address the regional
haze requirements for Domtar Power Boilers No. 1 and No. 2, and we will
evaluate any conclusions ADEQ has drawn in that submission with respect
to the need to conduct a reasonable progress analysis for Domtar. As
long as the BART requirements for Domtar continue to be addressed by
the measures in the FIP, however, we propose to agree with ADEQ's
conclusion that nothing further is needed to satisfy the reasonable
progress requirements for the first implementation period. With respect
to the RPGs for Arkansas' Class I areas, we will assess the SIP
revision ADEQ recently submitted addressing Domtar to determine if
changes are needed based on any differences between the SIP-based
measures and the measures currently contained in the FIP. We intend to
take action on the SIP revision addressing Domtar in a future
rulemaking.
    We are finalizing our approval of the components of the long-term
strategy under Sec.  51.308(d)(3) addressed by the Arkansas Regional
Haze Phase II SIP revision, including the BART measures contained in
the SIP revision and the SO2 emission limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu
under the long-term strategy provisions

for Independence Units 1 and 2 based on the use of low sulfur coal. We
are also finalizing our approval of the compliance date and reporting
and recordkeeping requirements associated with the SO2
emission limit for the Independence facility under the long term
strategy provisions. These requirements for Independence Units 1 and 2
have been made enforceable by the state through an Administrative Order
that has been adopted and incorporated in the SIP revision. We are
finalizing our approval of this BART Administrative Order as part of
the SIP. The SO2 emission limit and associated
Administrative Order for the Independence facility are listed under
Table 2 below. We are making a final determination that Arkansas' long-
term strategy is approved with respect to sources other than the Domtar
Ashdown Mill. We are also finalizing our determination that Arkansas
has appropriately provided an opportunity for consultation to the FLMs
and to Missouri on the SIP revision, as required under Sec.
51.308(d)(3)(i) and (i)(2).
    The BART emission limits we are approving as source-specific
requirements that are part of the SIP are presented in Table 1; the
SO2 emission limits under the long-term strategy and
associated Administrative Order we are approving for the Independence
facility are presented in Table 2; and Arkansas' revised 2018 RPGs are
presented in Table 3.

                       Table 1--SIP Revision BART Emission Limits and Administrative Orders EPA Is Approving in This Final Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                SIP revision PM BART    SIP revision NOX
      Subject-to-BART source              SIP revision SO2 BART emission limits            emission limits    BART emission limits  Administrative order
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AECC Bailey Unit 1...............  0.5% limit on sulfur content of fuel combusted *...  0.5% limit on sulfur  Already SIP-approved  Administrative Order
                                                                                content of fuel                             LIS No. 18-071.
                                                                                combusted *.
AECC McClellan Unit 1............  0.5% limit on sulfur content of fuel combusted *...  0.5% limit on sulfur  Already SIP-approved  Administrative Order
                                                                                content of fuel                             LIS No. 18-071.
                                                                                combusted *.
AEP Flint Creek Boiler No. 1.....  0.06 lb/MMBtu *....................................  Already SIP-approved  Already SIP-approved  Administrative Order
                                                                                LIS No. 18-072.
Entergy Lake Catherine Unit 4      Unit is allowed to burn only natural gas *.........  Unit is allowed to    Already SIP-approved  Administrative Order
(fuel oil firing scenario).......                                                        burn only natural                           LIS No. 18-073.
                                                                                gas *.
Entergy White Bluff Unit 1.......  0.60 lb/MMBtu (Interim emission limit with a 3-year  Already SIP-approved  Already SIP-approved  Administrative Order
                                    compliance date and cessation of coal combustion                                                 LIS No. 18-073.
                                    by end of 2028).
Entergy White Bluff Unit 2.......  0.60 lb/MMBtu (Interim emission limit with a 3-year  Already SIP-approved  Already SIP-approved  Administrative Order
                                    compliance date and cessation of coal combustion                                                 LIS No. 18-073.
                                    by end of 2028).
Entergy White Bluff Auxiliary      105.2 lb/hr *......................................  4.5 lb/hr *.........  32.2 lb/hr *........  Administrative Order
 Boiler.                                                                                LIS No. 18-073.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This BART emission limit required by the SIP revision is the same as what was required under the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP.

   Table 2--SIP Revision Emission Limits Under Reasonable Progress and
               Administrative Orders Proposed for Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  SIP revision
                                  SO2 emission
             Source                limits (lb/     Administrative order
                                     MMBtu)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Independence Unit 1....            0.60  Administrative Order
                                                  LIS No. 18-073.
Entergy Independence Unit 2....            0.60  Administrative Order
                                                  LIS No. 18-073.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Table 3--Arkansas' Revised 2018 RPGs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2018 RPG 20%
                     Class I area                       worst days  (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caney Creek..........................................              22.47
Upper Buffalo........................................              22.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concurrent with our final approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase II SIP revision, we are finalizing in a separate rulemaking our
final action to withdraw those portions of the Arkansas Regional Haze
FIP at 40 CFR 52.173 that impose SO2 and PM BART emission
limits for Bailey Unit 1; SO2 and PM BART emission limits
for McClellan Unit 1; the SO2 BART emission limit for Flint
Creek Boiler No. 1; the SO2 BART emission limits for White
Bluff Units 1 and 2; the SO2 and PM BART emission limits for
the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler; the prohibition on burning fuel oil
at Lake Catherine Unit 4; and the SO2 emission limits for
Independence Units 1 and 2 under the reasonable progress
provisions.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Our final action withdrawing part of the Arkansas Regional
Haze FIP is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.

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

    We find that an approval of the SIP revision meets the Clean Air
Act's 110(1) provisions. Approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision will not interfere with continued
attainment of all the NAAQS within the state of Arkansas, nor will it
interfere with any other applicable requirements of the CAA.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this final action, we are including regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are incorporating by reference revisions
to the Arkansas source-specific requirements as described in the Final
Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office (please
contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated in the next update to the SIP
compilation.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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, 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available
retrofit technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Regional haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur Dioxide, Visibility.

    Dated: August 28, 2019.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart E--Arkansas

0
2. In Sec.  52.170:
0
a. The table in paragraph (d), entitled ``EPA-Approved Arkansas Source-
Specific Requirements'' is revised; and
0
b. The third table in paragraph (e), entitled ``EPA-Approved Non-
Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas
SIP,'' is amended by adding and entry for ``Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase II SIP Revision'' at the end of the table.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  52.170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *

    (d) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Arkansas Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
                                   Permit or Order      approval/
         Name of source                  No.            effective       EPA approval date          Comments
                                                          date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Electric Cooperative    Administrative            8/7/2018  9/27/2019 [[Insert       Unit 1.
 Corporation Carl E. Bailey       Order LIS No. 18-                   Federal Register
 Generating Station.              071.                                citation of the final
                                                                      rule].
Arkansas Electric Cooperative    Administrative            8/7/2018  9/27/2019 [[Insert       Unit 1.
 Corporation John L. McClellan    Order LIS No. 18-                   Federal Register
 Generating Station.              071.                                citation of the final
                                                                      rule].
Southwestern Electric Power      Administrative            8/7/2018  9/27/2019 [[Insert       Unit 1.
 Company Flint Creek Power        Order LIS No..                      Federal Register
 Plant.                          18-072............                   citation of the final
                                                                      rule].
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Lake      Administrative            8/7/2018  9/27/2019 [[Insert       Unit 4.
 Catherine Plant.                 Order LIS No. 18-                   Federal Register
                                  073.                                citation of the final
                                                                      rule].
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. White     Administrative            8/7/2018  9/27/2019 [[Insert       Units 1, 2, and
 Bluff Plant.                     Order LIS No. 18-                   Federal Register         Auxiliary Boiler.
                                  073.                                citation of the final
                                                                      rule].
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.           Administrative            8/7/2018  [[Insert Date of         Units 1 and 2.
 Independence Plant.              Order LIS No. 18-                   publication of the
                                  073.                                final rule in the
                                                                      Federal Register]
                                                                      [[Insert Federal
                                                                      Register citation of
                                                                      the final rule].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *
* * * * *

                                EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable geographic     State submittal/
        Name of SIP provision          or nonattainment area      effective date           EPA approval date                    Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP   Statewide.............  August 8, 2018          9/27/2019 [[Insert Federal   Regional Haze SIP revision addressing
 Revision.                                                                             Register citation of the     SO2 and PM BART requirements for
                                                                                final rule].                 Arkansas EGUs, NOX BART requirement
                                                                                for the White Bluff Auxiliary
                                                                                Boiler, reasonable progress
                                                                                requirements for SO2 and PM for the
                                                                                first implementation period, and the
                                                                                long-term strategy requirements. We
                                                                                are approving a portion of this SIP
                                                                                revision. There are two aspects of
                                                                                this SIP revision we are not taking
                                                                                action on at this time: (1) The
                                                                                interstate visibility transport
                                                                                requirements under section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II); and (2) the
                                                                                long-term strategy is approved with
                                                                                respect to sources other than the
                                                                                Domtar Ashdown Mill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  52.173, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.173  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (g) Regional Haze Phase II SIP Revision. A portion of the Regional
Haze Phase II SIP Revision submitted on August 8, 2018, is approved as
follows:
    (1) Identification of the 6A Boiler at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett
Mill as BART-eligible and the determination based on the additional
information and technical analysis presented in the SIP revision that
the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill 6A and 9A Boilers are not subject to
BART. (2) SO2 and PM BART for the AECC Bailey Plant Unit 1;
SO2 and PM BART for the AECC McClellan Plant Unit 1;
SO2 BART for the AEP/SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1;
SO2 BART for Entergy White Bluff Units 1 and 2;
SO2, NOX, and PM BART for the Entergy White Bluff
Auxiliary Boiler; and the prohibition on burning of fuel oil at Entergy
Lake Catherine Unit 4 until SO2 and PM BART determinations
for the fuel oil firing scenario are approved into the SIP by EPA.
    (3) The focused reasonable progress analysis and the reasonable
progress determination that no additional SO2 and PM
controls are necessary under the reasonable progress requirements for
the first implementation period.
    (4) The long-term strategy is approved with respect to sources
other than the Domtar Ashdown Mill. This includes the BART emission
limits contained in the SIP revision and the SO2 emission
limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu under the long-term strategy provisions for
Independence Units 1 and 2 based on the use of low sulfur coal.
    (5) Consultation and coordination in the development of the SIP
revision with the FLMs and with other states with Class I areas
affected by emissions from Arkansas sources.

[FR Doc. 2019-19497 Filed 9-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 21884]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07867]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9744-01-OA; EPA-HQ-OA-2022-0050]

White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification
of Virtual Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification for a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that
the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) will
meet on the dates and times described below. The meeting is open to the
public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments
relevant to Federal disaster preparedness and relief and community
resilience. For additional information about registering to attend the
meetings or to provide public comment, please see ``Registration''
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Pre-registration is required.

DATES: The WHEJAC will hold a virtual public meeting on Wednesday, May
11, 2022, and Thursday, May 12, 2022, from approximately 3:00 p.m.-7:30
p.m., Eastern Time each day. A public comment period relevant to
Federal disaster preparedness and relief and community resilience will
be considered by the WHEJAC during the meeting on May 11, 2022. (See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) Members of the public who wish to
participate during the public comment period must pre-register by 11:59
p.m., Eastern Time, May 4, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen L. Martin, WHEJAC Designated
Federal Officer, U.S. EPA; email: [email protected]; telephone: (202) 564-
0203. Additional information about the WHEJAC is available at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/white-house-environmental-justice-advisory-council.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting discussion will focus on climate
resilience, the beta version of the Climate and Economic Justice
Screening Tool and WHEJAC draft recommendations on the implementation
of the Justice40 Initiative.
    The Charter of the WHEJAC states that the advisory committee will
provide independent advice and recommendations to the Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and to the White House
Environmental Justice Interagency Council (IAC). The WHEJAC will
provide advice and recommendations about broad cross-cutting issues,
related but not limited to, issues of environmental justice and
pollution reduction, energy, climate change mitigation and resiliency,
environmental health, and racial inequity. The WHEJAC's efforts will
include a broad range of strategic, scientific, technological,
regulatory, community engagement, and economic issues related to
environmental justice.
    Registration: Individual registration is required for the virtual
public meeting. Information on how to register is located at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/white-house-environmental-justice-advisory-council. Registration for the meeting is available through the
scheduled end time of the meeting. Registration to speak during the
public comment period will close 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on May 4,
2022. When registering, please provide your name, organization, city
and state, and email address for follow up. Please also indicate
whether you would like to provide public comment during the meeting,
and whether you are submitting written comments at the time of
registration.

A. Public Comment

    The WHEJAC is interested in receiving public comments relevant to
Federal disaster preparedness and relief and community resilience. The
WHEJAC is seeking comments on the following questions:
    (1.) What type of support is needed for disadvantage communities to
participate in Federal disaster preparedness or relief programs? (2.)
How can Federal disaster relief and aid programs better serve
disadvantaged communities that have historically received fewer Federal
benefits? (3.) What process steps and information would help eliminate
these disparities? (4.) What steps can Federal agencies and the White
House take to reduce disparities in climate change impacts for
communities, including, but not limited to risks from, extreme heat,
flood, wildfire, drought, and coastal challenges? Every effort will be
made to hear from as many registered public commenters during the time
specified on the agenda. Individuals or groups providing remarks during
the public comment period will be limited to three (3) minutes. Please
be prepared to briefly describe your comments and recommendations on
what you want the WHEJAC to advise CEQ and IAC to do regarding climate
Federal disaster preparedness and relief and community resilience.
Submitting written comments for the record are strongly encouraged. You
can submit your written comments in three different ways, (1.) by
creating comments in the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2022-0050 at https://www.regulations.gov, (2.) by using the webform at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/forms/white-house-environmental-justice-advisory-council-whejac-public-comment, and (3.) by sending comments via email
to [email protected]. Written comments can be submitted through May 25,
2022.

B. Information About Services for Individuals With Disabilities or
Requiring English Language Translation Assistance

    For information about access or services for individuals requiring
assistance, please contact Karen L. Martin, via email at [email protected]
or contact by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To request special
accommodations for a disability or other assistance, please submit your
request at least seven (7) working days prior to the meeting, to give
EPA sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be
sent to the email listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

Matthew Tejada,
Director for the Office of Environmental Justice.
[FR Doc. 2022-07867 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9550-9553]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03559]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71528; File No. SR-FINRA-2014-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 7510 and Rule 7540 Relating to Fees for the Alternative Display
Facility

February 12, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 31, 2014, 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,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 7510 and Rule 7540 relating to
fees for the Alternative Display Facility (``ADF'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FINRA notes that it has submitted proposed rule change SR-
FINRA-2013-053, which would, among other things, amend Rule 7510.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71147 (December 19, 2013),
78 FR 78451 (December 26, 2013). FINRA will amend this filing and/or
SR-FINRA-2013-053, as necessary, to reflect Commission approval, or
the effectiveness, of any of the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
    The ADF is a quotation collection and trade reporting facility that
provides ADF Market Participants (i.e., ADF-registered market makers or
electronic communications networks (``ECNs'')) \4\ the ability to post
quotations, display orders and report transactions in NMS stocks \5\
for submission to the Securities Information Processors (``SIPs'') for
consolidation and dissemination to vendors and other market
participants. In addition, the ADF delivers real-time data to FINRA for
regulatory purposes, including enforcement of requirements imposed by
Regulation NMS.\6\ Since the second quarter of 2010, there have been no
ADF Market Participants.\7\ FINRA is currently in the process of
migrating the ADF to its multi-product platform (``MPP''). In
connection with the migration to the MPP, and the addition of new ADF
Market Participants, FINRA is proposing certain changes to the fees
relating to ADF operations. Specifically, FINRA is proposing to (1)
expand the web browser access that is currently available on the Trade
Reporting and Compliance Engine (``TRACE'') to provide ADF Market
Participants with trade reporting and trade management functionality
for ADF trades and to adopt fees for such service; (2) expand the FINRA
Automated Data Delivery Service (``ADDS'') that is currently available
on TRACE to include ADF data and to adopt fees for such service; (3)
revise Rule 7510(a) so that certain of the transaction charges would be
assessed on a per-trade basis, with the fee being charged to the
executing party; (4) revise Rule 7510(a) to provide a carve-out to the
Corrective Transaction Charge pursuant to which the fee would be
assessed to the executing party only; (5) delete the carve-out for fees
for the late reporting of trades; and (6) delete a provision of Rule
7540(c) relating to a fee for certain testing services and make
corresponding changes to the remaining testing service fee in that
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 6220(a)(3).
    \5\ See 17 CFR 242.600.
    \6\ See 17 CFR 242.600.
    \7\ FINRA notes that it recently submitted a proposed rule
change to add a new entrant, LavaFlow, to the ADF. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 71042 (December 11, 2013), 78 FR 76341
(December 17, 2013) (Notice of Filing of File No. SR-FINRA-2013-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Web Browser Access
    Although there are currently no active ADF participants, an ADF
participant today that wished to report a trade in an ADF-eligible
security to the ADF would utilize FINRA's Trade Reporting and
Comparison Service (``TRACS'') pursuant to Rule 6280.\8\ Following the
migration of the ADF to the MPP, FINRA will expand its current web
browser access, which members may currently use to access the Trade
Reporting and Compliance Engine (``TRACE''), so that ADF Market
Participants may use this functionality to access the ADF and to report
ADF trades.\9\ Pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 7510,
FINRA is proposing to charge ADF Market Participants $20 per user ID
per month for web browser access.\10\ In addition to reporting trades
through the web browser, ADF Market Participants that elect to utilize
the web browser feature will be able to access trade management
functions, such as trade reconciliation, cancel and correct, and will
be able to access up to three prior days' worth of their trade data as
well as the current trading day's trades. The proposed web browser
access will offer the same level of functionality as the Level I (Trade
Report Only) web browser access and trade management functionality that
is offered under Rule 7730(a) for TRACE. In addition, the proposed fee
is identical to the fee currently charged under Rule 7730(a) for Level
I (Trade Report Only) web browser access and trade management
functionality for TRACE.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FINRA notes that it has recently proposed to replace the
reference to TRACS in the rules relating to the ADF, including
replacing the reference to TRACS in Rule 6281 with a more
generalized reference to the ADF. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 71147 (December 19, 2013), 78 FR 78451 (December 26,
2013) (Notice of Filing of File No. SR-FINRA-2013-053).
    \9\ Due to system capacity limitations, FINRA proposes to offer
the web browser access to ADF Market Participants (i.e., Registered
Reporting ADF Market Makers and Registered Reporting ADF ECNs) only.
FINRA proposes to offer ADDS, which is discussed in greater detail
below, to all ADF participants (i.e., a market participant that is a
party to an ADF trade).
    \10\ An ADF Market Participant that elects to not utilize the
web browser access would report trades directly to the ADF through
FIX (Financial Information eXchange) protocol. Although a
participant would incur connectivity costs when submitting trade
reports to the ADF through FIX, FINRA will not assess a charge for a
FIX connection to the ADF.
    \11\ In contrast to TRACE, FINRA does not propose to offer a
Level II web browser access for the ADF. The Level II service for
TRACE web browser access provides all real-time TRACE transaction
data, in addition to the functionality of Level I. TRACE is the sole
platform for the reporting of fixed-income trades, so the
transaction data that is provided through the Level II access is
already available to FINRA. In contrast, offering all real-time NMS
transaction data through the ADF web browser would entail gathering
such information from the relevant Securities Information
Processors.
     A member that utilizes the TRACE web browser and the ADF web
browser would pay both the applicable TRACE web browser fee pursuant
to Rule 7730 and the $20 fee ADF web browser fee pursuant to Rule
7510.

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

Proposed Fees for Equity Data Through FINRA's Automated Data Delivery
Service
    FINRA ADDS is a secure Web site that provides members, by market
participant identifier (``MPID''), access to historical trade journal
files containing key information regarding the member's trades reported
to FINRA. Members use the trade journal files to reconcile the trade
information captured by their own systems against the information
captured by the FINRA trade reporting systems. Currently, FINRA ADDS
makes recent TRACE trade journals available for free through the ADDS
Web site and also offers subscribers the option of receiving additional
data and retrieving data automatically via Secure File Transfer
Protocol (``SFTP'') for a fee.
    FINRA is proposing to enhance ADDS to include ADF data and to
charge fees for additional historical data pursuant to proposed Rule
7510(d). Through the ADDS Web site, an ADF participant will have access
to ADF trade data associated with its MPID for the three prior business
days free of charge without having to subscribe to the additional
optional data services discussed below. ADF participants can access
data for dates older than the most recent three business days for a
monthly fee, if they elect to subscribe to receive this additional data
through ADDS (referred to as ``ADF Data Delivery Plus'' service).\12\
The fee will be charged per month to an MPID that is a subscriber to
ADF Data Delivery Plus reports (``Plus Reports''), which will be
provided in response to requests by the MPID.\13\ The proposed fees
under Rule 7510(d)(1) are based on the number of Plus Reports the
subscriber receives in a month.\14\ The proposed fees range from a low
of $60 (for a member requesting up to five Plus Reports per month) to a
high of $100 a month (for a member requesting more than 25 Plus Reports
per month). FINRA notes that the proposed fees for such ADF data, and
corresponding number of Plus Reports received, is identical to the
current fee schedule for Tier 1 TRACE data through ADDS under Rule
7730(g). However, unlike the fees governing the provision of TRACE data
through ADDS, FINRA is not proposing to further divide the ADF
Reporting Facility Data Delivery Plus fees into tiers that are based
upon the average number of transactions reported per month to which the
MPID was a party in the prior calendar year, as there is not currently
a baseline of transaction activity from which FINRA can establish such
thresholds. As FINRA acquires historical data for the ADF and is able
to further assess this fee, however, it may revise this fee to
establish different tiers, and corresponding different fees, for MPIDs
that meet different volume thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Subscribers ultimately will be able to access up to two
years of trade journal files.
    \13\ To access trade information for multiple MPIDs, an ADF
participant must obtain a subscription for each MPID.
    \14\ A subscriber's fee will be assessed each month and
accordingly may vary during a calendar year, depending on the number
of reports FINRA sends to the subscriber in response to the
subscriber's requests. The ADF Data Delivery Plus fee is based upon
the number of reports provided to avoid charging for data requests
that FINRA may be unable to provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADF participants also will have the option of subscribing to the
SFTP service for ADF trade data, which would enable them to automate
the process of retrieving their daily trade journal files. Files will
be made available on a daily basis to ADF participants that subscribe
to the ADF Data Delivery SFTP service, and ADF participants will be
able to connect to FINRA via SFTP to download their data. FINRA is
proposing to charge the following fees to ADF Participants that elect
to receive ADF data via SFTP: (1) A one-time set up fee of $250 for
each MPID that subscribes to the service and (2) a monthly fee of $200
per MPID that subscribes to the service. The proposed fees are
identical to the current fees charged under FINRA Rule 7730 for TRACE
data through ADDS.
    The proposed fees for access and ADF data would allow FINRA to
recoup some of the costs of developing and maintaining services for the
ADF on the MPP that are already provided for TRACE. FINRA believes that
extending the availability of these services to ADF participants will
provide ADF participants with the enhanced tools to meet their trade
reporting and management obligations without placing significant
financial or operational burdens on them.
Changes to Rule 7510
    Pursuant to Rule 7510(a), FINRA currently assesses certain
transaction-related fees for utilizing TRACS,\15\ including charges for
Automated Give Up (``AGU'') and Qualified Special Representative
(``QSR'') trades of $0.029 per side.\16\ FINRA proposes to change these
transaction charges so that they will be assessed on a per-trade basis,
which will be charged only to the executing party. FINRA proposes to
change the assessment of the fee from a per-side basis to a per-trade
basis to clarify that the fee is assessed only once per trade. FINRA
believes that it will better be able to collect this charge from the
executing party to an AGU or QSR trade, as the executing party will
generally be a Registered Reporting ADF ECN, while FINRA may not have a
direct relationship with the contra-party to these trades.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As noted above, FINRA has submitted a proposed rule change
that would replace references to TRACS throughout the rules relating
to the ADF, including replacing a reference to TRACS in Rule 7510(a)
to ``System.'' See supra note 3.
    \16\ An Automated Give Up is the process by which a market
participant agrees to allow an ADF Participant to report and lock in
trades for clearing on its behalf.
     A Qualified Special Representative is responsible for sending a
trade directly to the National Securities Clearing Corporation for
clearing on behalf of another broker-dealer.
    \17\ FINRA is not proposing to make a similar change to the
comparison charge, as FINRA believes that the manner in which the
compare functionality is used is sufficiently different (namely,
FINRA will have to register users for the compare functionality, and
therefore can establish a billing relationship with those users).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 7510, FINRA assesses a fee for the submission of
T+N late reports.\18\ Currently, that fee is $0.30 per side, unless the
trade is executed outside normal ADF operating hours of 8:00 a.m. to
6:30 p.m. and the member's average publicly disseminated trades
reported to the media through the ADF per day during the billing period
is 150,000 or greater, in which case the fee is waived. FINRA proposes
to delete this exception, and the corresponding fee waiver, as it will
result in a simpler and more uniform application of the late report
fee. FINRA also proposes to assess this fee on a per-trade basis, which
will be charged to the executing party. With this change, the fees for
late reports will be consistent with the manner in which fees for late
reports are assessed by the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For purposes of this fee, ``T'' refers to the trade date,
and ``N'' refers to the applicable date following the trade date
which renders the reporting late.
    \19\ See Rule 7620A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also proposes to modify the Corrective Transaction Charge,
which is currently $0.25 for a Break, Decline, or Reversal transaction,
which is paid by each party. FINRA proposes to assess this charge on
the executing party only, if the trade at issue is a locked-in

transaction, such as an AGU or QSR.\20\ Given that, with this proposed
rule change, transaction charges for AGU and QSR trades will be
assessed on the executing party only, FINRA believes that assessing a
Corrective Transaction Charge on the executing party only for AGU and
QSR trades is consistent with the manner in which transaction fees on
the underlying trades will be assessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ If the transaction at issue is not a locked-in trade, then
the corrective transaction charge to be assessed does not change,
i.e., it will be assessed to both parties to the trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Deletion of Rule 7540
    Rule 7540(c) provides for the assessment of fees for certain
testing services, including the assessment of a fee of $285 per hour
for computer-to-computer (``CTCI'') or digital interface (``DIS'' or
``CHIPS'') testing between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
business days. FINRA proposes to delete this fee because the MPP will
not support such testing for the ADF, and this fee is thus not
applicable. Given this deletion, FINRA will make a corresponding change
to the description of the fee of $333 per hour for other testing, so
that this fee will be assessed at all times on business days, holidays
and weekends. FINRA also proposes to delete the introductory language
in Rule 7540(c) that refers to such interfaces to reflect the deletion
of the corresponding fee. FINRA also proposes a grammatical change;
namely, inserting ``the'' before the reference to the ADF.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system that FINRA operates or
controls. FINRA believes that the proposed fees are reasonable in light
of FINRA's regulatory and operational costs, including personnel and
technology costs. The proposed fees are equitably allocated and not
unfairly discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all
similarly situated members using the ADF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that the proposed fee for web browser access under
proposed Rule 7510(c) is reasonable because it will allow FINRA to
recover some of the cost of developing and maintaining the web browser
system for the ADF. FINRA also notes that the fee is identical to the
existing fee for Level I web browser access to TRACE under Rule 7730.
FINRA believes that the fee is equitably allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all ADF Market
Participants that elect to utilize this service.
    FINRA also believes that the proposed fees for ADF data through the
FINRA ADDS are reasonable because these fees will allow FINRA to
recover some of the cost of expanding and maintaining ADDS to include
ADF data. FINRA also notes that these fees are comparable to the
existing fees for TRACE data through ADDS under Rule 7730. FINRA
believes that the fees are equitably allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory. Because ADDS is an optional service, the fees would
only be charged to ADF participants that elect to subscribe, and the
fees would apply uniformly to all ADF participants that subscribe.
    FINRA believes that the proposed deletion to the carve-out for the
fee for late reports in Rule 7510(a) is consistent with the Act because
this deletion will result in a simpler and more uniform application of
the late report fee, as all ADF participants will be charged $0.30 per
side. FINRA believes that changing the assessment of the transaction
fee for AGU and QSR trades from a per-side to a per-trade basis is
consistent with the Act because it will clarify that the fee shall be
assessed only once per trade. FINRA believes that assessing the fee for
AGU and QSR trades on the executing party is consistent with the Act
because, given the way in which AGU and QSR trades are typically
structured, FINRA will be better able to collect this charge from the
executing party to an AGU or QSR trade than the contra-side. FINRA
believes that assessing a Corrective Transaction Charge on the
executing party only for locked-in trades such as AGUs and QSRs is
consistent with the Act because assessing the Corrective Transaction
Charge in this manner for such trades is consistent with the way in
which transaction charges on the underlying trades will be assessed.
FINRA believes that charging fees for late reports on a per-trade basis
to be assessed to the executing party is consistent with the Act
because it aligns this provision with the corresponding provision
governing fees for late reports that are assessed by the FINRA/Nasdaq
Trade Reporting Facility.
    FINRA believes that the proposed deletion of the provision in Rule
7540(c) providing for an hourly fee of $285 for testing of certain
computer-to-computer and digital interfaces, and corresponding
revisions to that rule to reflect this deletion, is consistent with the
Act because the MPP will not support such testing for the ADF, and this
fee is thus not applicable.

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. The proposed rule change will
not affect all FINRA members, but only ADF participants and, in the
case of the proposed web browser access fee, only ADF Market
Participants. With respect to the proposed fee for web browser access,
FINRA believes that, because this proposed fee is reasonable in amount,
payment of such fee by any member, or any group or class of members,
will not result in a burden on competition to such members. Similarly,
with respect to the proposed fees for ADF data through ADDS, because
the proposed fees are both optional and reasonable in amount, FINRA
does not believe that the payment of such fees by any member, or any
group or class of members, will result in a burden on competition to
such industry members relative to other industry members that elect not
to subscribe to the optional services.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ FINRA notes that today, the number of subscribers for TRACE
data through ADDS is small: 16 firms subscribe to the Plus Reports
and five firms subscribe to the SFTP service. FINRA anticipates that
there may be more interest in ADF data through ADDS, given the
differences in the equity versus fixed income markets, but is unable
to provide an estimate of the number of firms that are likely to
subscribe at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \23\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\24\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If
the

Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved
or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2014-007 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-2014-007. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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-2014-007, and should
be submitted on or before March 12, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03559 Filed 2-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 182 (Monday, September 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 56973]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23579]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-2653-000]

Campbell County Wind Farm, 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 of
Campbell County Wind Farm, 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 October 5, 2015.
    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: September 15, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23579 Filed 9-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 118 (Thursday, June 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35156-35157]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14281]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC14-101-000.
    Applicants: NRG Yield, Inc., NRG Yield Operating LLC, Alta Wind I,
LLC, Alta Wind II, LLC, Alta Wind III, LLC, Alta Wind IV, LLC, Alta
Wind V, LLC, Alta Wind X, LLC, Alta Wind XI, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Approval under Section 203 of
the Federal Power Act and Request for Shortened Comment Period of NRG
Yield, Inc., et. al.
    Filed Date: 6/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20140610-5245.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2178-009; ER10-2172-020; ER12-2311-008; ER10-
2179-023; ER11-2016-015; ER10-2183-017; ER10-2184-020; ER10-1048-017;
ER10-2192-020; ER11-2056-014; ER10-2178-020; ER14-1524-001; ER11-2014-
017; ER11-2013-017; ER10-3308-019; ER10-1020-016; ER13-1536-003; ER10-
1078-016; ER10-1080-016; ER11-2010-017; ER10-1081-016; ER10-2180-020;
ER12-2201-008; ER11-2011-016; ER12-2528-008; ER11-2009-016; ER11-3989-
013; ER10-2181-023; ER10-1143-016; ER10-2182-023; ER11-2383-004; ER12-
1829-008; ER11-2007-015; ER12-1223-013; ER11-2005-017.
    Applicants: AV Solar Ranch 1, LLC, Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company, Beebe Renewable Energy, LLC, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
Plant LLC, Cassia Gulch Wind Park, LLC, CER Generation II, LLC, CER
Generation, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company, Constellation Energy
Commodities Group Maine, LLC, Constellation Mystic Power, LLC,
Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., Constellation Power Source Generation
LLC, Cow Branch Windpower, LLC, CR Clearing, LLC, Criterion Power
Partners, LLC, Exelon Framingham, LLC, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Exelon New Boston, LLC, Exelon West Medway, LLC, Exelon Wind 4, LLC,
Exelon Wyman, LLC, Handsome Lake Energy, LLC, Harvest II Wind Farm,
LLC, Harvest WindFarm, LLC, High Mesa Energy, LLC, Michigan Wind 1,
LLC, Michigan Wind 2, LLC, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, PECO
Energy Company, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Safe Harbor Water
Power Corporation, Shooting Star Wind Project, LLC, Tuana Springs
Energy, LLC, Wildcat Wind, LLC, Wind Capital Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Exelon
MBR Entities.
    Filed Date: 6/10/14.

    Accession Number: 20140610-5252.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1838-000.
    Applicants: 511 Plaza Energy, LLC.
    Description: Clarification to May 1, 2014 511 Plaza Energy, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 6/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20140610-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/20/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2156-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-06-10--Ramp Product Filing to be effective 12/31/
9998.
    Filed Date: 6/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20140610-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2157-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corp OATT Order 789 Filing to be effective 10/
1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/11/14.
    Accession Number: 20140611-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2158-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2014-06-11--SA 2669 NIPSCO-Zimmerman
Energy GIA (J256) to be effective 6/12/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/11/14.
    Accession Number: 20140611-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2159-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-06-11--MISO-PJM JOA Attachment 5 Amendment to be
effective 6/12/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/11/14.
    Accession Number: 20140611-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 11, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14281 Filed 6-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P