[Federal Register: December 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 78432-78433]
[DOCID:fr29de06-72]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8265-1; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0975]

A Review of the Impact of Climate Variability and Change on
Aeroallergens and Their Associated Effects

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 30-day public comment period for the draft
document titled, ``A Review of the Impact of Climate Variability and
Change on Aeroallergens and Their Associated Effects.'' The draft
document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental
Assessment within EPA's Office of Research and Development. The draft
report surveys the current state of knowledge of the potential impacts
of climate change and climate variability on aeroallergens in the
United States--including pollens, molds, and indoor allergens--and
their associated allergenic illnesses.
    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination. EPA will consider any public comments
submitted in accordance with this notice when revising the document.

DATES: The 30-day public comment period begins December 29, 2006, and
ends January 29, 2007. Technical comments should be in writing and must
be received by EPA by January 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The draft, ``A Review of the Impact of Climate Variability
and Change on Aeroallergens and Their Associated Effects,'' is
available primarily via the Internet on the National Center for
Environmental Assessment's home page under the Recent Additions and the
Data and Publications menus at--A limited number of paper copies are
available from the Technical Information Staff, NCEA-W; telephone: 202-
564-3261; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you are requesting a paper copy,
please provide your name, your mailing address, and the draft document
title, ``A Review of the Impact of Climate Variability and Change on
Aeroallergens and Their Associated Effects.''
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov,

by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please follow the
detailed instructions provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For technical information, contact Janet L. Gamble, NCEA;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Project/Document

    This draft report presents a survey of the current state of
knowledge of the potential impacts of climate change and variability on
aeroallergens--pollens, mold, and indoor allergens--in the United
States and the allergenic illnesses associated with them. Allergies are
prevalent in the U.S. and impose substantial economic and quality of
life burdens. While limited data suggest that aeroallergen levels have
remained relatively stable, the prevalence of allergenic illnesses in
the U.S. has increased over the past 30 years, a trend that appears to
be mirrored in other countries. Overall, experimental and observational
data indicate that pollen production is likely to increase in many
parts of the U.S. Phenologic advance is likely to occur for numerous
species of plants, especially trees, and increases in allergen content,
and thus, potency, of some aeroallergens are possible.

II. How to Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2006-
0975 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Deliveries are only accepted during the
docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit one
unbound original, with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies
of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages
consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and
three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2006-0975. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified

comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked
``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's
policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without
change and to make the comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless a 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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the
http://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 materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA

Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: December 20, 2006.
George Alapas,
Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E6-22427 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 24766]
[DOCID:fr26ap06-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Image Globe Solutions, Inc.; Order of Suspension
of Trading

April 24, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Image Globe Solutions, Inc. (``Image Globe''), a Nevada corporation
headquartered in Toronto, Ontario. Questions have arisen regarding the
accuracy of assertions by Image Globe, and by others, in press releases
and internet postings to investors concerning, among other things: (1)
The company's assets, (2) the stated financing of the company's
operations, (3) the company's private placement of 10 million shares of
its common stock in January 2006, and (4) the company's stated
investments in other start-up businesses.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. e.d.t., April 24,
2006, through 11:59 p.m. e.d.t., on May 5, 2006.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-3980 Filed 4-24-06; 11:44 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 231 (Friday, December 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74199-74204]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26234]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96395; File No. SR-CBOE-2022-058]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 10.3 Regarding Margin
Requirements

November 28, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 14, 2022, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the

proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend Rule 10.3 regarding margin requirements. The text of the
proposed rule change is provided below.
(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Rules of Cboe Exchange, Inc.

* * * * *

Rule 10.3 Margin Requirements

    (a)-(b) No change.
    (c) Customer Margin Account--Exception. The foregoing
requirements are subject to the following exceptions. Nothing in
this paragraph (c) shall prevent a broker-dealer from requiring
margin from any account in excess of the amounts specified in these
provisions.
    (1)-(4) No change.
    (5) Initial and Maintenance Margin Requirements on Short
Options, Stock Index Warrants, Currency Index Warrants and Currency
Warrants.
    (A)-(B) No change.
    (C) Related Securities Positions--Listed or OTC Options. Unless
otherwise specified, margin must be deposited and maintained in the
following amounts for each of the following types of positions.
    (i)-(ii) No change.
    (iii) Covered Calls/Covered Puts. [(a)] No margin is required
for a call (put) option contract or warrant carried in a short
position where there is carried in the same account a long (short)
position in equivalent units of the underlying security.
    [(b) No margin is required for a call (put) index option
contract or warrant carried in a short position where there is
carried in the same account a long (short) position in an (1)
underlying stock basket, (2) index mutual fund, (3) IPR, or (4) IPS,
that is based on the same index underlying the index option or
warrant and having a market value at least equal to the aggregate
current index value.
    (c)] In order for th[e]is exception[s in subparagraphs (a) and
(b) above] to apply, in computing margin on positions in the
underlying security[, underlying stock basket, index mutual fund,
IPR or IPS, as applicable], ([1]a) in the case of a call, the
current market value to be used shall not be greater than the
exercise price, and ([2]b) in the case of a put, margin shall be the
amount required by subparagraph (b)(2) of this Rule, plus the
amount, if any, by which the exercise price exceeds the current
market value.
    (iv) Exceptions. The following paragraphs set forth the minimum
amount of margin which must be maintained in margin accounts of
customers having positions in components underlying options, stock
index warrants, currency index warrants or currency warrant when
such components are held in conjunction with certain positions in
the overlying option or warrant. In respect of an option or warrant
on a market index, an underlying stock basket is an eligible
underlying component. The option or warrant must be listed or
guaranteed by the carrying broker dealer. In the case of a call
option or warrant carried in a short position, a related long
position in the underlying component shall be valued at no more than
the call option/warrant exercise price for margin equity purposes.
    (a) Long Option Offset. When a component underlying an option or
warrant is carried long (short) in [an]the same account [in which
there is also carried]as a long put (call) option or warrant
specifying equivalent units of the underlying component, the minimum
amount of margin which must be maintained on the underlying
component is 10% of the option/warrant exercise price plus the out-
of-the-money amount not to exceed the minimum maintenance required
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this Rule.
    (b) Conversion. When a call option or warrant carried in a short
position is covered by a long position in equivalent units of the
underlying component and there is [also] carried in the same account
a long put option or warrant specifying equivalent units of the same
underlying component and having the same exercise price and
expiration date as the short call option or warrant, the minimum
amount of margin which must be maintained for the underlying
component shall be 10% of the exercise price.
    (c) Reverse Conversion. When a put option or warrant carried in
a short position is covered by a short position in equivalent units
of the underlying component and there is [also] carried in the same
account a long call option or warrant specifying equivalent units of
the same underlying component and having the same exercise price and
expiration date as the short put option or warrant, the minimum
amount of margin which must be maintained for the underlying
component shall be 10% of the exercise price plus the amount by
which the exercise price of the put exceeds the current market value
of the underlying, if any.
    (d) Collar. When a call option or warrant carried in a short
position is covered by a long position in equivalent units of the
underlying component and there is [also] carried in the same account
a long put option or warrant specifying equivalent units of the same
underlying component and having a lower exercise price than, and
same expiration date as, the short call option/warrant, the minimum
amount of margin which must be maintained for the underlying
component shall be the lesser of 10% of the exercise price of the
put plus the put out-of- the-money amount or 25% of the call
exercise price.
    (e) Protected Option. When an index call (put) option contract
or warrant is carried in a short position (the ``protected option or
warrant position'') and there is carried in the same account a long
(short) position in an underlying stock basket, non-leveraged index
mutual fund or non-leveraged exchange-traded fund (each, the
``protection'') that is based on the same index underlying the index
option or warrant, the protected option or warrant position is not
subject to the requirement set forth in subparagraph (c)(5)(A) above
if the following conditions are met:
    (1) when the protected option or warrant position is created,
the absolute value of the protection is not less than 100% of the
aggregate current underlying index value associated with the
protected option or warrant position determined at either (A) the
time the order that created the protected option or warrant position
was entered or executed; or (B) the close of business on the trading
day the protected option or warrant position was created;
    (2) the absolute value of the protection is at no time less than
95% of the aggregate current underlying index value associated with
the protected option or warrant position; and
    (3) margin is maintained in an amount equal to the greater of:
(A) the amount, if any, by which the aggregate current underlying
index value is above (below) the aggregate exercise price of the
protected call (put) option or warrant position; or (B) the amount,
if any, by which the absolute value of the protection is below 100%
of the aggregate current underlying index value associated with the
protected option or warrant.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change amends Rule 10.3 regarding margin
requirements. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii)(b) to update the provisions that provide margin
relief for

a cash-settled index option written against a holding in an exchange-
traded fund that tracks the same index as the index underlying the
index option. Rule 10.3 sets forth margin requirements, and certain
exceptions to those requirements, applicable to security positions of
Trading Permit Holders' (``TPHs'') customers. Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii)
currently requires no margin for covered calls and puts. Specifically,
that rule provides the following:
     No margin is required for a call (put) option contract or
warrant carried in a short position where there is carried in the same
account a long (short) position in equivalent units of the underlying
security.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In computing margin on such a position in the underlying
security, (a) in the case of a call, the current market value to be
used shall not be greater than the exercise price and (b) in the
case of a put, margin will be the amount required by Rule
10.3(b)(2), plus the amount, if any, by which the exercise price of
the put exceeds the current market value of the underlying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No margin is required for a call (put) index option
contract or warrant carried in a short position where there is carried
in the same account a long (short) position in an (1) underlying stock
basket,\4\ (2) index mutual fund, (3) index portfolio receipt
(``IPR''),\5\ or (4) index portfolio share (``IPS''),\6\ that is based
on the same index underlying the index option or warrant and having a
market value at least equal to the aggregate current index value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An ``underlying stock basket'' means a group of securities
that includes each of the component securities of the applicable
index and which meets the following conditions: (a) the quantity of
each stock in the basket is proportional to its representation in
the index, (b) the total market value of the basket is equal to the
underlying index value of the index options or warrants to be
covered, (c) the securities in the basket cannot be used to cover
more than the number of index options or warrants represented by
that value and (d) the securities in the basket shall be unavailable
to support any other option or warrant transaction in the account.
See Rule 10.3(a)(7).
    \5\ IPRs are securities that (a) represent an interest in a unit
investment trust (``UIT'') which holds the securities that comprise
an index on which a series of IPRs is based; (b) are issued by the
UIT in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a
``Portfolio Deposit'' consisting of specified numbers of shares of
stock plus a cash amount; (c) when aggregated in the same specified
minimum number, may be redeemed from the UIT, which will pay to the
redeeming holder the stock and cash then comprising the Portfolio
Deposit; and (d) pay holders a periodic cash payment corresponding
to the regular cash dividends or distributions declared and paid
with respect to the component securities of the stock index on which
the IPRs are based, less certain expenses and other charges as set
forth in the UIT prospectus. IPRs are ``UIT interests'' within the
meaning of the Rules. See Rule 1.1. A UIT Interest is any share,
unit, or other interest in or relating to a unit investment trust,
including any component resulting from the subdivision or separation
of such an interest.
    \6\ IPSs are securities that (a) are issued by an open-end
management investment company based on a portfolio of stocks or
fixed income securities designed to provide investment results that
correspond generally to the price and yield performance of a
specified foreign or domestic stock index or fixed income securities
index; (b) are issued by such an open-end management investment
company in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a
deposit of specified number of shares of stock and/or a cash amount,
or a specified portfolio of fixed income securities and/or a cash
amount, with a value equal to the next determined net asset value;
and (c) when aggregated in the same specified minimum number, may be
redeemed at a holder's request by such open-end management
investment company, which will pay to the redeeming holder stock
and/or cash, or a specified portfolio of fixed income securities
and/or cash with a value equal to the next determined net asset
value. See Rule 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In order for the exceptions in the previous bullets to
apply, in computing margin on positions in the underlying security,
underlying stock basket, index mutual fund, IPR or IPS, as
applicable,\7\ (1) in the case of a call, the current market value to
be used shall not be greater than the exercise price, and (2) in the
case of a put, margin shall be the amount required by subparagraph
(b)(2) of Rule 10.3, plus the amount, if any, by which the exercise
price exceeds the current market value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ IPRs and IPSs are commonly referred to as ETFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 10.3(c)(5) generally requires TPHs to obtain from a customer,
and maintain, a margin deposit for short cash-settled index options in
an amount equal to 100% of the current market value of the option plus
15% (if overlying a broad-based index) or 20% (if overlying a narrow-
based index) of the amount equal to the index value multiplied by the
index multiplier minus the amount, if any, by which the option is out-
of-the-money.\8\ The minimum margin required for such an option is 100%
of the option current market value plus 10% of the index value
multiplied by the index multiplier for a call or 10% of the exercise
price multiplied by the index multiplier for a put.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The out-of-the-money amount for a call is any excess of the
aggregate exercise price of the option or warrant over the product
of the current (spot or cash) index value and the applicable
multiplier. The out-of-the-money amount for a put is any excess of
the product of the current (spot or cash) index value and the
applicable multiplier over the aggregate exercise price of the
option or warrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to current Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii)(b) and (c), however, a
TPH requires no margin deposit for a short cash-settled index call
option if the TPH is holding in the same account a long position in an
ETF that tracks the same index underlying the index option \9\ if the
current market value of the ETF for margin purposes (1) is at least
equal to the aggregate current index value and (2) is not greater than
the exercise price. If an account is short a cash-settled index put
option and is holding in the same account a short position in the ETF,
a TPH needs to require a margin deposit for the amount required by Rule
10.3(b)(2) \10\ plus the amount, if any, by which the exercise price of
the option exceeds the market value of the ETF if the market value of
the ETF is at least equal to the aggregate current index value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This is the same margin treatment that applies to an option
on an equity security written against the underlying security. See
current Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii)(a).
    \10\ Rule 10.3(b)(2) provides the minimum amount of margin that
must be maintained in customer margin accounts having positions in
securities is: (1) with respect to long positions, 25% of the
current market value of all long in the account; plus (2) with
respect to short positions, (a) $2.50 per share or 100% of the
current market value, whichever is greater, of each security short
in the account that has a current market value of less than $5.00
per share; plus (b) $5.00 per share or 30% of the current market
value, whichever is greater, of each security short in the account
that has a current market value of $5.00 per share or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend this exception to margin
requirements applicable to short option positions or warrants on
indexes that are offset by positions in an underlying stock basket,
non-leveraged index mutual fund, or non-leveraged exchange-traded fund
(each, the ``protection'') that is based on the same index option, as
well as move it within Rule 10.3 to Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iv).\11\
Specifically, the proposed rule change adopts the following as Rule
10.3(c)(5)(C)(iv)(e): \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Proposed paragraph (e) limits the margin relief to index
options written against an underlying stock basket, non-leveraged
index mutual fund or non-leveraged exchange-traded fund (compared to
underlying stock basket, index mutual fund, IPR, or IPS in current
subparagraph (iii)(b)). The Exchange proposes to add the non-
leveraged limitation to clarify that this exception is not intended
to and does not apply to leveraged instruments. Additionally, the
Exchange excludes IPRs and IPSs from being eligible for the margin
relief in paragraph (e), as the Exchange understands that the use
and availability of these products has diminished and has not
observed the writing of index options against them.
    \12\ The proposed rule change identifies the strategy described
in proposed subparagraph (e) as a ``protected option,'' which is a
strategy of writing an index option against a holding in an ETF
based on the same index as the index option, to differentiate it
from a ``covered call,'' which is a strategy of writing an option
against a position in an underlying security (the margin treatment
for which is described in current subparagraph (iii)(a)).

    (e) When an index call (put) option contract or warrant is
carried in a short position (the ``protected option or warrant
position'') and there is carried in the same account a long (short)
position in an underlying stock basket, non-leveraged index mutual
fund or non-leveraged exchange-traded fund (each, the
``protection'') that is based on the same index underlying the index
option or warrant, the protected option or warrant position is not
subject to the requirement set forth in subparagraph

(c)(5)(A) above if the following conditions are met:
    (1) when the protected option or warrant position is created,
the absolute value of the protection is not less than 100% of the
aggregate current underlying index value associated with the
protected option or warrant position determined at either (A) the
time the order that created the protected option or warrant position
was entered or executed; or (B) the close of business on the trading
day the protected option or warrant position was created;
    (2) the absolute value of the protection is at no time less than
95% of the aggregate current underlying index value associated with
the protected option or warrant position; and
    (3) margin is maintained in an amount equal to the greater of:
(A) the amount, if any, by which the aggregate current underlying
index value associated with the protected option or warrant position
is above (below) the aggregate exercise price of the protected call
(put) option or warrant position; or (B) the amount, if any, by
which the absolute value of the protection is below the aggregate
current underlying index value associated with the protected option
or warrant position.

    The proposed rule change provides that the margin requirement for
an uncovered, short index option or warrant does not apply to a
protected option or warrant position if certain conditions are met. The
first proposed condition to qualify for the exception is that the TPH
must carry or establish in the same account as the protected option or
warrant position protection with an absolute value of not less than
100% of the aggregate underlying index value at either the time the
order that created the protected option or warrant position was entered
or executed or the close of business on the trading day the protected
option or warrant position was created. This proposed first condition
provides clearing brokers with flexibility regarding the point in time
at which to value the protection. The aggregate underlying index value
used would be that which existed at the same point in time the clearing
broker selects to value the protection. This first condition
corresponds to the concept of covered writing (such as writing a
covered call). When writing a covered call, a market participant must
have in the same account as the short call position a fully offsetting
position in the underlying stock (in other words, 100% of the short
position's aggregate underlying value, which is equal to the price of
the stock times 100 (the number of shares underlying one option)).
    The second proposed condition to qualify for the exception is that
the absolute value of the protection must at no time be less than 95%
of the aggregate underlying index value associated with the protected
option or warrant position. Like the first proposed condition, this
second proposed condition is intended to correspond to covered writing
by requiring a market participant to maintain the protection in an
amount close to the aggregate underlying index value associated with
the protected option or warrant position. Because the value of the
protection typically will not track exactly the aggregate underlying
index value (i.e., tracking error), the 95% threshold will require the
absolute value of the protection to remain close to the aggregate
underlying index value while effectively imposing a cap of 5% on how
much the two values may diverge (i.e., the value of the protection may
not be more than 5% less than the value of the aggregate underlying
index value). If the absolute value of the protection falls below 95%
of the aggregate underlying index value associated with the protected
option or warrant position, the protected option or warrant position
would be deemed uncovered and thus no longer eligible for relief from
the uncovered, short index option margin requirement. When that occurs,
a clearing broker must either collect the required margin amount for
the short index option or warrant position, require that the value of
the protection be increased to the 100% of the aggregate underlying
index value, or liquidate the short index option or warrant position.
    The third proposed condition to qualify for the exception is to
maintain margin in an amount equal to the greater of: (a) the amount,
if any, by which the aggregate underlying index value associated with
the protected option or warrant position is above (below) the aggregate
exercise price of the protected call (put) option or warrant position;
or (b) the amount, if any, by which the absolute value of the
protection is below the aggregate underlying index value associated
with the protected option or warrant (which would be subject to the 95%
threshold imposed by the second proposed condition, as described
above).
    The proposed margin requirement to cover any difference by which
the underlying index value is above (below) the exercise price of a
call (put), in aggregate, would capture any amount by which a protected
option or warrant position is in-the-money (i.e., the amount the
aggregate underlying index value exceeds the aggregate exercise price
for a short call). Pursuant to this proposed requirement, margin
equivalent to the in-the-money amount of the protected option or
warrant position would need to be held in the account with that
position, which would then be available to offset any debit to that
account in the event of an exercise of the protected option or warrant.
This corresponds to current Cboe Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii)(c), which
requires the value of the protection or underlying stock to be capped
at the exercise price of a covered call for no additional margin to be
required for that call position. Both approaches prevent any in-the-
money amount from contributing equity to the account and being used to
support other positions.
    The proposed alternative margin requirement to cover any difference
by which the absolute value of the protection is below the aggregate
underlying index value associated with the protected option or warrant
would compensate for any tracking error. Pursuant to this proposed
requirement, margin equivalent to the value of the divergence between
the absolute value of the protection and the aggregate underlying index
value would need to be maintained once a protected option or warrant
position is created. However, this requirement would be rendered moot
if the absolute value of the protection fell below 95% of the aggregate
underlying index value associated with the protected option or warrant
position, because the position at that point would be considered
uncovered. To the extent equity is not available in the margin account
to meet this requirement, a TPH can require its customer to deposit
margin into the account. The Exchange believes this is more practical
than requiring the value of the protection to be maintained at 100% of
the aggregate underlying index value in actual shares (or applicable
units) of the protection, as this would require continuous small
transactions in the protection instrument to offset tracking
differences (which are generally no larger than 2%).
    Because there may be instances where margin requirements for the
in-the-money amount and the tracking error may be duplicative,\13\ the
Exchange proposes to require only the greater amount of the two to
avoid requiring an unnecessarily high amount of margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Two out of a total of six possible orderings of underlying
index value, exercise price and protection value would result in
overlapping margin requirements as proposed. For all others, one of
the proposed margin requirement alternatives would be zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, if the absolute value of the protection is less than the
aggregate underlying index value, the protection position must be
supplemented to address the deficiency. As proposed, such deficiency
would require margin (to the extent such deficiency is not

greater than 5%) in the form of available equity in the margin account
or a deposit of margin in any form (e.g., cash or marginable
securities) rather than the purchase, sale, or deposit of additional
protection to address a deficiency (regardless of the amount of the
deficiency).\14\ As a result, the proposed rule change will reduce the
need for small and potentially frequent purchases, sales, or deposits
of additional protection, which may reduce the operational cost of the
protected option strategy for customers. While the structure of
protection, particularly ETFs, and market forces may cause the
protection's value to differ from the index value, the Exchange has
observed that these values are generally highly correlated and thus do
not deviate significantly. Therefore, the Exchange believes the
proposed margin requirement for protected options is an effective
safeguard against the risk of a short option position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Pursuant to the current Rules, if the protection market
value is not at least equal to the aggregate index value, and
additional shares are not purchased or deposited, then the required
margin is equal to the amount of the option current market value
plus 15% (if a broad-based index) or 20% (if a narrow-based index)
of the aggregate index value minus any out-of-the-money amount,
subject to a minimum requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed rule change eliminates the requirement
to mark the price of a long ETF with an index call option written
against it at the lower of the ETF's market value or the index option
strike price. With covered call options, this requirement is intended
to cap favorable moves in the price of the underlying security at the
strike price because moves above the strike price will not be realized.
Currently, the Exchange applies this same requirement (as set forth in
Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii)(c)) to protected options written against ETF
holdings to maintain equivalency with the treatment of covered options.
As an alternative, the proposed rule substitutes a margin requirement
in this situation, which would require margin to be collected in an
amount equal to, for example, the amount by which the aggregate
underlying index value exceeds the aggregate exercise price in the case
of a protected index call option or warrant position.
    Further to the above, the proposed rule change deletes Rule
10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii)(b), as well as the cross-reference to such paragraph
and the references to underlying stock basket, index mutual fund, IPR
or IPS, as applicable,\15\ in current subparagraph (c), as those terms
relate specifically to current subparagraph (b). Because this would
leave only one section in Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii), the proposed rule
change deletes subparagraph lettering and combines current subparagraph
(iii)(a) and current subparagraph (iii)(c) into a single provision as
subparagraph (iii) and makes corresponding conforming changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ These terms are related only to current subparagraph (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also makes clarifying, nonsubstantive
changes in each subparagraph of Rule 10.3(c)(5)(C)(iv) to conform
language in those subparagraphs to language used throughout Rule 10.3.
Specifically, the proposed rule change amends the provision of each
subparagraph to state that the minimum amount of required margin in the
circumstances described in each subparagraph applies when the
applicable long position is carried ``in the same account as'' the
applicable short position, rather than ``also carried.'' This language
is consistent with the language in, for example, current Rule
10.3(c)(5)(C)(iii), as margin requirements are determined generally
based on positions held in the same account.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\16\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \17\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \18\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange further believes the proposed rule
change furthers the objectives of Section 6(c)(3) of the Act,\19\ which
authorizes the Exchange to, among other things, prescribe standards of
financial responsibility or operational capability and standards of
training, experience and competence for its Trading Permit Holders and
person associated with Trading Permit Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change amends a specific margin
treatment related to short index options written against ETFs in the
same manner. Given the difference described above between short stock
options written against the underlying stock and short index options
written against ETFs, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to apply
different margin treatments to these different strategies. While the
economic outcomes of covered options and protected options are similar,
as described above, the Exchange believes it promotes just and
equitable principles of trade to apply margin slightly differently to
protected options than covered options. While the proposed rule change
may result in lower margin requirements for protected option
strategies, the Exchange believes the proposed floor on the value of
protection and the margin amounts are more reasonable than the current
requirements, as they are more tailored to these strategies and reflect
the potential deficiencies between the value of the protection and the
value of the index. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposed
margin required will still be sufficient for protected option
strategies. Given the high correlation between these values, the
Exchange believes it is appropriate to require margin in an amount
necessary to only cover this deficiency, as ultimately that is the risk
against which the margin requirement is protecting. Furthermore, any
amount by which the aggregate underlying index value is above (below)
the aggregate exercise price of the option in the case of a call (put)
(i.e., the-in-the-money amount) would also be required as margin under
the proposal. This in-the-money amount margin requirement prevents
protection value in excess of the exercise price of the option (in the
case of a short index call) from contributing to margin account equity
and replaces the current requirement that caps the value of the
protection at the aggregate exercise price of the option to qualify for
a margin exception. The proposed rule change requires only the greater
of the two margin requirements (the in-the-money amount or the
protection deficiency amount) to apply to avoid requiring a customer to
maintain unnecessarily high margin.
    As noted above, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change may
reduce the need for small and

potentially frequent purchases, sales, or deposits of additional
protection, which may reduce the operational cost of the protected
option strategy. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change may make this strategy more beneficial for customers and thus
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market, as well as reduce the margin required for such strategies,
which will potentially free up capital that can be put back into the
market, which ultimately benefits investors.
    The proposed clarifying, nonsubstantive changes provide for more
consistent language in similar rule provisions, which will ultimately
benefit investors.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended as a competitive filing, but rather to modify margin
requirements for a certain option strategy to be more reasonable and
practical. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change
will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as it will
apply the same margin treatment to all TPHs. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket competition, as several other options exchanges incorporate
by reference the Exchange's margin rules into their rules (and thus
apply them to their members), which incorporation by reference would
apply to the proposed rule change if approved by the Commission.
Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed rule change may reduce
the operational burden of protected option strategies, as well as
reduce the margin required for such strategies, which may make the
strategies more beneficial for customers.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2022-058 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2022-058. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2022-058 and should be
submitted on or before December 23, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-26234 Filed 12-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 19084-19085]
[DOCID:fr08ap08-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2008-0204]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0015

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) and Analysis to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of
information: 1625-0015, Bridge Permit Application Guide (BPAG). Before
submitting this ICR to OMB, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as
described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG-2008-
0204], please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (DMF) (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: To DMF between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this notice as being available in the docket, will become part of this
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the complete ICR is available through this docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are
available from Commandant (CG-611), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters
(Attn: Mr. Arthur Requina), 2100 2nd Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-
0001. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on this notice or the ICR. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the
docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this information
collection request should be granted based on it being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. We will post all comments received, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal
information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their
DMF. Please see the paragraph on DOT's ``Privacy Act Policy'' below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2008-0204], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic

means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit them by only one means. If you submit them
by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the
Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change the documents supporting this
collection of information or even the underlying requirements in view
of them.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to
view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket. Enter the docket number for this notice [USCG-2008-0204] in the
Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit the DMF in room
W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act Statement of DOT in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477), or by visiting http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Bridge Permit Application Guide (BPAG).
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0015.
    Summary: The collection of information is a request for a bridge
permit submitted as an application for approval by the Coast Guard of
any proposed bridge project. A letter of application must be submitted
along with letter-size drawings (plans) and maps showing the proposed
project and its location.
    Need: Sections 401, 491, and 525 of 33 U.S.C. authorize the Coast
Guard to approve plans and locations for all bridges and causeways that
go over navigable waters of the United States. Bridge permit
application regulations are contained in 33 CFR 115.50.
    Respondents: The public and private owners of bridges over
navigable waters of the United States.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 2,240 to
3,315 hours a year.

    Dated: March 28, 2008.
D.T. Glenn,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
 [FR Doc. E8-7266 Filed 4-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 56)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14116-14122]
[DOCID:fr24mr10-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0587; FRL-9130-1]

Approval of Implementation Plans of Wisconsin: Nitrogen Oxides
Reasonably Available Control Technology

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on June 12, 2007 and on September
14, 2009. These revisions incorporate provisions related to the
implementation of nitrogen oxides (NOX) Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in the Milwaukee-Racine and
Sheboygan ozone nonattainment areas. EPA is proposing to approve SIP
revisions that address the requirements found in section 182(f) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is also proposing to approve other
miscellaneous rule changes that affect NOX regulations that
were previously adopted and approved into the SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-0587, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, Acting Chief, Criteria
Pollutant 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-
2007-0587. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's
public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
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 Douglas Aburano, Environmental
Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
II. W hat Are the NOX RACT Requirements?
III. Analysis of Wisconsin's NOX RACT Submittal
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?

    Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' are
used, we mean EPA.

NOX RACT Approval

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Wisconsin's SIP, submitted
on June 12, 2007 and on September 14, 2009. The CAA amendments of 1990
introduced the requirement for existing major stationary sources of
NOX in nonattainment areas to install and operate
NOX RACT. Specifically, section 182(b)(2) of the CAA
requires States to adopt RACT for all major sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) in ozone nonattainment areas; section 182(f) extends
the RACT provisions to major stationary sources of NOX.
    Wisconsin was not required to adopt NOX RACT rules under
the 1-hour ozone standard because all of the ozone nonattainment areas
in Wisconsin were

covered by a NOX waiver that was approved in the Federal
Register on January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2428). This NOX waiver,
issued under section 182(f) of the CAA, exempted the affected areas
from the RACT and nonattainment New Source Review requirements for
major stationary sources of NOX. Wisconsin is, however,
required to adopt NOX RACT rules for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard because a NOX waiver has not been issued under this
ozone standard. The NOX RACT submittals were due on
September 15, 2006.

Approval of Other Non-RACT NOX Rules

    Additionally, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
submitted minor additions and amendments to other non-RACT
NOX rules as part of the June 12, 2007 and September 14,
2009 submittals. The non-RACT NOX rules that are being
changed were originally approved into Wisconsin's SIP on November 13,
2001 (66 FR 56931). These other NOX rules were submitted as
part of Wisconsin's reasonable further progress SIP for the 1-hour
ozone standard.

II. What Are the NOX RACT Requirements?

    The CAA amendments of 1990 introduced the requirement for existing
major stationary sources of NOX in nonattainment areas to
install and operate NOX RACT. Specifically, section
182(b)(2) of the CAA requires States to adopt RACT for all major
sources of VOC in ozone nonattainment areas, and section 182(f)
requires the RACT provisions for major stationary sources of oxides of
nitrogen. ``RACT'' is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility (44 FR 53762).
    Section 302 of the CAA defines major stationary source as any
facility which has the potential to emit 100 tons per year of any air
pollutant. For serious ozone nonattainment areas, a major source is
defined by section 182(c) as a source that has the potential to emit 50
tons of NOX per year. For severe ozone nonattainment areas,
a major source is defined by section 182(d) as a source that has the
potential to emit 25 tons per year.
    These requirements can be waived under section 182(f) of the CAA.
See EPA memo dated December 16, 1993 from John Seitz, Director, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards to Air Division Directors
entitled, ``Guideline for Determining the Applicability of Nitrogen
Oxide Requirements Under Section 182(f).'' Waivers can be granted if
the Administrator determines that any one of the following tests is
met:
    1. In any area, the net air quality benefits are greater in the
absence of NOX reductions from the sources concerned;
    2. In nonattainment areas not within an ozone transport region,
additional NOX reductions would not contribute to ozone
attainment in the area; or
    3. In nonattainment areas within an ozone transport region,
additional NOX reductions would not produce net ozone air
quality benefits in the transport region.
    Wisconsin received a NOX waiver under the 1-hour ozone
standard on January 26, 1996 and, therefore, was not required to adopt
NOX RACT regulations for that standard. However, there are
areas in Wisconsin that are nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. These areas were designated nonattainment on June 15, 2004
(69 FR 23947). Because Wisconsin does not have a waiver for the
NOX requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
NOX RACT rules are required in the areas that are classified
as moderate or above.
    Since the only areas in Wisconsin that are required to adopt
NOX RACT are classified as moderate for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, the rules that have been adopted only need to address
sources with the potential to emit 100 tons per year. The
NOX RACT rules were to have been submitted September 15,
2006.

III. Analysis of Wisconsin's NOX RACT Submittal

A. Nature of Wisconsin's Submittal

    On June 12, 2007, Wisconsin submitted rules and supporting material
for addressing the NOX RACT requirements. WDNR held a public
hearing for these rules on March 15, 2007. WDNR also provided a comment
period that was announced on February 2, 2007 and ended on March 19,
2007.
    On September 14, 2009, Wisconsin submitted a supplemental SIP
revision and additional supporting material for addressing the
NOX RACT requirements. WDNR held a public hearing for these
rules on December 5, 2008. WDNR also provided a comment period that was
announced on October 30, 2008 and ended on December 10, 2008.

B. Summary of Wisconsin's Rules

June 12, 2007 Submittal
    Chapter NR 428 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code Environmental
Protection Air Pollution Control, entitled, ``Control of Nitrogen
Compound Emissions,'' includes provisions limiting the emissions of
NOX from stationary sources in Wisconsin. While Ch. NR 428
contains many sections, Wisconsin submitted only a portion of them to
address the NOX RACT requirements. Specifically, Wisconsin
submitted rules 428.02(7m), 428.04(2)(h)1. and 2., 428.05(3)(e)1. to
4., 428.20 through 428.26, 484.04(13), 484.04(15m) and (16m), and
484.04(21m), (26m)(bm), (26m)(d), and (27) for Federal approval.
    The RACT rules establish NOX emission limitations for
major sources in the moderate ozone nonattainment areas of Wisconsin,
which include the counties of Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine,
Sheboygan, Washington, and Waukesha. Major sources in those counties
were required to be in compliance with the NOX RACT program
by May 1, 2009. The RACT rules have been adopted and passed by all
necessary State law-making bodies, and the rules became effective on
August 1, 2007.
    The RACT rules require individual emission units at a major source
to be in compliance with specific emission limitations defined by
source category and fuel types. The NOX emission limitations
are defined based on available control technologies and cost-
effectiveness of up to $2,500 per ton of controlled NOX.
However, the emission limits are not applicable if the unit operates
below an ozone season threshold level that is related to cost-
effectiveness of control. Once a unit exceeds the threshold during any
ozone season after the effective date of the rule, it is always subject
to the RACT requirements. A phased compliance schedule is specified for
electric utility coal fired boilers to account for installation and
electric reliability needs. All emission limitations across the source
categories are expressed on a 30-day rolling basis and are to be met on
a year-round basis.
    The rules require compliance monitoring, record keeping, and
reporting specified for each source category. For units already
required to do so, emissions are to be measured according to 50 CFR
Part 75 CEMs monitoring requirements. Remaining units are specified by
source category to either install and operate continuous NOX
emission monitors according to 40 CFR Part 60 methods or perform stack
testing every two years. The rules specify the methods and calculations
used to tabulate emissions under each requirement. Units are required
to have

a malfunction and abatement plan for the monitoring system.
    The rules establish a number of default exemptions from the
emission limits for units meeting certain conditions. The exemptions
streamline compliance by identifying sources for which control cost-
effectiveness is beyond that considered in the rules. These sources
otherwise would likely qualify for a variance to the RACT requirement.
The rules identify minimal recordkeeping requirements to ensure
continued qualification under the applicable exemption. There are
generally two bases for the exemptions: (1) unit types or applications
with low operation levels; and (2) units which are meeting the emission
limit and have sufficient monitoring requirements in place or are well
controlled and for which the incremental control to meet the RACT
emission limit is significantly more costly.
    Alternative compliance methods in the rule include emissions
averaging, a case-by-case RACT determination, and a Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) equivalency provision. These programs have been
structured to meet EPA's guidance for economic incentive programs,
public notification, and review requirements.
    Lastly, to address utility reliability issues, the rules allow an
entity to request a temporary waiver of an emission limit. This
provision establishes a process to evaluate an emission limit
exceedance due to an uncontrollable or unforeseeable event during the
course of which service must be maintained to un-interruptible
customers. The request for a waiver is after the event and is subject
to review and approval of both WDNR and EPA.
    The major provisions of the RACT rules are:

NR 428.02 Definitions
NR 428.20 Applicability and purpose.
NR 428.21 Emission unit exceptions.
NR 428.22 Emission limitation requirements.
NR 428.23 Demonstrating compliance with emission limitations.
NR 428.24 Record keeping and reporting.
NR 428.25 Alternative compliance methods and approaches.
NR 428.26 Utility reliability waiver.
    Provisions related to the RACT rule are:

NR 400 Air pollution control definitions
NR 439 Reporting, recordkeeping, testing, inspection, and determination
of compliance requirements
NR 484.04 Incorporation by reference.

    Several non-substantive modifications are included in this package
addressing the units of applicable emission limitations for
reciprocating engines under existing NR 428 requirements.
September 14, 2009 Submittal
    The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board adopted an order to: renumber
and amend 428.22(1)(d); amend NR 428.04(1) and (3)(b), 428.05(1) and
(4)(b)2., 428.07(intro.), (1)(a) and (b)1. and 3., (3) and (4)(c),
428.08(title) and (2)(title), 428.09(2)(a), 428.20(1),
428.22(2)(intro.), 428.23(1)(b)1., 428.24(1)(b)(intro.) and
428.25(1)(a)1.a. and c. and (3)(b); and to create NR 428.02(7e),
428.08(2)(f), 428.12, 428.22(1)(d)2., and 428.23(1)(b)9., relating to
modification of existing rules for control of NOX emitted by
stationary sources in the ozone nonattainment area in southeastern
Wisconsin. The proposed revisions relate to issues for SIP
approvability and miscellaneous implementation issues.
    The rule revisions address two areas: (1) Incorporating the term
and a definition of ``maximum theoretical emissions'' in place of
``potential to emit'' in order to adequately identify major sources;
and (2) revisions identified by the department and stakeholders which
clarify and facilitate implementation of requirements within ch. NR
428.
    There are a number of non-substantive revisions in the rule that
address clarification and implementation issues, which are consistent
with the original intent of the rules. These revisions include:
    1. Removal of the reference to the Federal CAIR and usage of
standard terms in identifying the appropriate units.
    2. Allowance of additional time for sources to submit an
application for an alternative emission limit or compliance schedule.
    3. Allowance for a source with an approved alternative RACT
requirement to participate in emissions averaging for purposes of
demonstrating compliance with the original RACT limitation or schedule.
    4. The revision avoids triggering new source NOX limits
under rule NR 428.04 when the modification is made solely to comply
with existing source NOX control requirements under rules NR
428.05 or 428.22.
    5. Clarification and simplification of monitoring and reporting
requirements.
    6. Removal of the reference to ``modified'' sources in the
applicability statement in rule NR 428.05(1).
    7. Identification of limited periods when the current form of the
emission limitation for glass furnaces is not appropriate. During these
periods the numerical emission limit does not apply. Instead, the
source is required to minimize NOX emissions through
combustion optimization techniques described in rule NR 439.096.
    There are no changes from the June 12, 2007 submittal that alter
the primary emission limitations or that alter those individual
emissions units subject to emission requirements.

C. Review of Wisconsin Submittal

NOX RACT Portion of June 12, 2007 and September 14, 2009
Submittals
    The WDNR created Subchapter IV entitled ``NOX Reasonably
Available Control Technology Requirements'' to address the
NOX RACT requirements of the CAA. Subchapter IV consists of
rules 428.20 through 428.26.
    Rule 428.20 ``Applicability and Purpose'' establishes the
geographic scope of the rule and the sources that are subject to the
rule. The rules apply in the nonattainment areas that are classified as
moderate under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. There are no
nonattainment areas with a classification higher than moderate in
Wisconsin. Therefore, the rules apply in the Milwaukee-Racine area
(Kewaunee County, Milwaukee County, Ozaukee County, Racine County,
Washington County, and Waukesha County) and Sheboygan County. The
requirements apply to the owner or operator of a NOX
emissions unit which is located at a facility with a combined total
potential to emit for all NOX emissions units of 100 tons
per year or more. This is consistent with the CAA and EPA guidance.
Rule 428.20 refers to Wisconsin's definition of ``Maximum theoretical
emissions'' found in Wisconsin rule NR 428.02(7e). These two rules, in
combination, satisfy the requirements for adequate applicability.
    NR 428.02 ``Definitions'' adds the definition of ``maximum
theoretical emissions,'' rule NR 428.02(7e). This addition is
acceptable. It is referred to under NR 428.20, the ``Applicability and
purpose'' section of the NOX RACT rules.
    NR 428.21 ``Emission unit exceptions'' exempts certain units from
emission limits but still requires monitoring emissions and keeping
records for these units. Should these units no longer qualify for an
exemption, emission limits will then apply. The rule establishes a
number of default exemptions from the emission limits for units meeting
certain conditions. The rule identifies minimal recordkeeping
requirements to ensure continued qualification under the applicable
exemption. There are generally two

bases for the exemptions: (1) Unit types or applications with low
operation levels; and (2) units which are meeting the emission limit
and have sufficient monitoring requirements in place or are well
controlled and for which the incremental control to meet the RACT
emission limit is significantly more costly. Wisconsin has justified
these exemptions based on cost-effectiveness. The technical support
document found in the docket associated with this action has more
details on the justification for these exemptions.
    The one exemption not based on cost-effectiveness but rather on a
technical basis is the exemption under rule NR 428.21(g) for a
``gaseous fuel fired unit used to control VOC emissions''. The primary
consideration in design and operation of such an emissions unit is for
the efficient destruction of VOC emissions and not to minimize
NOX emissions. For this reason this exemption is
appropriate.
    NR 428.22 ``Emission limitation requirements'' establishes
NOX emission rate limits by source category applicable to
emission units operating above the applicability threshold. The source
categories, operating levels, and emission limitations are presented in
Table 1. The emission limits contained in the rule are a 30-day rolling
average requirement applicable on a year-round basis. A unit subject to
an emission limitation must demonstrate compliance on an individual
basis by May 1, 2009. These limits are consistent with EPA guidance for
the various categories for which Alternative Control Technology
documents have been issued and with more recent State and Federal
NOX control programs.

                                Table 1--NOX RACT Categorical Emission Limits \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Capacity
       Source category             threshold             NOX emission limitation (30 day rolling average)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid Fuel-Fired Boiler......  =>1000 mmBtu/hr.  Tangential-fired, 0.10 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Wall-fired, 0.10 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Cyclone-fired, 0.10 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Fluidized bed-fired, 0.10 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Arch-fired, 0.18 lbs/mmBtu.
                               =>500-999 mmBtu/  Tangential-fired, 0.15 lbs/mmBtu.
                                hr.
                                                 Wall-fired (low heat release), 0.15 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Wall-fired (high heat release), 0.17 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Cyclone-fired, 0.15 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Fluidized bed-fired, 0.10 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Arch-fired, 0.18 lbs/mmBtu.
                               =>250-495 mmBtu/  Tangential-fired, 0.15 lbs/mmBtu.
                                hr.
                                                 Wall-fired (low heat release), 0.15 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Wall-fired (high heat release), 0.17 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Cyclone-fired, 0.15 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Fluidized bed-fired, 0.10 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Arch-fired, 0.18 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Stoker-fired, 0.20 lbs/mmBtu.
                               50-249 mmBtu/hr.  Tangential-fired, 0.15 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Wall-fired (low heat release), 0.15 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Wall-fired (high heat release), 0.17 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Cyclone-fired, 0.15 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Fluidized bed-fired, 0.10 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Arch-fired, 0.18 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Stoker-fired, 0.25 lbs/mmBtu.
Gaseous or Liquid Fuel-Fired   =>100 mmBtu/hr..  Gaseous fuel, 0.08 lbs/mmBtu.
 Boiler.
                               =>100 mmBtu/hr..  Distillate oil, 0.10 lbs/mmBtu.
                               =>65 mmBtu/hr...  Residual or waste oil, 0.15 lbs/mmBtu.
Lime Kiln (manufacturing)....  =>50 mmBtu/hr...  Gaseous fuel, 0.10 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Distillate oil, 0.12 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Residual oil, 0.15 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Coal, 0.60 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Coke, 0.70 lbs/mmBtu.
Glass Furnace \2\............  =>50 mmBtu/hr...  2.0 lbs/ton of glass.
Metal Reheat, Galvanizing,     =>75 mmBtu/hr...  0.08 lbs/mmBtu.
 and Annealing Furnace.
Asphalt Plants...............  =>65 mmBtu/hr...  Gaseous fuel, 0.15 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Distillate oil, 0.20 lbs/mmBtu.
                                                 Residual or waste oil, 0.27 lbs/mmBtu.
Process Heating..............  =>100 mmBtu/hr..  Gaseous fuel, 0.10 lbs/mmBtu.
                               =>100 mmBtu/hr..  Distillate oil, 0.12 lbs/mmBtu.
                               =>65 mmBtu/hr...  Residual or waste oil, 0.18 lbs/mmBtu.
Simple Cycle Combustion        =>50 MW.........  Natural gas, 25 ppmdv @ 15% O2.
 Turbine.
                                                 Distillate oil, 65 ppmdv @ 15% O2.
                                                 Biologically derived fuel, 35 ppmdv @ 15% O2.
                               25-49 MW........  Natural gas, 42 ppmdv @ 15% O2.
                                                 Distillate oil, 96 ppmdv @ 15% O2.
                                                 Biologically derived fuel, 35 ppmdv @ 15% O2.
Combined Cycle Turbine.......  =>25 MW.........  Natural gas, 9 ppmdv @ 15% O2.
                                                 Distillate oil, l42 ppmdv @ 15% O2.
                               10-24 MW........  Natural gas, 42 ppmdv @ 15% O2.
                                                 Distillate oil, 42 ppmdv @ 15% O2.
                               =>25 MW.........  Biologically derived fuel, 35 ppmdv @ 15% O2.
Reciprocating Engine.........  =>500 horsepower  Rich-burn units, 3.0 gr/bhp-hr.

                                                 Lean-burn units, 3.0 gr/bhp-hr.
                                                 Distillate-fuel units, 3.0 gr/bhp-hr.
                                                 Natural Gas/Dual fuel, 3.0 gr/bhp-hr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The compliance deadline for most sources was May 1, 2009. However, electric generating units have interim
  emission limits and extended compliance time frames. See Table 2.
(2) During periods when the furnace is operating for purposes other than producing glass, NOX emissions must be
  minimized.

    For electric utility coal-fired boilers the rule sets a phased
compliance schedule with interim emission limits for May 1, 2009 and
final RACT emission limits by May 1, 2013. The purpose of the phased
compliance schedule is to allow the electric utilities the necessary
time to install post combustion controls while maintaining a reliable
electric supply. Some control technologies, like selective catalytic
reduction equipment, can take up to two years to install for an
individual project. This is compounded by the fact that utilities are
subject to limited installation windows that further restrict the
installation schedule. On this basis, multiple installations cannot be
fully accomplished on all electric utility boilers within the moderate
nonattainment area by 2009. The schedule of phased limitations is
provided in Table 2.

                      Table 2--Compliance Schedule for Electric Utility Coal-Fired Boilers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Emission limits (lbs/mmbtu)
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Compliance date             Coal-fired boilers >1000 mmbtu/ Coal-fired boilers >500 and <1000 mmbtu/
                                                      hr                                   hr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1, 2009...........................  wall fired = 0.15.............  wall fired = 0.20.
                                        tangential fired = 0.15.......  tangential fired = 0.15.
                                        cyclone = 0.15................  cyclone = 0.20.
                                        fluidized bed = 0.15..........  fluidized bed = 0.15.
                                        arch fired = 0.18.............  arch fired = 0.18.
May 1, 2013...........................  wall fired = 0.10.............  wall fired = 0.17.
                                        tangential fired = 0.10.......  tangential fired = 0.15.
                                        cyclone = 0.10................  cyclone = 0.15.
                                        fluidized bed = 0.10..........  fluidized bed =0.10.
                                        arch fired = 0.18.............  arch fired = 0.18.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emission limits for 2009 reflect NOX controls which
can be installed within the intervening timeframe including combustion
modifications and selective non-catalytic reduction systems. The final
2013 compliance date reflects the timing necessary for anticipated
installations of selective catalytic reduction systems. The phased
approach is also consistent with operating generating units on a
system-wide basis and utilization of a multi-facility averaging
program. In this manner, the phased emission limits set forth a RACT
level of NOX control across utilities boilers on a schedule
which is expeditious as practicable.
    Since the RACT emission limits are implemented on a schedule which
is as expeditious as practicable the proposed phasing of electric
utility boiler emission limits is acceptable.
    NR 428.23 ``Demonstrating compliance with emission limitations''
requires most sources subject to emission limitations to demonstrate
compliance using continuous emissions monitoring. For electric
generating unit sources this monitoring is based on 40 CFR part 75
methods, and for industrial sources monitoring is based on 40 CFR part
60 methods. For a few source categories with low variability in
operations or emission rates, compliance is demonstrated by periodic
stack testing. The emission monitoring requirements are consistent with
existing State and EPA programs. The rule will also allow a source to
request approval of an alternative monitoring method. Any alternative
monitoring method must be approved by both WDNR and EPA. These
compliance methods are acceptable.
    NR 428.24 ``Record keeping and reporting'' requires all affected
unit owners and operators to maintain records and submit reports to the
WDNR. These records and reports will be used to determine compliance,
instances of noncompliance and also to determine if exempt units
continue to remain exempt by staying below specific thresholds. These
provisions are acceptable.
    NR 428.25 ``Alternative compliance methods and approaches''
provides affected units with several compliance options:

    1. Emissions from one or more units subject to a RACT emission
limitation may be averaged with other similar units at an affected
facility. Except for ``new units'', which are excluded from
averaging, all similar units, both RACT and non-RACT affected units,
at a facility must be included in the averaging program. This is to
eliminate a potential shift in generation/production to any unit not
subject to the RACT requirements.
    2. Emissions averaging applies the current applicable emission
limit of each unit on a heat input weighted basis to determine an
average facility or system emission limit. EPA requires that
averaging programs like the system averaging in the rule have an
additional emission reduction applied to the facility or system
emission limit as an environmental benefit in lieu of the provided
flexibility. (See Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive
Programs, EPA-452/R-01-001, Jan. 2001.) Under facility averaging,
the environmental benefit is the implementation of an annual and
ozone season mass cap.
    3. Emissions units may participate in an emission averaging
program across multiple units and facilities. Each unit can only
participate in one type of averaging program on an annual basis
(facility or system-wide). The environmental benefit is the EPA
default

of 10% reduction in the emission rate on an annual and an ozone
season basis.
    4. An individual source may request an alternative emission
limitation or compliance schedule, with a determination made on a
case-by-case basis by the WDNR. An alternative emission limit may be
the result of an engineering assessment that demonstrates RACT
controls are not economically or technically feasible for that unit.
Any determination of an alternative limit or schedule must also
account for a unit's ability to participate in either a facility or
system-wide emissions averaging program. These alternative RACT
determinations must also have written EPA approval.

    As mentioned above, these alternative compliance methods must meet
the requirements found in EPA's Economic Incentive Policy or guidance
(Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, EPA-452/R-01-
001, Jan. 2001).
    Rule 428.25(3) allows sources that are subject to CAIR under 40 CFR
Part 97 to demonstrate compliance with NOX RACT requirements
by complying with CAIR requirements. EPA is not acting on this portion
of Wisconsin's rules. At the time these rules were adopted, EPA
guidance allowed approval of these provisions. On December 23, 2008,
the D.C. Circuit Court remanded CAIR to the EPA. Until EPA issues a
replacement rule for CAIR, EPA cannot approve any NOX RACT
rules making a claim of ``CAIR equals RACT.'' Once a replacement rule
for CAIR is issued, EPA can revisit the ``CAIR equals RACT'' provisions
and evaluate them for approvability.
    NR 428.26 ``Utility reliability waiver '' contains a provision that
allows an electric or steam utility or natural gas transmission
facility to request a waiver from an applicable emission limit for a
period of time due to reliability issues. This provision acknowledges
that these facilities serve non-interruptible customers and
uncontrollable events may occur which result in an increase in
emissions. Facilities generating steam for process and manufacturing
purposes are not eligible for the waiver.
Non-RACT Portion of June 12, 2007 and September 14, 2009 Submittals
    A number of NOX regulations were approved into the
Wisconsin SIP on November 13, 2001 (66 FR 56931). They were approved as
part of fulfilling the reasonable further progress requirements for the
Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan County 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas.
Proposed changes to these ``non-RACT'' portions of ch. NR 428 are as
follows.
    NR 428.02 ``Definitions'' adds the definition of ``process
heater,'' rule NR 428.02(7e). This addition is acceptable.
    NR 428.04(2)(h)1. and 2., 428.05(3)(e)1. to 4, have been corrected
to use the units of ``grams per brake horsepower-hour'' from ``grams
per brake horsepower.'' These corrections are acceptable.
    The revision avoids triggering new source NOX limits
under ch. NR 428.04 when the modification is made solely to comply with
existing source NOX control requirements under rules NR
428.05 or 428.22. This modification does not alter the original
intended emission limitation of the rule and therefore is acceptable.
    The revisions make a number of clarifications and simplifications
to the monitoring and reporting requirements under 428.23(1)(b)1.,
428.23(1)(b)9, and 428.24(1)(b)(intro.). These changes are not
substantive in nature nor do they eliminate dual requirements.
Therefore these modifications are acceptable.
    The applicability statement in rule NR 428.05(1) is being revised
to remove the reference to ``modified'' sources. The use of the term
``modified'' in this case identified a source modified before February
1, 2001 as an existing source. Some inferred this meant a source
existing prior to that date but modified afterwards is not subject to
an emission limit. The applicability language is altered to clearly
identify units subject to an existing source emission limitation. This
correction is acceptable.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Wisconsin SIP
submitted on June 12, 2007 and September 14, 2009. These revisions
incorporate provisions related to the implementation of NOX
RACT for major sources in the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan ozone
nonattainment areas. The only rule that EPA is not acting on in the
Wisconsin submittals is the ``CAIR equals RACT'' provision found in
428.25(3). This rule is separable from the rest of the NOX
RACT rules and the rest of the submittal will not be affected if this
rule is not acted on.
    The SIP revisions that EPA is proposing to approve address the
requirements found in section 182(f) of the CAA.

V. 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, Electric
utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.

    Dated: March 11, 2010.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2010-6519 Filed 3-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P