[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29192-29194]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13239]

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

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: EC19-63-000.
    Applicants: NRG Wholesale Generation LP, Entergy Mississippi, LLC.
    Description: Response of GenOn Wholesale Generation LP and Entergy
Mississippi, LLC, to May 16, 2019 deficiency letter.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5211.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG19-128-000.
    Applicants: PSEG Keys Energy Center LLC, PSEG Fossil Sewaren Urban
Renewal LLC.
    Description: Self-Certifications of EG of PSEG Keys Energy Center
LLC and PSEG Fossil Sewaren Urban Entitiy LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-129-000.
    Applicants: Wessington Springs Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Wessington Springs Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-131-000.
    Applicants: PSEG Keys Energy Center LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG of PSEG Keys Energy Center
LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-132-000.
    Applicants: PSEG Fossil Sewaren Urban Renewal LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG of PSEG Fossil Sewaren Urban
Renewal LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1739-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2019-06-17_Addtl Compliance by MISO
TOs to revise Att O and ADIT Work Papers to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2063-002.
    Applicants: Flemington Solar, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Flemington Solar Compliance Filing
to be effective 10/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2323-003.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2019-06-17_Addtl Compliance Filing
re METC Revisions to Att O Formula Rates to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2323-004.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ITC
Midwest LLC, International Transmission Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2019-06-17_Addtl Compliance Filing
re ITC Companies Revisions to Att O to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1806-001.
    Applicants: Mitsui Bussan Commodities, Ltd.
    Description: Compliance filing: Amendment to MBR filing to be
effective 8/19/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2154-000.
    Applicants: Sayreville Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2155-000.
    Applicants: Portland Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filings to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2156-000.
    Applicants: Warren Generation, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2157-000.
    Applicants: Mountain Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5166.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2158-000.
    Applicants: Orrtanna Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2159-000.
    Applicants: Shawnee Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2160-000.
    Applicants: Titus Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2161-000.
    Applicants: Hamilton Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2162-000.
    Applicants: Blossburg Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2163-000.
    Applicants: Hunterstown Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2164-000.
    Applicants: Tolna Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Baseline Reactive Tariff
Filing to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2165-000.
    Applicants: Western Interconnect LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 845 Compliance Filing to
be effective 5/22/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190614-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2166-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1888R9 Westar Energy, Inc.
NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2168-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1889R8 Westar Energy, Inc.--
Mindenmines NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2169-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1890R9 Westar Energy, Inc.--
Moran NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2170-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEP-5 Towns Dynamic Schedule
Agmts Concurrence to be effective 6/8/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2171-000.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Vineyard Wind Design and
Engineering Agreement to be effective 6/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2172-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA No. 5420 and SA No. 5421
re NITSAs Among PJM and NRG Power Marketing LLC to be effective 6/1/
2019.
    Filed Date: 6/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20190617-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/19.

    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 17, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13239 Filed 6-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 57307-57309]
[DOCID:fr20se10-86]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62906; File No. SR-CTA-2010-01]

Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of the Fourteenth Charges Amendment to the Second
Restatement of the Consolidated Tape Association Plan

September 14, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 6, 2010, the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan
participants (``Participants'') \3\ filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposal to amend the Second
Restatement of the CTA Plan (the ``CTA Plan'').\4\ The proposal
represents the fourteenth charges amendment to the CTA Plan
(``Fourteenth Charges Amendment''), and reflects changes unanimously
adopted by the Participants. The Fourteenth Charges Amendment proposes:
(1) Permanent approval of fees that apply to a vendor's dissemination
of a real-time Network B last sale price information ticker over
broadcast, cable or satellite television; and, (2) an update of the
automatic annual increase to the amount of the broker-dealer enterprise
maximum monthly charge. Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3) under Regulation
NMS, the Participants designate the amendment as establishing or
changing a fee or other charge collected on their behalf in connection
with access to, or use of, the facilities contemplated by the Plans. As
a result, the amendment becomes effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments from interested persons on the proposed Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ Each participant executed the proposed amendment. The
Participants are: BATS Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc.; International Securities Exchange, LLC;
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; The NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
NYSE Amex LLC; and NYSE Arca, Inc.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 10787 (May 10,
1974), 39 FR 17799 (declaring the CTA Plan effective). The CTA Plan,
pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last sale price
information for non-NASDAQ listed securities, is a ``transaction
reporting plan'' under Rule 601 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.601, and a
``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR
242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Rule 608(a)

A. Description and Purpose of the Amendments

1. Network B Television Ticker Fees
    The amendment seeks to establish as a permanent part of the Network
B rate schedule a tiered fee structure applicable to vendors that
disseminate a real-time Network B ticker over broadcast, cable or
satellite television (``Television Vendors'').
    The proposed tiered fee structure is identical to the fee structure
that the Network B Participants have imposed on Television Vendors for
several years as part of an extended pilot program. Currently, Network
B had two Television Vendors. The amendment would merely codify the
fees as a permanent part of the Network B fee schedule.
    The proposed tiered fee structure is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Monthly price per 1,000
 Number of customer households penetrated        customer households
                                                     penetrated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 through 5,000,000.......................  $1.50
5,000,001 through 10,000,000..............  $1.25
10,000,001 through 20,000,000.............  $1.00
20,000,001 through 40,000,000.............  $0.80
40,000,001 through 60,000,000.............  $0.60
More than 60,000,001......................  $0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The fee may be prorated where a vendor broadcasts the Network B
ticker for only a portion of the trading day. The proration is
determined by dividing the number of minutes that the vendor broadcasts
the Network B ticker during the primary market's trading day into the
total number of minutes in the primary market's trading day (excluding
after hours' sessions). Currently, the primary market trades from 9:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (or for 390 minutes) on each
trading day. Accordingly, if a vendor only broadcasts the Network B
ticker for two hours during the trading day, it would calculate the
Network B fee by (A) multiplying the number of households reached by
(the applicable monthly price divided by 1,000 households reached) and
(B) multiplying that product by (120 minutes divided by 390 minutes).
    Where a vendor owns more than one network and broadcasts the
Network B ticker simultaneously over more than one of its networks to a
household, the vendor only needs to count that household once in the
calculation of the number of households reached.
    The Network B Participants propose to quantify the number of
households reached for billing purposes through the use of the monthly
Nielsen Cable National Audience Demographic Report (the ``Nielsen
Report''). For January through June of each year, the Network B
Participants will base the bills upon the number of households reached
as at the end of the preceding September, as published in the Nielsen
Report. For July through December of each year, the Network B
Participants will base the bills upon the number of households reached
as at the end of the preceding March, as published in the Nielsen
Report.
    Where the Nielsen Report does not provide the number of households
reached for a vendor as at the end of March or September, the Network B
Participants will use the most recent figure that the Nielsen Report
has published as at the end of any of the six months preceding that
March or September. If the Nielsen Report does not provide the number
of households reached during that period, then the Network B
Participants will ask the vendor to report the number of households
that its broadcasts reach as at the end of each September and March.
The Network B Participants reserve the right to verify the accuracy of
the vendor's report.
    The new Network B ticker fee applies to any television broadcasts
of the Network B ticker, whether through broadcast, cable or satellite
television. The vendor's television ticker service may not enable the
vendor's subscribers to customize or interrogate the ticker stream or
to electronically capture and

store the last sale price information included in the stream. The
vendor must provide the same ticker to each of its subscribers.
    The Network B real-time television ticker charges and related
measuring metric and guidelines apply in a manner that is substantially
similar to those in effect for Network A Television Vendors. (Network A
charges $2.00 per 1000 households reached. The Network A Participants
impose a monthly cap on the fees. The monthly cap is currently
$164,000, but the Network B Participants anticipate that the Network A
Participants will soon propose an amendment that would reduce the
Network A monthly cap to $125,000.)
    The Exchange has discussed the real-time Network B television
ticker product with both of the two current Television Vendors. They
have provided positive feedback to the Exchange, noting that the
product is appealing to them.
    The Network B Participants believe that Television Vendors
contribute to the widespread distribution of real-time market data
around the world, making it possible for individuals to view real-time
Network B prices throughout the trading day through television. They
believe that the proposed charges would continue to impose fair and
reasonable amounts on Television Vendors for that service.
2. Elimination of Broker-Dealer Enterprise Monthly Maximum Charge
    In addition to adding the Network B Television Ticker Charges to
Schedule A-3 to the CTA Plan, the Network B Participants have also
determined to revise Schedule A-3 by amending Footnote 11, the CTA
Plan's annual adjustment of the Network B broker-dealer enterprise
maximum monthly fee.
    Footnote 11 provides that an entity that is registered as a broker/
dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is not required to pay
more than $500,000 for any month (the ``Maximum Monthly Amount'') for
the aggregate amount of: (a) Network B display-device charges for
devices that its officers, partners and employees use; plus (b) Network
B display-device and per-quote packet charges payable in respect of
services that it provides to nonprofessional subscribers that are
brokerage account customers of the broker/dealer.
    The footnote then provides that the Maximum Monthly Amount will
increase each calendar year by an amount equal to the percentage
increase in the annual composite share volume for the preceding
calendar year, subject to a maximum annual increase of five percent
(the ``Annual Adjustment''). The footnote provides that the annual
increases will commence with calendar year 2001.
    The Network B Participants have had no reason to apply the Annual
Adjustment for the past several years because no broker/dealers are
currently subject to the Network B Maximum Monthly Amount. However,
they anticipate that at least one broker/dealer will become subject to
the Network B Maximum Monthly Amount during 2010. They believe that the
stated pre-Annual Adjustment Monthly Maximum Amount (i.e., $500,000) is
the appropriate amount to charge such broker/dealers during calendar
months falling in 2010.
    For that reason, the Network B Participants propose to amend the
Annual Adjustment in Footnote 11 to provide that Network B shall apply
the Annual Adjustment commencing with calendar year 2011, rather than
2001. Because Network B will not apply Annual Adjustments for calendar
years 2001 through 2010, this amounts to a decrease in the Maximum
Monthly Amount.
    The text of the proposed Amendment is available on the CTA's Web
site (http://www.nysedata.com/cta), at the principal office of the CTA,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

B. Additional Information Required by Rule 608(a)

1. Governing or Constituent Documents
    Not applicable.
2. Implementation of the Amendment
    Over several years, the Network B Participants have conducted a
pilot program that permits vendors to disseminate a Network B last sale
price information ticker by means of broadcast, cable and/or satellite
television. The Network B Participants now propose to convert the real-
time Network B ticker initiative from a pilot program to a permanent
part of the Network B rate schedule. The proposed permanent tiered fee
structure is identical to the fee structure that has applied during the
pilot program.
    In addition, by eliminating the Annual Adjustment, the Network B
Participants propose to amend the Maximum Monthly Amount payable by a
broker/dealer in the form of (i) Network B display-device charges and
(ii) Network B display charges and per-quote packet charges provided to
nonprofessional subscribers that are brokerage account customers of the
broker/dealer.
    Because the amendment establishes or amends fees collected on the
Network B Participants' behalf in connection with access to, or use of,
the facilities contemplated by the CTA Plan, the amendment becomes
effective upon filing with the Commission.
    As a result, the amendment will ``be implemented'' immediately. The
new Network B permanent fees will supersede and replace the pilot
program. As additional vendors undertake to transmit the Network B
ticker over television, they will be subject to the new fee in
accordance with the guidelines set forth in this proposed amendment to
the CTA Plan.
    The elimination of the Annual Adjustment will have no current
impact, as no broker/dealer currently qualifies for the Maximum Monthly
Amount.
3. Development and Implementation Phases
    See Item I(B)(2) above.
4. Analysis of Impact on Competition
    The amendment will impose no burden on competition.
5. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan
    The Participants have no written understandings or agreements
relating to interpretation of the CTA Plan as a result of the
amendment.
6. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance with Plan
    Under Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan, each CTA Plan Participant must
execute a written amendment to the CTA Plan before the amendment can
become effective. The amendment is so executed.
7. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment
    Not applicable.
8. Terms and Conditions of Access
    Not applicable.
9. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges
    In determining the amount of the real-time Network B television
tiered fee structure, the Network B Participants have carried over the
same fee that has applied during the real-time Network B television
ticker pilot program.
    The Network B Participants established the pilot program fees
through a process of discussion and negotiation with the first
participants in

the pilot program. Currently, two Television Vendors participate in the
program. In the view of the Network B Participants, using the number of
households reached as the billing metric for the dissemination of last
sale price information through television is a reasonable counterpart
to metrics used in other contexts, such as counting devices, subscriber
entitlements or quote packets. The billing metric is the same as
television advertisers use, a fact that serves to discipline accuracy
of the households-reached count (since the television networks have
incentives to maximize the number of households reached while the
advertisers have incentives to minimize the number).
    The Network B Participants believe that the level of the fee is
fair and reasonable and allows the television vendors to contribute an
appropriate amount for the market data services that they provide. It
constitutes a reasonable allocation of the costs of running the
securities markets that the Network B Participants operate to the
purveyors of the Television Vendors.
10. Method of Frequency of Processor Evaluation
    Not applicable.
11. Dispute Resolution
    Not applicable.

II. Rule 601(a)

A. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

B. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    The new fee will permit vendors to disseminate a ticker stream of
Network B last sale price information to viewers of broadcast, cable or
satellite television.

C. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

D. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

E. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

F. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    The Network B Participants will require vendors of Network B ticker
television services to enter into the standard form of vendor
agreement. It is the same form into which the CTA Plan Participants
require all vendors to enter.

G. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

    Not applicable.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed
Fourteenth Charges Amendment to the CTA Plan 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-CTA-2010-01 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-CTA-2010-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the Amendment that is filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the Amendment
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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the Amendments also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the CTA. All comment received will
be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from ubmissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CTA-2010-01 and should be submitted on
or before October 12, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23359 Filed 9-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3975-3984]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1604]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0080; FRL-9622-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of revisions to the
Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze for
the first implementation period. Indiana submitted its regional haze
plan on January 14, 2011, and supplemented it on March 10, 2011. The
Indiana regional haze plan addresses the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) and Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements for states
to remedy any existing and prevent future anthropogenic impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air
pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area
(also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is
proposing a limited approval of these SIP revisions to implement the
regional haze requirements for Indiana on the basis that the revisions,
as a whole, strengthen the Indiana SIP. In a separate action, EPA has
previously proposed a limited disapproval of the Indiana regional haze
SIP because of the deficiencies in Indiana's regional haze SIP
submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR). Consequently, we are not proposing to take action in this
notice to address the state's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional
haze requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0080, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2011-0080. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategy Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's RHR
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the RHR
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
    C. Determination of RPGs
    D. BART
    E. LTS
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is the relationship of the CAIR and the transport rule to
the regional haze requirements?
    A. Overview of EPA's CAIR
    B. Remand of the CAIR
    C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR
Remand and Promulgation of Transport Rule
V. What is EPA's analysis of Indiana's regional haze plan?
    A. Rationale and Scope of Proposed Limited Approval
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic particles, elemental carbon, and soil dust)
and its precursors--sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases ammonia (NH3) and
volatile organic compound (VOCs). Fine particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate matter. Aerosol PM2.5
impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity and distance one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range, the distance at which an
object is barely discernable, in many Class I areas \1\ in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers. That is about one-half to two-
thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. In the eastern and Midwestern Class I areas of the United
States, the average visual range is generally less than 30 kilometers,
or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's RHR

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources known as, ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (RAVI). See 45 FR 80084. These regulations, codified at 40
CFR part 50, subpart P, represented the first phase in addressing
visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that
emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and
scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and
visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze, the RHR,
on July

1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The RHR, which amends 40 CFR part 50, subpart P,
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate provisions
addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I areas. The subpart P
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements are
summarized in section III. The requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin
Islands.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and
various Federal agencies. Pollution affecting the air quality in Class
I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of
kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem of visibility
impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop strategies in
coordination with one another, taking into account the effect of
emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another state.
    EPA has encouraged the states and tribes to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective because the pollutants that lead
to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad
geographic areas. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and related issues in their
geographical area. The five RPOs are the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) for the Northeastern states, the Visibility
Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), the
Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO), the Central Regional Air
Planning Association (CENRAP), and Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP). The RPOs first evaluated technical information to better
understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas across the
country and then pursued the development of regional strategies to
reduce PM2.5 emissions and other pollutants leading to
regional haze.
    The State of Indiana participated in the planning efforts of the
MRPO. The MRPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal
governments, and various Federal agencies established to initiate and
coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze,
visibility and other air quality issues inside the borders of the five
States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Members of
MRPO include the five states, the Federal Land Managers (U.S. National
Park Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service),
and EPA.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies (LTS) for making
reasonable progress toward meeting this goal. Plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install best available
retrofit technology (BART) for the purpose of reducing visibility
impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed
in further detail below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview \3\ (dv) as the principal metric
or unit for expressing visibility impairment. This visibility metric
expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments
across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to
extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is
determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light
extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a
logarithm function. The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking
progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because
each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility
perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in
visibility at one deciview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing reasonable progress goals
(RPGs), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and
tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain
measures that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal
of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas
caused by anthropogenic air pollution. The national goal is a return to
natural conditions such that anthropogenic sources of air pollution
would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437) and as part
of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP is submitted and at the
progress review every five years, midway through each 10-year
implementation period. The RHR requires states with Class I areas
(Class I states) to determine the degree of impairment in deciview for
the average of the 20 percent least impaired (best) and 20 percent most
impaired (worst) visibility days over a specified time period at each
of its Class I areas. Each state must also develop an estimate of
natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)) (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIP, the ``baseline visibility
conditions'' are the starting points for assessing ``current''
visibility impairment. Baseline visibility conditions represent the
degree of visibility impairment for the 20 percent best days and 20
percent worst days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004.

Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are required to
calculate the average degree of visibility impairment for each Class I
area, based on the average of annual values over the five-year period.
The comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural
visibility conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to
attain natural visibility, while comparisons of future conditions
against baseline conditions will indicate the amount of progress made.
In general, the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is considered the time
from which improvement in visibility is measured.

C. Determination of RPGs

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two distinct RPGs, one for the best
days and one for the worst days for every Class I area for each
approximately 10-year implementation period. The RHR does not mandate
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward
achieving natural visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, states must
provide for an improvement in visibility for the worst days over the
approximately 10-year period of the SIP and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the best days.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. The state
must demonstrate in its SIP how these factors are considered when
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program,
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2,
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(``uniform rate of progress'' or ``glide path'') and the emissions
reduction needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year
period of the SIP. In setting RPGs each state with a Class I areas
(Class I state) must also consult with potentially contributing states
that may affect visibility impairment at the Class I areas. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. BART

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain older large stationary sources to address
visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, CAA section
169A(b)(2)(A) requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the
natural visibility goal including a requirement that certain categories
of existing major stationary sources \4\ built between 1962 and 1977
procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. Under
the RHR, the state can require source-specific BART controls, but it
also has the flexibility to adopt an alternative such as an emissions
trading program or alternate control providing greater progress towards
improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (BART Guidelines) to assist states in determining which of
their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in
determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. (70
FR 39104) A state must use the approach in the BART Guidelines in
making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating
unit (EGUs) with total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts.
States are encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines
in making BART determinations for other sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC and NH3 emissions impair visibility
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. The
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.50 dv.
Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual source's impact.
    The state must identify potential BART sources in its SIP,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document its
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires the state to consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. The
BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA
approval of the state's regional haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4);
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR,
general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for the BART controls on the source.
    The RHR also allows states to implement an alternative program in
lieu of BART if desired so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater progress toward the national visibility
goal than implementing BART controls. EPA made such a demonstration for
CAIR under regulations issued in 2005 revising the regional haze
program. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide that
states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 CFR
part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to
the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not
require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain
BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). Since

CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, states were still required
to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART
for that pollutant.
    CAIR was later found to be inconsistent with the requirements of
the CAA and the rule was remanded to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA,
550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). The court left CAIR in place until the
Agency replaced it. EPA replaced CAIR with the Transport Rule in August
2011.
    On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable
progress towards the national goal than would be obtained by
implementing BART for SO2 and NOX for BART-
subject EGUs in the area subject to the Transport Rule. 76 FR 82219.
Based on that proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to
allow states, including Indiana, to meet the requirements of an
alternative program in lieu of BART by participation in the trading
programs under the Transport Rule. The Transport Rule is not applicable
to emissions of PM, so states would still be required to conduct a BART
analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant.
EPA has not taken final action on that rule.

E. LTS

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15-year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include an LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
RPGs for all Class I areas within or affected by emissions from the
state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be required to address interstate
visibility issues sufficiently.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS. The seven factors are: (1) Emission reductions
due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to
address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to
achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5)
smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management
purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these
purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control
measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the
period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c), regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b)
and (c). The state must revise its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze on
or before this date. It must also submit the first such coordinated LTS
with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic
progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be submitted
consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress
reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The
periodic review of a state's LTS must report on both regional haze and
RAVI impairment and be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) includes the requirement for a monitoring
strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I
areas within the state. The strategy must be coordinated with the
monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305. Compliance with this
requirement may be met through participation in the IMPROVE network,
meaning that the state reviews and uses monitoring data from the
network. The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional
monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine
whether RPGs will be met. The monitoring strategy is due with the first
regional haze SIP and it must be reviewed every five years.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible in electronic format;
     A statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area. The inventory must include emissions for a
baseline year, emissions for the most recent year with available data,
and future projected emissions. A state must also make a commitment to
update the inventory periodically; and
     Other elements including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018 with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers(FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Indiana's regional haze plan?

    Indiana submitted its regional haze plan on January 14, 2011, and
supplemented it on March 10, 2011.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    States are required to address regional haze affecting Class I
areas within a state and in Class I areas outside the state that may be
affected by that state's emissions. Indiana does not have any Class I
areas within its borders, but has been identified as influencing the
visibility impairment of Class I areas in other nearby states. Indiana
is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that addresses its
visibility impairment on Class I areas it may affect describing its
LTS, its role in the consultation processes, and how the SIP meets
other elements in EPA's RHR. Since Indiana does not have any Class I
areas within its borders, and has no sources that have been identified
as causes of RAVI, however, Indiana is not required to address the
following Regional Haze SIP elements: (1) Calculation of baseline and
natural visibility conditions; (2) establishment of reasonable progress
goals; (3) monitoring requirements, and (4) RAVI requirements.
    Indiana reviewed technical analyses conducted by MRPO and other
RPOs to determine what Class I areas are affected by Indiana's
emissions. MPRO conducted both a back trajectory analysis and modeling
to determine the affects of its states' emissions. Indiana also used
assessments by MANE-VU, VISTAS, and a joint state assessment by
Arkansas and Missouri, each of which identified states having non-de
minimus impacts on specified Class I areas. The following are Class I
areas identified as being affected by Indiana sources:

Southeastern U.S. (VISTAS)--Sipsey Wilderness Area, Alabama; Mammoth
Cave National Park, Kentucky; Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
North Carolina and Tennessee; James River Face Wilderness Area,
Virginia (VA); Shenandoah National Park, VA; and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek
Wilderness Areas, West Virginia (WVA)
Eastern U.S. (MANE-VU)--Acadia National Park, Maine; Moosehorn
Wilderness Area, Maine; Great Gulf Wilderness Area, New Hampshire;
Brigantine Wilderness Area, New Jersey; and Lye Brook Wilderness Area,
Vermont
North Central U.S. (MRPO and CENRAP)--Isle Royale National Park,
Michigan (MI); Seney National Wildlife Refuge, MI; Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness Area, Minnesota (MN); and Voyageurs National
Park, MN
South Central U.S. (CENRAP)--Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, Missouri
(MO); Mingo Wilderness Area, MO; Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Arizona
(AR); and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, AR

    Appendix 1 of Indiana's Regional Haze SIP contains a list of these
Class I areas for all the Midwest states, and the analyses performed to
assess the impact from Indiana sources compiled by the MRPO. Class I
areas outside the areas listed above were not analyzed further, as
there were no significant impacts from Indiana sources shown. Further,
no impacts were noted in the WRAP states.

B. Determination of Baseline, Current, and Natural Conditions

    The RHR requires Class I states to estimate the baseline, natural
and current visibility conditions of those Class I areas. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(2). There are no Class I areas within the State of Indiana.
Therefore, this element does not apply to Indiana.

C. RPGs

    Class I states must set RPGs that achieve reasonable progress
toward achieving natural visibility conditions. Indiana does not have
any Class I areas, so it does not need to set any RPGs. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1). The states with Class I areas took the lead in
establishing RPGs. Indiana consulted with Class I states by
participating in the discussions (meetings and conference calls) with
MRPO and RPOs outside the Midwest to ensure it achieves its share of
emission reductions as those Class I states determine RPGs. In Appendix
9c, of Indiana's Regional Haze SIP, the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO) document ``Reasonable Progress for Class I Areas in
the Northern Midwest--Factor Analysis'' (July 18, 2007), addresses
factor analysis to establish RPG toward achieving natural visibility
conditions in mandatory Class I areas. In addition, Appendix 9b of
LADCO'S Technical Support Document ``Regional Air Quality Analyses for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support
Document,'' provides additional information related to Indiana's
emissions and visibility contributions and a detailed discussion of the
measures needed to achieve Indiana's share of emission reductions.
Indiana has satisfied this requirement.

D. BART

    Indiana began the BART rulemaking process in August 2006. Following
its rulemaking, which included the notices of hearings and comments,
Indiana adopted 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), Article 26, Rule
1, Best Available Retrofit Technology, on October 3, 2007; it became
effective February 22, 2008.
    Indiana conducted a BART analysis using the criteria in the BART
Guidance. Using available source emissions and construction date
information, Indiana developed a list of 32 BART-eligible sources
within the BART source categories by county.
    Indiana then applied the results of the screening modeling
conducted by the MRPO to determine which BART-eligible sources have
significant impacts on any Class I area and thus warrant being subject
to BART requirements. In accordance with EPA's recommendation Indiana
defined ``significant impact'' as an impact of at least 0.5 deciviews.
By this means, Indiana identified the following non-EGUs as subject to
BART: Alcoa Inc., ESSROC Cement Corporation, SABIC Innovative Plastics
(formerly GE Plastics), and Mittal Steel USA Inc.-Burns Harbor. Indiana
did not consider EGUs in its analysis as it decided to rely on these
sources' participation in the CAIR to address the BART requirements for
SO2 and NOX emissions from these sources, and a
modeling analysis demonstrated that particulate matter impacts from
EGUs at

Class I areas were insignificant and did not warrant further control.
    Indiana further analyzed the four non-EGU facilities to determine
which sources are subject to BART. Additional more refined modeling
analyses submitted for three of the four non-EGU sources (ESSROC Cement
Corporation, SABIC Innovative Plastics, and Mittal Steel USA Inc.--
Burns Harbor) showed that they did not contribute significantly to the
visibility impairment at any Class I areas, so that these sources may
be exempted from the BART requirement under the regional haze rule.
Modeling of these facilities indicated that just one source, Alcoa of
Warrick County, is subject to BART.
Alcoa, Inc.--BART Determination and Modeling Analysis
    Indiana submitted a BART analysis, prepared by Alcoa, which
analyzed BART and alternative BART control strategies. Before beginning
the five factor case-by-case BART analysis, Alcoa performed a baseline
visibility impact analysis for each of the years 2001-2003 using the
CALPUFF model with emission rates based on the 24-hour average actual
emissions from the highest emitting day. The initial screening model
projected the highest visibility impact at Mammoth Cave National Park
(MCNP). Other Class I areas screened included Mingo Wilderness Area,
Sipsey Wilderness Area, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Joyce
Kilmer--Slick Rock Wilderness Area, Cohutta Wilderness Area, and
Shining Rock Wilderness Area. The impact at MCNP exceeded 0.5 dv. Since
the visibility impact was highest at MCNP, the BART analysis focused on
the impact at MCNP.
    Alcoa identified 18 ingot furnaces, three boilers (Boilers
2, 3, and 4), and five aluminum refining furnaces
(Potlines 2-6) as meeting BART eligibility criteria. Boilers 2
and 3 are classified as industrial boilers. Boiler 4
is classified as an EGU, and, under Indiana's plan, is addressed by
CAIR for SO2 and NOX in conjunction with other
EGUs in the state. Thus, the BART analysis for boiler 4 will
only address PM emissions.
    After proposing determinations of BART for its BART-subject units,
Alcoa proposed an alternative strategy which compensates for less
stringent limits at selected BART-subject units by imposing more
restrictive limits at a non-BART-subject unit at the facility. In most
respects, Indiana's SIP submittal reflects the BART determinations and
the alternative strategy that Alcoa proposed. Tables 1 and 2 show
summaries of the BART determinations and the alternative BART control
strategy that Alcoa proposed.

             Table 1--Alcoa's Proposed BART Control Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Emission unit                 BART            Alternative BART
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boiler 1....................  Not a BART-subject    ....................
                               unit
PM..........................  ....................  Electrostatic
                                                     Precipitator (ESP).
SO2.........................  ....................  Wet Flue Gas
                                                     Desulfurization
                                                     (FGD) with 91%
                                                     emission reduction
                                                     efficiency.
NOX.........................  ....................  Low NOX Burners
                                                     (LNB) with staged
                                                     over-fire air
                                                     (OFA).
Boilers 2 and 3:
    PM......................  ESP.................  ESP.
    SO2.....................  Wet FGD with 92%      Wet FGD with 90%
                               emission reduction    emission reduction
                               efficiency.           efficiency.
    NOX.....................  LNB with staged OFA.  LNB with staged over-
                                                     fire air OFA.
Boiler 4-PM.................  ESP.................  ESP.
Potlines (2-6):
--Fugitive emissions:
    PM......................  No add-on control...  No add-on control.
--Primary emissions:
    PM......................  Gas treatment system  Gas treatment system
                               followed by fabric    followed by fabric
                               filter.               filter.
    SO2.....................  Limit anode grade     Limit anode grade
                               coke to 3% sulfur.    coke to 3.5%
                                                     sulfur.
    NOX.....................  No add-on control...  No add-on control
                              No add-on control...  No add-on control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Table 2--Alcoa's Proposed BART Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Compliance
        Emission unit            Emission limit     demonstration method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boiler 1....................  Not a Bart-eligible   ....................
                               unit.
PM (filterable).............  0.03 lb/MMBtu, 24-    Continuous emission
                               hour daily average.   monitoring system
                                                     (CEMS) at the
                                                     scrubber outlet
                                                     according to 40 CFR
                                                     part 60, following
                                                     Appendix B, PS-11.
SO2.........................  91% reduction, 24-    CEMS at the scrubber
                               hour daily average.   inlet and outlet
                                                     according to 40 CFR
                                                     part 60, following
                                                     Appendix B, PS-2.
NOX.........................  0.38 lb/MMBtu, 24-    CEMS at the scrubber
                               hour daily average.   outlet following PS-
                                                     2.
Boilers 2 and 3:
    PM (filterable).........  0.03 lb/MMBtu, 24-    CEMS at the scrubber
                               hour daily average.   outlet according to
                                                     40 CFR part 60,
                                                     following Appendix
                                                     B, PS-11.
    SO2.....................  90% reduction, 24-    CEMS at the scrubber
                               hour daily average.   inlet and outlet
                                                     according to 40 CFR
                                                     part 60, following
                                                     Appendix B, PS-2.
    NOX.....................  0.38 lb/MMBtu, 24-    CEMS at the scrubber
                               hour daily average.   outlet following PS-
                                                     2.
Boiler 4:
    PM (filterable and        0.1 lb/MMBtu........  40 CFR part 60,
     sulfuric acid).                                 Appendix A, Method
                                                     5.
Potlines (2-6):
    PM (filterable).........  0.005 grains/scf, 24- 40 CFR part 60,
                               hour daily average.   Appendix A, Method
                                                     5.

    SO2.....................  The sulfur content    ASTM D3177-02,
                               in each monthly       modified by adding
                               baked anode           saturated bromine
                               composite shall not   water before the pH
                               exceed 2.919%,        adjustment.
                               provided however      Alternatively,
                               that hourly SO2       determination of
                               emissions from the    sulfur content by x-
                               potlines shall not    ray fluorescence.
                               exceed 1,456 lbs/hr
                               on a combined
                               basis, and
                               determined on a
                               monthly basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Tables 1 and 2, Alcoa recommended that it be subject to
an alternative set of control requirements in lieu of being required to
implement BART at each BART-subject unit. This alternative would
provide additional control of emissions from boiler 1 beyond
that required in the baseline years, sufficient to compensate for
allowing more SO2 emissions from the potlines and from
boilers 2 and 3. Thus, Indiana determined
SO2 BART (utilizing wet limestone flue gas desulfurization)
for Boilers 2 and 3 as 92 percent reduction, but it
adopted requirements to control SO2 emissions from these
boilers by 90% as an alternative. According to the discussion in
Chapter 8, and Appendix 5, of the State of Indiana Regional Haze SIP,
Indiana determined that BART for the potlines consists of the use of
anode grade coke containing 3 percent sulfur, which is higher than the
current Indiana rule that limits sulfur in the coke to no more than 2
percent. The alternative strategy recommended by Alcoa allows the use
of coke containing 3.5 percent sulfur. To compensate for these less
stringent limits, Alcoa's alternative strategy requires that the source
control SO2 emissions from Boiler 1 by 91 percent
and control NOX emissions to meet limit of 0.38 pounds/
Million British thermal units (lbs/MMBtu) for boilers 1, i.e.,
the same limit as applies to boilers 2 and 3
(utilizing low NOX burners and over-fire air). For
particulate emissions, Indiana determined that BART represents use of
electrostatic precipitators with an emission limit equal to 0.03 lbs/
MMBtu for boilers 2 and 3. Indiana determined that
the particulate emission limit representing BART for boiler 4
is 0.015 lbs/MMBtu, with an alternative limit for this boiler as 0.10
lbs/MMBtu.
    Indiana's submittal nominally follows Alcoa's recommendation.
Nevertheless, Indiana's submittal does not change the SO2
emission limits that apply to Alcoa's potlines. Therefore, EPA views
Indiana's submittal as mandating a BART strategy for Alcoa that in fact
includes status quo limits of potline SO2 emissions.
    In any case, EPA does not agree that an increase in sulfur content
of coke used in the potlines at Alcoa's Warrick County facility, as
opposed to a decrease in the sulfur content and thus in the emissions
from these units, represents BART at these units. Furthermore, neither
the company nor the state has provided evidence that this relaxation of
limits on SO2 emissions from these units does not interfere
with attainment and maintenance of applicable SO2 air
quality standards, in contravention of Clean Air Act section 110(l). On
the other hand, Indiana's submittal contains no rule revisions or
permit provisions that would in fact implement any relaxation of limits
on the SO2 emissions from these units. Therefore,
notwithstanding the discussion suggesting that Indiana supports an
increase in these limits, the actual plan reflects continuation of the
existing limits without relaxation. That is, EPA considers Indiana's
regional haze plan to reflect the current SO2 emission
limits for the potlines, not the relaxed limits discussed in Indiana's
submittal. For each potline 2-6 the S02 emission
limit is 195.2 pounds/hour at the stack, and 21.7 pounds/hour for each
roof monitor associated with the potline.
    Viewing Indiana's plan in that manner, EPA is satisfied with
Indiana's alternative strategy for Alcoa. Modeling conducted by Indiana
shows that the alternative achieves greater visibility improvement than
BART, equal to 75 percent more reduction in deciviews over the
baseline. The alternative BART, though it achieves greater reductions
in all pollutants (PM, SO2, and NOX); and most
notably achieves significantly higher reductions in SO2
emissions, equal to approximately 21,600 tons more than BART. The
resulting emission limits are adopted by Indiana into the Indiana's
regional haze SIP submittal, and will be included in the facilities'
Part 70 permit for each unit subject to BART.
    Under the CAA, BART is required for any BART-eligible source that
emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I area.
Accordingly, for stationary sources meeting these criteria, states must
address the BART requirement when they develop their Regional Haze
SIPs. On November 3, 2010, the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board
adopted as final Indiana BART Rule, 326 IAC 26-2, to establish BART
emission limitations in order to comply with the RHR. Indiana's
Regional Haze SIP includes a copy of rule 326 IAC Article 26-2 in
Appendix 7.

E. LTS

    As described in III. E of this action, the LTS is a compilation of
state-specific control measures relied on by the state for achieving
its RPGs. The LTS must include enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
RPGs for all Class I areas affected by Indiana emissions.
    Indiana consulted with Class I states on the development of RPGs
through its participation in MRPO. MRPO facilitated consultations with
other Midwest states and with states in other regions through inter-RPO
processes. By coordinating with the MRPO and other RPOs, Indiana has
worked to ensure that its LTS provides sufficient emission reductions
to mitigate impacts of sources from Indiana on affected Class I areas.
Indiana believes that existing control programs will adequately address
Indiana's impact on Class I areas. Thus, continued implementation of
the control programs will satisfy the long-term strategy requirements.
    MPRO considered existing on-highway mobile source, off-highway
mobile source, area source, power plant, and other point source
programs as the existing control programs in its analysis. Indiana
included a technical support document (TSD) produced by MRPO in its
submission that details the analysis. Overall, emissions from Indiana
and the Midwest, as a whole, are reduced significantly over this time,
illustrating that Indiana is making appropriate progress toward
reducing emissions.
    At 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), the RHR identifies seven factors that
each state must consider in developing its LTS. The state must
consider: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control
programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) Measures to mitigate
impact from construction activities; (3) Emissions limitations and
schedules for

compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) Source retirement and replacement
schedules; (5) Smoke management techniques for agricultural and
forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within
the State for these purposes; (6) Enforceability of emissions
limitations and control measures; and (7) The anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS.
    Indiana relied on MPRO's modeling and analysis along with its
emission information in developing a LTS. Indiana consulted with Class
I states through its participation in MRPO. MRPO facilitated
consultations with other Midwest states and with states in other
regions through inter-RPO processes. Indiana considered the factors set
out in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) in developing its LTS. Based on these
factors and the MRPO's technical analysis, in conjunction with RPGs
that were set by the pertinent states in consultation with Indiana and
other states, Indiana concludes that existing control programs
adequately address Indiana's impact on Class I areas and suffice to
meet their RPGs by 2018 by implementing the control programs already in
place. These existing control programs include Federal motor vehicle
emission control program, reformulated gasoline, emission limits for
area sources of VOCs, Title IV, the NOX SIP Call, new source
review permitting program, Maximum Achievable Control Technology
standards, and Federal non-road standards for construction equipment
and vehicles. Furthermore, Indiana has open burning rules and its
Department of Natural Resources has the authority to ban outdoor
burning if necessary. Indiana noted in its submission that the state
has a smoke management plan that complements its open burning rules,
under Indiana Code 13-17-9 and rule 326 IAC Article 4-1. Significantly,
Indiana's LTS also relies on CAIR. In rulemaking published on December
30, 2011, at 76 FR 82219, EPA proposed to disapprove the BART plans and
LTS's for Indiana and several other states because CAIR cannot be
considered to provide permanently enforceable emission reductions.
    As noted in EPA's separate notice proposing revisions to the RHR
(76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011), a number of states, including
Indiana, fully consistent with EPA's regulations at the time, relied on
the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the
requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-
adopted reasonable progress goals. In that notice, we proposed a
limited disapproval of Indiana's long-term strategy based on its
reliance on CAIR. Comments on that proposed determination may be
directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. We are proposing to
find that the remaining elements of Indiana's long-term strategy meet
the requirements of the RHR.

F. Comments

    Indiana took comments on its proposed regional haze plan. It held a
public hearing on January 11, 2011, which concluded the public comment
period. As part of the consultation process, Indiana also received
comments from the FLMs which were presented at Indiana's public
hearing.
    Indiana provided the comments it received and its responses with
its plan. Indiana revised portions of its plan in response to comments
received. EPA considers that Indiana has satisfied this requirement.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of revisions to the Indiana SIP
submitted by IDEM on January 11, 2011, and March 10, 2011, addressing
regional haze for the first implementation period. The revisions seek
to address CAA and regional haze rule requirements for states to remedy
any existing anthropogenic and prevent future impairment of visibility
at Class I areas.
    Indiana's plan satisfies a number of elements of the regional haze
requirements. Indiana's plan identifies the Class I areas that the
state's emissions affect. Indiana demonstrates that the state has
consulted with other states as appropriate in establishing reasonable
progress goals and identifying the reductions need in Indiana to meet
those goals. Indiana's plan meets the requirement for BART for non-EGUs
and for particulate matter emissions from EGUs. For these reasons, and
for the SIP strengthening effect of Indiana's plan, EPA is proposing
limited approval of Indiana's plan.
    In addition to the above actions, EPA is proposing to approve
regulation 326 IAC Article 26, Rule 2 into Indiana's SIP which
incorporates BART emission limitations in order for sources to comply
with EPA's Regional Haze Rule.
    It should be noted that rule 326 IAC Article 26-2 contains an
erroneous citation, citing limits in 326 IAC 7-4-10(a)(4) rather than
326 IAC 7-4-10(a)(3). EPA nevertheless finds the rule approvable for
several reasons: (1) The pertinent limits are already an approved part
of Indiana's SIP and are therefore already enforceable; (2) the State's
intent is clear; and (3) Indiana intends to correct this referencing.
    In a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited
disapproval of the Indiana regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in
the state's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA
of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 76 FR 82219, December 30,
2011. Consequently, we are not taking action in this notice to address
the state's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze
requirements.

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 action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and

     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, and Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: January 17, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-1604 Filed 1-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53179-53180]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21302]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1819-007; ER10-1820-009; ER10-1818-006; ER10-
1817-007.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota, Northern
States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Public Service Company
of Colorado, Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Xcel Energy
Operating Companies.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2721-000.
    Applicants: Peetz Logan Interconnect, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Peetz Logan Interconnect,
LLC Order No. 792 and 792-A Compliance Filing to be effective 8/4/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/27/14.
    Accession Number: 20140827-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2722-000.
    Applicants: Sagebrush, a California partnership.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Sagebrush, a California
partnership Order No. 792 and 792-A Compliance Filing to be effective
8/4/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/27/14.
    Accession Number: 20140827-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2723-000.
    Applicants: Sky River LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Sky River LLC Order No. 792
and 792-A Compliance Filing to be effective 8/4/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/27/14.
    Accession Number: 20140827-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2724-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-8-
28CAPX-BSSB-CMA-594-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 8/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2725-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-8-
28CAPX-BSSB-OMA-595-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 8/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2726-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-8-
28CAPX-BSSB-TCEA-596-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 8/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2727-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2014-
08-28SA 2527 ITC-Consumers 2nd Amended GIA (J161) to be
effective 8/29/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2728-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Ancillary Services Tariff to be
effective 8/28/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2729-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: WPSC and UPPCo Notice of
Cancellation of Joint Open Access Transmission Tariff to be effective
8/28/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2730-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: WPSC and UPPCo Notice of
Cancellation of Joint Ancillary Services Tariff to be effective 8/28/
2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2731-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Termination of Fibrocoast
LGIA SA 316 to be effective 8/28/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2732-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Original Service Agreement No. 3928; Queue No. Z1-106 to be effective
7/31/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2733-000.
    Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Company.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 AST filing to be
effective 8/28/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2734-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Original Service Agreement No. 3929; Queue No. Z1-107 to be effective
7/31/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2735-000.
    Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Cancelling Joint Tariff
to be effective 8/28/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2736-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Original Service Agreement No. 3930; Queue No. Z1-108 to be effective
7/31/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/14.
    Accession Number: 20140828-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/14.

    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: August 28, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21302 Filed 9-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P