[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46952-46959]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19137]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0059; FRL-9694-9]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze for the first
implementation period, which extends through July 31, 2018. Wisconsin
submitted its regional haze plan on January 18, 2012, with a
supplemental submittal on June 7, 2012. EPA received comments on its
proposed approval, addressing best available retrofit technology (BART)
for a Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, L.P. (Georgia-Pacific) paper
facility and for power plants. EPA provides its response to these
comments, and concludes that the Wisconsin regional haze plan
satisfactorily addresses these requirements. Consequently, EPA is
approving an administrative order establishing BART requirements for
Georgia-Pacific into the Wisconsin SIP. More generally, EPA finds that
Wisconsin has satisfied the applicable requirements for the State to
remedy any existing and to prevent future impairment of visibility at
mandatory Class I areas.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0059. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (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 through 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 Matt Rau,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

I. What was proposed in the proposed rule?
II. What are the responses to comments?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What was proposed in the proposed rule?

    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) submitted its
regional haze plan on January 18, 2012, with a supplemental submittal
on June 7, 2012. This plan was intended to address the requirements in
Clean Air Act section 169A and the regional haze rule in Title 40 Code
of Federal Regulations 51.308 (40 CFR 51.308). This plan concluded that
the Georgia-Pacific paper mill in Green Bay and several electric
generating units (EGUs) were subject to requirements for BART. For
Georgia-Pacific, EPA proposed action on a draft administrative order
that establishes a cap on the sum of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions and of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from the
various boilers at the facility, including two boilers subject to the
BART requirement and multiple other boilers not subject to this
requirement. For the power plants, Wisconsin is relying on the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) as a trading program alternative to
mandating source-specific BART, except that Wisconsin addressed BART
for particulate matter (PM) for EGUs by supplementing existing limits
with a more stringent PM emission limit for one plant.
    EPA reviewed Wisconsin's plan according to the regional haze rule
as promulgated on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), and subsequently amended
on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39156), and on October 16, 2006 (70 FR 60631).
The July 6, 2005, amendment provides further guidance on provisions
related to BART.
    EPA proposed approval of the Wisconsin regional haze plan on
February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11928). The proposed rule described the nature
of the regional haze problem and the statutory and regulatory
background for EPA's review of Wisconsin's regional haze plan. The
proposed rule provided a lengthy description of the regional

haze plan requirements, including mandating BART, consulting with other
states to establish goals for reasonable further progress in mitigating
anthropogenic visibility impairment, and adopting limitations necessary
to implement a long-term strategy for reducing visibility impairment.
EPA proposed to approve the Wisconsin plan as properly identifying the
facilities subject to BART and mandating emission reductions meeting
the applicable BART requirements. EPA also proposed to approve the
Wisconsin plan as meeting other regional haze requirements, such as
having a long-term strategy that provides an appropriate contribution
from Wisconsin toward meeting reasonable progress goals.

II. What are the responses to comments?

    In response to its proposed rule, EPA received comments from the
Sierra Club, the National Park Service (NPS), Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR), Georgia-Pacific, and the U.S. Forest Service.
The comments are included in the docket, EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0059. A
summary of the comments are included below along with EPA's response.

Comments by Sierra Club

    Comment: Sierra Club submitted extensive comments relating to
Wisconsin's reliance on CSAPR to satisfy the BART requirement for EGUs.
Sierra Club believes that the Clean Air Act requires BART on a source-
by-source basis. Even if reliance on a trading program is permissible,
Sierra Club finds that Wisconsin failed to make the source-specific
BART determinations that are required under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) for
assessing the relative merits of a trading program. In the view of
Sierra Club, it is not clear that CSAPR provides surplus emission
reductions that are creditable for satisfying the BART requirement.
Sierra Club comments that, ``CSAPR does not ensure that emissions
reductions will be made to help achieve reasonable progress goals
(RPGs),'' and in particular does not require BART at a plant that is
within 300 kilometers from Seney, i.e., the Pulliam plant. In addition,
Sierra Club objects to reliance on CSAPR because it is presently
stayed. Sierra Club objects that the annual CSAPR programs only limit
annual emissions, thus allowing shorter-term emission variations that
could adversely affect visibility. Sierra Club believes that EPA's
analysis of whether CSAPR would provide better visibility protection
than source-specific application of BART limits is flawed, because EPA
used presumptive BART levels to represent BART rather than the more
stringent BART levels that source-specific BART analyses would
identify.
    Response: As noted in the proposed rule, these comments are
addressed in a separate rulemaking, published on June 7, 2012, at 77 FR
33642. The EPA's response to these comments can be found in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov. The Pulliam plant,
which is approximately 240 kilometers from Seney Wilderness Area, is
one of many plants in the Midwest and beyond that contribute to
visibility impairment at the Seney Wilderness Area. EPA's conclusion
regarding satisfaction of BART requirements for EGUs is based on a
finding that controls required under CSAPR can be expected to provide
better visibility protection than would be obtained from direct
application of BART at Pulliam and other subject EGUs.
    Comment: Sierra Club asserts that EPA cannot approve the
administrative order that provides the necessary BART limits for
Georgia-Pacific because the State does not have authority to submit
administrative orders for this purpose. Sierra Club quotes Wisconsin
Statute Section 285.14(1): ``[WDNR] may not submit a control measure or
strategy that imposes or may result in regulatory requirements to the
federal environmental protection agency for inclusion in a state
implementation plan under 42 U.S.C. Sec.  7410 unless the department
has promulgated the control measure or strategy as a rule.'' In Sierra
Club's view, this statute requires Wisconsin to submit its limitations
only in the form of state rule. Sierra Club also notes that Wisconsin
law mandates that measures to be submitted must be subject to other
mandated review procedures. Sierra Club believes that the State has not
met these procedural requirements for the administrative order for
Georgia-Pacific. Thus, Sierra Club concludes that Wisconsin does not
have the authority to submit this administrative order to EPA and that
EPA must disapprove the submission because it does not meet the
requirement in Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(E) that submissions be
valid at the state level.
    Response: Wisconsin issued a valid administrative order in full
compliance with State law. In its submission, the State clarified that
it has in fact met the requirements of Wisconsin Statute 285.14(1) by
creating Wisconsin Administrative Code Natural Resources (NR) 433. The
statute does not require that particular limits be adopted by rule or
that the rule be the means by which the limits are enforced. Instead,
in this case, Wisconsin first adopted a rule that mandates
implementation of BART for sources determined to be subject to
provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(e) requiring BART. Then, in accordance with
NR 433, Wisconsin defined the specifics of the control measure by
issuing a determination of BART numerical limits. The administrative
order for Georgia-Pacific establishes permanency for the BART numerical
limits set forth in the determination.
     Wisconsin provided multiple opportunities for public comment on
this issue. Wisconsin held a public hearing during the adoption of NR
433. Since this rule mandated BART and defined the process by which
particular limits would be established, this State rulemaking was the
most appropriate time for Sierra Club to identify its concerns
regarding the adequacy of NR 433, specifically, and the State's BART
process, generally, to provide the rulemaking to satisfy Wisconsin
Statute 285.14. Notably, it appears that Sierra Club did not raise this
objection during the adoption of NR 433. Wisconsin also met the other
procedural requirements for public hearings of concern to Sierra Club
during the NR 433 adoption process. Finally, the State solicited public
review and responded to comments for several iterations of the proposed
BART numerical emission limits that it intended to use as the precise
numerical definition of BART for Georgia-Pacific. The State addressed
comments in determining final BART conditions and fulfilled the
procedural requirements including public hearings necessary under State
statutes. Consequently, EPA believes that Wisconsin has met the
applicable statutory requirements for requiring BART at Georgia-
Pacific, and EPA believes that the State's submitted administrative
order is fully valid at the State level and fully approvable under
section 110.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that Wisconsin have
``authority under State * * * law to carry out [its] implementation
plan,'' but does not define requirements for individual SIP
submissions. Nevertheless, the important point here is that the
Georgia-Pacific administrative order is a fully valid, fully
enforceable, and approvable document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Sierra Club comments on discussion in the proposed rule
expressing EPA's concerns about the enforceability of the language of
the draft administrative order. Given these EPA concerns, Sierra Club
objects to the procedure EPA is using to act on Wisconsin's plan. In
particular, Sierra Club objects that EPA's proposal is ``based on a
`premise' '' that the final

administrative order will include revisions that address EPA's
concerns. ``This circumvents the review process, which requires EPA to
determine whether the state's submission is actually sufficient (not
whether possible future documents could make the SIP sufficient) and
requires that the public have an opportunity to review and comment on
the sufficiency of the actual submission by the state and the EPA's
proposed basis for approval.''
    Response: In actions involving parallel processing, as authorized
under 40 CFR 51 appendix V section 2.3, EPA solicits comments regarding
an anticipated situation, namely that the state will have completed the
administrative process necessary to submit a final SIP submission
before EPA takes final action. Similarly here, EPA solicited comments
on the anticipated situation in which Wisconsin would submit a final
administrative order using language that assures that the limits are
fully enforceable and Wisconsin would submit the order before EPA's
final action.
    EPA believes that this approach fully satisfies the requirements in
the Clean Air Act and in the Administrative Procedures Act for
soliciting public comment on Wisconsin's plan and EPA's proposed
action. These statutes do not mandate that EPA wait for administrative
orders to be issued in final form before proposing action. Instead, EPA
may propose action on draft administrative orders, so long as the
proposal provides sufficient information regarding the prospective
administrative order (and other elements of the State submission) and
EPA's intended action on the prospective order for commenters to have
suitable opportunity to comment on significant issues pertinent to the
State material and EPA's proposed approval.
    Notably, Sierra Club did not express any concerns of its own
regarding the language of the administrative order, suggesting that no
further solicitation of comment on the particular differences in
language between the draft and the final administrative order was
warranted. Therefore, EPA concluded that its proposed rule provided an
adequate basis for commenters to identify issues of concern and allow
EPA to proceed to final rulemaking without reproposal.
    Comment: Sierra Club objects to Wisconsin expressing the limits for
Georgia-Pacific as a cap on emissions from four boilers, including two
boilers that are not subject to the requirement for BART. In Sierra
Club's view, this approach ``dilutes the stringency of the BART
limits,'' insofar as ``the control efficiency required of the BART
units will depend on the operating characteristics of the other, non-
BART units.''
    Response: Wisconsin established an emissions cap reflecting
baseline emissions of the non-BART boilers plus emissions from the BART
boilers at BART control levels, minus a deduction for environmental
benefit. This cap assures that total emissions from the facility will
be reduced by more than the amount that would be mandated with the
establishment of limits solely on emissions from the BART units. That
is, in the scenario of concern, in which the company accommodates
operation that controls BART unit emissions by less than the unit's
full control capacity by reducing non-BART emissions to a slightly
greater degree below baseline levels, the company would be achieving a
slightly greater environmental benefit than if it had controlled BART
unit emissions at full BART control levels and operated the non-BART
units at baseline emission levels. This scenario is fully authorized in
40 CFR 51.308(e), which allows satisfaction of BART requirements by
alternate strategies involving control at non-BART units that achieve
greater environmental benefit than the strategy that simply controls
BART units with BART-level control.
    Strictly speaking, Wisconsin's administrative order does not
regulate which boilers are in operation at any given time. For example,
Georgia-Pacific is allowed under the order to resume operation of a
fifth boiler. The important point here is that regardless of which
boilers are operating, total emissions must be below levels that would
occur if Wisconsin were simply mandating BART controls on the BART
units.
    Comment: Sierra Club echoes comments made by the National Park
Service and the U.S. Forest Service (misidentified as the Fish and
Wildlife Service) during the State's public comment process that the
cap ``is inflated because it relies on `baseline' emissions'' that
include emissions for a shutdown boiler (B24) and used emissions for a
`` `design fuel' rather than the more representative fuels for the
boilers.''
    Response: In response to similar comments on a July 2011 draft
plan, Wisconsin made the recommended changes, determining baseline
emissions by excluding emissions from the shutdown boiler and removing
any adjustments for ``design fuels.'' Thus, this comment has previously
been addressed.
    Comment: Sierra Club objects that, with Georgia-Pacific's limit
expressed as a cap on emissions from both BART and non-BART boilers,
any future requirement to reduce emissions at the non-BART boilers will
allow correspondingly more emissions at the BART boilers. Sierra Club
in particular identifies two pending actions that in its view will
likely require emission reductions at the non-BART boilers: An EPA
rulemaking to require maximum available control technology at
industrial boilers and a petition by the Sierra Club for EPA to find
that this Georgia-Pacific facility should have become subject to
tighter limits under prevention of significant deterioration
regulations.
    Response: EPA's regional haze regulation authorizes the State to
establish a BART strategy that includes credit for measures that have
been implemented since the baseline date of the SIP (which is 2002). In
practice, the boilers at Georgia-Pacific vent to a common stack and the
limits are designed to limit the combined set of emissions from the
facility. Consistent with EPA's regional haze rule, Wisconsin's limits
require a suitable degree of emission reduction from this facility and
it is not necessary for Wisconsin to require these reductions to apply
to the emissions of particular boilers. Second, Wisconsin is not
required to mandate further emission reductions, either at the BART
boilers or at other boilers from which it mandates emission reductions
as part of its BART strategy, to go beyond the reductions that might be
required in the future. Instead, the degree of reduction required to
satisfy the regional haze rule is independent of the reductions
mandated by other regulatory requirements that apply sooner or later
after the baseline date. Third, future requirements on the non-BART
boilers, such as Maximum Available Control Technology for boilers, will
also apply to the BART boilers. As a result, the situation feared by
the commenter, in which compliance with tight requirements on the non-
BART boilers allows Georgia-Pacific to have minimal control of the BART
boilers, is unlikely to arise. Finally, the degree of SO2
and NOX emission control, if any, that might be required by
the regulations cited by Sierra Club is speculative and too uncertain
to consider here.
    Comment: Sierra Club cites EPA as noting that ``its Draft Economic
Incentives Program Guidance is relevant to this rulemaking.'' Sierra
Club states that this guidance allows credit only for emission
reductions that are surplus and beyond current regulatory

requirements. Furthermore, ``the Guidance notes that the reduction
cannot be required by any regulatory requirement at the time the
reductions occur,'' which Sierra Club considers to mean reductions
required by 2015. Sierra Club cites ``the industrial boiler hazardous
air pollutant rule, the 1-hour SO2 SIP, and new source
review requirements'' as regulations that will require reductions
before 2015, such that Wisconsin may only use credit for reductions
below the 2015 levels.
    Response: In cases like this where a subject is addressed by both
the general guidance in the draft Economic Incentive Program Guidance
and in program-specific guidance that more directly addresses specific
statutory requirements, EPA gives more weight to the regulatory
provisions that are promulgated for the specific statutory
requirements, in this case to the provisions of the regional haze rule.
As noted above, the regional haze regulations promulgated in 40 CFR
51.308 allow credit for reductions achieved after the baseline date of
the SIP (2002), irrespective of any recommendations to the contrary in
the draft Economic Incentives Program Guidance.
    Comment: Sierra Club comments that, ``the emission limits proposed
by Wisconsin also apply the BART-level emission reductions to a faulty
`baseline.' * * * First, Wisconsin's baseline relies on an unreasonable
assumption that the boilers always operate at the maximum heat input
during any 30-day period or annual period between 2002-2004. [As a
result,] boilers B26 and B27 will rarely, if ever, actually be required
to meet the control efficiencies determined to represent BART. * * *
Furthermore, because the facility operated more and emitted more in
2002-2004 than in recent years, using a baseline from a decade ago is
unrepresentative of more recent operations.'' Sierra Club provided
various calculations to illustrate its point that current operations
cause substantially lower emissions, so that deriving a limit from
emissions in 2002-2004 yields an inflated limit that requires
substantially less control than BART. Similarly, Sierra Club objects to
the derivation of a monthly emission limit from the peak operating rate
rather than from a more representative operating rate. Sierra Club
recommends instead that EPA ``require that the boilers B26 and B27
comply with a percent reduction [limit] through a weighted average of
fuel input into each boiler.''
    Response: EPA believes that Wisconsin has made a reasonable choice
in formulating its limits on Georgia-Pacific's SO2 and
NOX emissions as mass emission limits governing the
emissions of all the boilers in the facility. While the facility's
current emissions are lower than the emissions during the baseline
period, EPA's regional haze rule allows credit for such reductions,
insofar as the reductions contribute to mitigating regional haze.
Wisconsin reasonably based its limits on the peak baseline emission
levels rather than average emission levels, since the State must set a
limit that requires continuous compliance and the limit must be a level
that can be achieved even at peak operating rates. EPA agrees that a
limit defined as a weighted average of the intended emission factor
(e.g., in pounds per million British Thermal Units for each boiler)
times the applicable boiler's heat input would also be an appropriate
form for the limit, but EPA finds Wisconsin's formulation of its limit
to be fully approvable and fully adequate as well.
    Comment: Sierra Club comments that EPA should have required further
control at the non-BART boilers at Georgia-Pacific, for purposes of
achieving reasonable progress in mitigating visibility impairment.
    Response: Since the non-BART boilers by definition are not required
to install or operate BART-level controls, the reasonableness of
control at the non-BART boilers at Georgia-Pacific is judged according
to the same criteria as control at other facilities. EPA believes that
Wisconsin has mandated sufficient emission reductions to address the
requirements for reasonable progress.

Comments by NPS

    Comment: NPS states, ``Boiler B25 ceased operation in 2008. WDNR
and EPA propose to allow the combined baseline emissions to include
emissions from boiler B25 that has not operated for three years, as
well as boilers B26, B27, and B28. However, in its September 2011
letter to WDNR, EPA commented that including emissions from the non-
operational boiler B25 in the combined emissions limit would allow less
effective controls of the BART boilers.''
    Response: As Wisconsin explains in its response to comments, while
Georgia-Pacific ceased operation of boiler B24 in 2004, it has only
suspended operation of boiler B25, pending resolution of questions
regarding whether the requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule
apply to this boiler. EPA then found, on May 2, 2011, that the boiler
was exempt from requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, so that
the company no longer had this disincentive for operating this boiler.
While this issue was being resolved, Georgia-Pacific had relatively
constant total boiler use but shifted load from boiler B25 to its other
boilers. Now that this issue is resolved, representative operation of
Georgia-Pacific's boilers may be considered to include operation of
boiler B25. For this reason, EPA considers boiler B25 (unlike B24) to
be a source for which the baseline emissions may reasonably be included
in determining a collective limit on emissions of operating boilers at
Georgia-Pacific.
    Comment: NPS asserts that, ``Controls on boiler B28 are warranted
for reasonable progress because the northern Class I areas impacted by
Wisconsin's emissions are not meeting or just meeting the uniform rate
of progress for visibility improvement. The BART and reasonable
progress levels of control should be 95% for sulfur dioxide and 75-85%
for nitrogen dioxide.''
    Response: The non-BART boilers at Georgia-Pacific are a few among
many boilers in Wisconsin that warrant consideration for control. The
Georgia-Pacific boilers warrant review under the same criteria as the
other boilers in the State. Wisconsin reviewed the information
generated by the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO),
addressing the factors pertinent for judging potentially reasonable
measures, and concluded that additional control of industrial,
commercial, and institutional boilers was not a reasonable measure at
this time. This conclusion implicitly applies to the non-BART boilers
at Georgia-Pacific as well as to other boilers in the State. Wisconsin
will reassess the reasonableness of control of this category of boilers
in a regional haze plan for a future implementation period.
    Comment: NPS ``disagree[s] with Wisconsin's and EPA's proposal to
approve four different combinations of SO2 and
NOX emissions limits as BART for the combined stack and to
allow Georgia-Pacific to select by July 15, 2013, which emissions
limits to meet. We are not aware of any other situation in the country
where EPA proposes to allow a source to meet one of multiple emissions
limits. * * * In the approved Plan, the more stringent limits each for
SO2 and for NOX should be determined to be BART
and less stringent alternative emissions limits should not be
permitted.''
    Response: The administrative order that EPA proposed to approve
identifies four potential sets of emission limits and specifies a
process by which one of these sets of limits shall be identified by
July 15, 2013, as the enforceable limits

for Georgia-Pacific. The ``baseline'' limits were derived independently
for SO2 and for NOX based on baseline emissions
for the four operating (or potentially operating) boilers minus the
emission reductions expected from BART controls on the BART boilers
minus a reduction for ``environmental benefit.'' EPA found these limits
to satisfy the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) for providing
greater reasonable progress in mitigating visibility impairment than
direct application of BART limits, and so EPA found these limits to
satisfy the BART requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e). EPA then examined
the three alternative sets of limits submitted by Wisconsin. The intent
of the State was to establish equivalent alternatives, by setting
increased NOX emission limits and setting SO2
emission limits that were reduced by an amount equal to twice the
amount by which the NOX limits were increased. The three
alternatives differ only in the magnitude of the NOX limit
increases and the associated SO2 limit decreases. In EPA's
view, the modeling submitted by Wisconsin justifies the State's view
that the three alternative sets of limits could be expected to provide
at least approximately the same degree of visibility protection as the
baseline limits. From this, EPA concluded that any of the four sets of
limits that may be selected would provide better visibility protection
than would be obtained with direct application of BART limits on the
BART sources. While states do not usually identify and submit, and EPA
does not usually approve, alternative sets of limits, EPA believes in
this case that Wisconsin has provided sufficient justification for each
of the alternatives. EPA is assured that a single set of limits will be
unambiguously identified as the applicable limits within a sufficiently
short period of time (by July 15, 2013, well before the January 1, 2016
compliance date) and thus is approving this approach.
    Comment: NPS observes that Wisconsin's determination of whether its
EGUs warranted tighter particulate matter (PM) limits was based on
actual emissions rather than allowable emissions. NPS provided a table
comparing actual PM emission rates to permissible PM emission rates,
indicating that the applicable emission limits are in most cases
substantially higher than actual emission rates. NPS believes that
Wisconsin's modeling is an inadequate justification for avoiding a full
five-factor review of BART with respect to PM. NPS suggests that
Wisconsin could satisfactorily justify avoiding a full five-factor
analysis either by demonstrating (with revised modeling) that allowable
PM emission rates have minimal visibility impact or by revising PM
limits to reflect current actual emissions.
    Response: EPA believes that Wisconsin has adequately justified its
conclusion that its limits for PM emissions from EGUs satisfy BART
requirements. First, Wisconsin's findings are consistent with findings
by MRPO and findings by other states that even the higher allowable
levels of PM emissions are unlikely to cause significant visibility
impairment, as a result of the dispersion of PM that occurs over the
distances from the EGUs and the Class I areas. Second, Wisconsin's PM
limits, despite being well above actual controlled emission levels in
most cases, are arguably tight enough to require the companies to
reduce PM emissions to levels that are insignificant from a visibility
perspective. Wisconsin did note that one facility complying with
applicable limits was emitting relatively large quantities of PM;
Wisconsin reduced this facility's allowable PM emissions. EPA is
satisfied that all of Wisconsin's EGUs can be expected to emit
quantities of PM that are de minimis for visibility purposes.
    Comment: NPS comments that limits should be based on more recent
data that better represent the current operations. These more recent
data suggest use of a baseline with significantly lower emissions.
    Response: The regional haze rule authorizes states to determine
limits based on emissions during the baseline period, irrespective of
subsequent emission reductions. The subsequent emission reductions
would be considered creditable emission reductions that needn't result
in calculation of lower emission limits. The most significant change in
emissions over that period has been the result of the use of fuel with
lower sulfur content. These reductions are creditable, and Wisconsin is
not required to use a baseline that is reduced to reflect these
reductions.
    Comment: NPS takes note of EPA's finding ``that emissions limits of
2,340 [tons per year (tpy)] of SO2 and 977 tpy of
NOX are [BART] * * * EPA then goes on to propose that a
SO2 limit as low as 1,250 tpy and a NOX limit as
high as 1,522 tpy are also [BART].'' NPS continues, ``If EPA believes
that 1,250 tpy is BART for SO2 then it should not allow
Georgia-Pacific to emit 2,340 tpy under any circumstance. Likewise, if
EPA believes that 977 tpy is BART for NOX, then it should
not allow Georgia-Pacific to emit 1,522 tpy under any circumstance.''
    Response: Wisconsin defines BART in terms of control equipment that
achieves specified levels of control of SO2 and
NOX emissions from boilers B26 and B27. These limits do not
define BART per se; instead, these limits, which also limit emissions
from two boilers that are not required to have BART control, are
designed to satisfy BART requirements by requiring emission reductions
that would yield better visibility protection than would be obtained by
requiring BART alone. The limits of 2,340 tpy of SO2 and 977
tpy of NOX represent Wisconsin's ``baseline'' 12-month
rolling emission limits. The limits of 1,250 tpy of SO2 and
1,522 tpy of NOX represent Wisconsin's ``Alternative 3'' 12-
month rolling emission limits. In each case, the limits reflect a set
of control measures that EPA finds to provide better visibility
protection than would be obtained from direct application of the
measures determined to represent BART. Requiring Georgia-Pacific to
meet the Alternative 3 SO2 limits and the baseline
NOX limits would of course also provide better visibility
protection, but such an approach is not necessary to meet BART
requirements.
    Comment: NPS states, ``Emission limits must reflect the best level
of `continuous emission reduction,' and the proposed mass cap limits
would allow a very high lb/mmBtu emission rate during periods of low
utilization.''
    Response: Wisconsin's emission limits apply at all times and
therefore require continuous emission reduction. EPA allows states to
express limits in various forms, including in the form of mass limits,
as adopted by Wisconsin, as well as in the form of emission rate
limits, as urged by NPS. Wisconsin has adopted a reasonable limit,
which was designed to be achievable with BART level control even during
periods of maximum plant utilization. Given the air pollution control
equipment that these limits will require Georgia-Pacific to install,
EPA expects significant emission reductions at all times.
    Comment: NPS comments, ``EPA should not allow the source to mix-
and-match to find the least stringent combination for each situation.''
NPS quotes from an EPA letter to Wisconsin: ``If Wisconsin wishes to
pursue 30-day averaging, in combination with an annual emissions cap,
the State must provide justification.'' NPS then comments that, ``EPA
has not explained why it now accepts the approaches that it recently
rejected.''

    Response: Wisconsin is no longer pursuing the variable limit
approach that EPA was referring to in the letter the commenter is
citing. Georgia-Pacific has an initial option to choose among four
defined sets of limits, each of which has been found acceptable. To be
precise, Wisconsin's administrative order establishes a baseline set of
limits that apply by default, but the order also provides that one of
three identified alternative sets of limits becomes the enforceable
limits if Georgia-Pacific selects the alternative by July 15, 2013. The
selected limits, or, in absence of a selection, the baseline limits,
are permanently enforceable unless Wisconsin justifies limit revisions
through a SIP revision process. Thus, EPA is not accepting an approach
``it recently rejected.''
    Wisconsin has provided suitable justification for using a 30-day
average limit. Regional haze is measured as an average over 20 percent
of the days of a year (the 20 percent worst days or the 20 percent best
days), and so expressing the emissions limit as a 30-day limit,
supplemented by a 12-month limit that further limits average emission
controls, suitably limits emissions consistent with the averaging time
of the metric being addressed.
    Comment: NPS objects that, ``EPA proposes to allow WDNR to take
advantage of the purported Stack S10 10 percent emission reduction more
than once.'' NPS states, ``while it is appropriate under EPA's Economic
Incentive Program to reduce allowable emissions by `10 percent for the
benefit of the environment,' it is not appropriate to use that same 10
percent reduction again to `arguably compensate for that uncertainty as
to how much the emissions from the BART boilers will be controlled.' ''
    Response: NPS provides no reason that the pertinent reduction in
the emission limit cannot serve multiple purposes. Arguably, the 10
percent reduction recommended in the Economic Incentive Program policy
is to assure that the economic incentive program provides environmental
benefit, notwithstanding the uncertainty regarding the extent to which
individual sources will be controlled. EPA guidance does not require
that Wisconsin reduce its emission limits to provide environmental
benefit and then reduce its emission limits further to address
uncertainty about which sources will reduce emissions by how much.
    Comment: NPS does not believe that EPA has properly supported a
conclusion that Wisconsin's long-term strategy provides for
satisfaction of RPGs. NPS notes differences between the visibility
projections of the Central Regional Air Partnership (CENRAP) given in
Minnesota's SIP and the projections of the MRPO that Wisconsin
presents. With either set of projections, ``The [RPGs] provides for
less annual progress towards the ultimate visibility goals than the
uniform rate of progress.''
    NPS notes comments it made to Wisconsin regarding an absence of a
four-factor analysis of potential emission control measures for
providing reasonable progress. NPS observes that Wisconsin responded by
providing an analysis of emissions divided by distance (``Q/d'') and by
noting significant emission reductions that have occurred beyond the
reductions originally expected in Wisconsin's regional haze plan, but
NPS finds that Wisconsin set no criteria for conducting a four-factor
review. In NPS' view, several sources in Wisconsin, including the non-
BART units at Georgia-Pacific, warrant consideration for further
controls for purposes of achieving reasonable progress. Finally, NPS
quotes EPA as finding that ``additional controls for [industrial,
commercial, and institutional (ICI) boilers] are not needed now,'' but
NPS believes that EPA has not justified this conclusion.
    Response: Wisconsin relied on information developed by the MRPO
that addressed the four factors to be considered in evaluating
reasonable measures for purposes of providing reasonable progress.
Wisconsin evaluated this information and concluded that the control
measure that warranted most consideration as a further measure was
control of ICI boilers. However, Wisconsin noted that EPA is exploring
setting limits on these facilities in conjunction with CSAPR. Regional
multi-state action on these sources would provide significantly more
benefit than action in Wisconsin alone. Wisconsin noted that the
limiting factor for providing further progress in addressing visibility
impairment was the time needed to define and implement further
controls. Wisconsin noted that EPA is still evaluating the potential
for further reductions from ICI boilers. The State concludes that
further reductions from this sector cannot reasonably be required in a
timely fashion for the long-term strategy of this implementation
period. Wisconsin further concluded that other sources categories are
less appropriate to regulate in this long-term strategy. EPA concurs
with Wisconsin's conclusion, finding that the State has conducted
adequate analysis and presented suitable justification that its long-
term strategy provides adequate contribution to meeting applicable
RPGs.
    Comment: NPS quotes Wisconsin as ``assert[ing] that the rate of
emission reduction projected for Wisconsin sources, compared to those
of Michigan and Minnesota, shows that Wisconsin is meeting its share of
visibility improvement. Figures 6 and 7 * * * show that Wisconsin
emissions, using the `on the books' inventory, decrease at a similar or
greater rate than Michigan and Minnesota emissions.'' NPS observes,
``However, inspection of Figures 6 and 7 finds that, while Wisconsin is
predicting greater reductions in NOX than MI and MN, it
falls short of the SO2 reductions estimated in MN. WDNR
should have conducted a valid four factor analysis of specific sources
to determine what emissions controls are reasonable.''
    Response: NPS correctly characterizes the information in Figures 6
and 7. However, the critical test is whether Wisconsin has provided
``all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the progress goal for the [affected Class I areas].''
(40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii)) Irrespective of modest differences in the
emission reductions achieved in different states, Wisconsin's data show
that Wisconsin is implementing measures similar to those in other
neighboring states. Based on Wisconsin's submission, EPA concludes that
Wisconsin has in place measures that will allow it to meet applicable
RPGs.

WDNR

    Comment: ``WDNR believes that U.S. EPA inadvertently mislabeled the
control technologies for NOX and SO2 which WDNR *
* * determined to be BART at the Georgia-Pacific facility in Green Bay.
Accordingly, WDNR requests that U.S. EPA make the following corrections
to the BART control technologies listed in the proposed approval:
change `wet scrubbing' to `dry scrubbing' for SO2 BART; and
change `recirculating selective catalytic reduction' to `regenerative
selective catalytic reduction' for NOX BART.''
    Response: EPA acknowledges and corrects these errors. As noted by
WDNR, the technologies that it determined to be BART are dry scrubbing
for SO2 and regenerative selective catalytic reduction for
NOX.

Georgia-Pacific

    Comment: Georgia-Pacific notes the same errors that WDNR identified
in EPA's description of the control technology found to be BART.

Specifically, Georgia-Pacific quotes from WDNR's submission: ``The
final BART determination for SO2 reflects fuel switching of
petroleum coke from BART boilers B26 and B27, followed by circulating
bed dry scrubbing technology at 93 percent control.'' Georgia-Pacific
quotes further from WDNR's submittal: ``For B27, a cyclone boiler, the
BART determination for NOX reflects overfire air combustion
modifications followed by Regenerative Selective Catalytic Reduction
(RSCR) to yield an 85 percent long-term NOX Control
requirement.''
    Response: As requested, EPA is correcting the description of the
technology determined to be BART to include, in part, dry scrubbing
technology and regenerative selective catalytic reduction.
    Comment: Georgia-Pacific supports EPA's findings regarding the
adequacy of its limits to satisfy BART requirements. The company in
particular agrees with EPA's position that the limits established for
the sum of emissions across all operating boilers at the facility
provide additional environmental benefits, as recommended in the EPA
Draft Economic Incentive Policy Guidance.
    Response: EPA acknowledges Georgia-Pacific's support for its
proposed action.
    Comment: Georgia-Pacific ``supports WDNR's simplified approach for
establishing a `not-to-exceed' emissions curve (line) instead of a mass
cap established by a single point or a set of three sets [of]
alternative emission limits.'' Georgia-Pacific notes that EPA in its
notice of proposed rulemaking ``agrees that different pairs of
SO2 and NOX emission limits can provide
equivalent visibility improvement.'' Georgia-Pacific then notes that
WDNR in its submission ``supports a more simplified approach'' in which
Georgia-Pacific ``does not need to elect one set of SO2 and
NOX mass caps,'' but instead allows inter-pollutant trading,
using ``the established 2:1 trading ratio'' (i.e., requiring two tons
less SO2 emissions for each ton more of NOX
emissions), such that Georgia-Pacific may comply with any combination
of SO2 and NOX emissions that meet an equation
defining combinations with equivalent benefits. Accordingly, Georgia-
Pacific envisions a graph of the SO2 and NOX
limits in the baseline limits and the three alternative sets of limits,
and the company observes that these four points on this imagined graph
lie along a straight line. ``We believe that equivalent improvements in
visibility exist for any emission limit set that also lies on the
line.'' Georgia-Pacific quotes from WDNR's submittal: ``This approach
allows the control levels to be varied over time based on the most
effective option at that time. Further, this approach does not require
an election of one set of mass caps by July 15, 2013, and or SIP
approval for mass caps identified at a later time.''
    Georgia-Pacific concludes, ``The compliance date for BART controls
in DNR's SIP is December 31, 2015. We request the SIP allow the state
flexibility in granting alternate emission limits through December 31,
2015 through amendment of a state-authorized order or other mechanism
deemed appropriate by WDNR. Between today and December 31, 2015, these
boilers require other controls to meet 40 CFR 63 DDDDD (Industrial
Boiler MACT). With the ultimate Boiler MACT rule requirements still
uncertain, adjustments to the alternate BART emission limits may be
necessary to provide a reasonable solution to comply with both
overlapping requirements.''
    Response: Wisconsin's submission identifies a baseline set of
limits and three alternative sets of limits, with provision for
Georgia-Pacific either to become subject to the baseline set of limits
or to choose by July 15, 2013 to become subject to one of the three
alternative sets of limits. The Wisconsin submission does not include
any limits based on the more flexible approach that Georgia-Pacific
suggests, and so these comments are not directly germane to Wisconsin's
submission or to EPA's proposed rule. Furthermore, EPA does not have
the latitude to approve a hypothetical SIP revision that differs from
the State submission by including the requested flexibility.
    A similar issue arose in the context of Wisconsin's July 2011 draft
SIP. Therefore, EPA's comments to Wisconsin in response to that draft
SIP also serve to respond to these comments. In a letter to Wisconsin
dated September 16, 2011, EPA stated:

    ``While EPA's regional haze rule offers some flexibility for
establishing combinations of particular control measures that
provide more or less control of particular pollutants, the rule does
not provide for states to adopt limits that provide for a range of
control levels for one pollutant that is dependent on the level of
emissions of another pollutant. Georgia-Pacific can expect to be
required to reduce SO2 emissions substantially over the
next several years. Georgia-Pacific will likely need to install
emission control equipment to satisfy the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) regulation for industrial boilers, and the
SO2 emission reductions will likely also be necessary to
provide for attainment of the SO2 national ambient air
quality standard. If Wisconsin allows these SO2 emission
reductions (or reductions from reduced boiler usage) to replace the
NOX reductions that would otherwise be required as BART,
it is quite plausible that implementation of these reductions would
allow Georgia-Pacific to implement no reductions of NOX
emissions at all. In contrast, the baseline scenario involving
standard limits requiring BART would require NOX emission
control regardless of whether extraneous factors require or
otherwise yield SO2 emissions below BART levels. While
Wisconsin is comparing visibility levels with various potential
emission scenarios against visibility in 2002 to 2004, EPA is
comparing visibility under these scenarios against visibility that
would be expected under a standard scenario in which BART limits
apply directly to the BART units. Consequently, Wisconsin's proposed
approach must be considered to authorize Georgia-Pacific to cause
more visibility impairment than would be authorized under an
approach that applied standard BART limits.''

Forest Service

    Comment: The Forest Service referenced the comments it made to
Wisconsin regarding draft regional haze plans. In particular, it cites
letters to Wisconsin dated March 4, 2011, and July 27, 2011. The Forest
Service states, ``We do not believe the changes made address the
concerns in our previous letters.'' The Forest Service encloses copies
of the previous letters, but provides no discussion regarding which
concerns remain unaddressed. The letters address BART for Georgia-
Pacific (generally supporting Wisconsin's January 13, 2011 draft and
objecting to Wisconsin's July 1, 2011 draft), the determination that
the BART requirement does not apply to other sources in the State other
than EGUs, and the provisions in the long-term strategy for achieving
RPGs.
    Response: Wisconsin's regional haze plan includes responses to
comments, including responses to both comment letters from the Forest
Service. Implicit in EPA's proposal to approve Wisconsin's plan is a
finding that Wisconsin has satisfactorily addressed the comments it
received. In general, Wisconsin modified its BART determination for
Georgia-Pacific in response to some comments and justified its draft
determination with respect to other comments. Wisconsin justified its
determination of which sources were subject to a BART requirement, and
Wisconsin justified the features of its long-term strategy as
implementing its share of reductions for achieving RPGs. In absence of
identification of particular issues that remain of concern and
explanation of the Forest Service's disagreements with EPA's proposed
rule and with Wisconsin's responses to its comments,

EPA continues to believe that Wisconsin has appropriately addressed
comments by the Forest Service.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Wisconsin's regional haze plan as satisfying the
applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.308. The plan identifies affected
Class I areas, calculates the baseline and natural visibility,
establishes RPGs, relies on CSAPR to address BART requirements for nine
EGUs that are subject to BART, mandates BART measures for Georgia-
Pacific, establishes a Long-Term Strategy for making reasonable
progress toward visibility goals, and provides a monitoring strategy.
    A key element of Wisconsin's plan is an administrative consent
order establishing emission limits satisfying BART requirements for
Georgia-Pacific. Wisconsin issued this order, Administrative Consent
Order Number 405032870, on June 8, 2012. This Order provides a baseline
set of emission limits and three alternative sets of emission limits,
and provides a selection process to be completed by June 15, 2013, such
that one of these sets of emission limits for Georgia-Pacific shall
become permanent and State enforceable. The Georgia-Pacific BART
emission limits will become Federally enforceable with this SIP
approval.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 9, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: June 15, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(124) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (124) On January 18, 2012, supplemented on June 7, 2012, Wisconsin
submitted Wisconsin's regional haze plan to EPA. This regional haze
plan includes an administrative consent order specifying limits
satisfying best available retrofit requirements for Georgia-Pacific
Consumer Products, L.P. This plan also includes a long-term strategy
with emission reductions to provide Wisconsin's contribution toward
achievement of reasonable progress goals at Class I areas affected by
emissions from Wisconsin sources.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Administrative Consent Order Number 405032870, issued by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources on June 8, 2012, to Georgia-
Pacific Consumer Products LP.
    (B) Construction Permit Number 11-POY-123, issued by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources on November 11, 2011, to Wisconsin
Power & Light for its Columbia Energy Center.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-19137 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20405-20408]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08702]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80525; File No. SR-ISE-2017-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delay the
Implementation of Simultaneous Complex Order Auctions

April 25, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 17, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been 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

    The Exchange proposes to delay implementation of simultaneous
complex order auctions in the same complex strategy in connection with
a system migration to Nasdaq INET technology.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, 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
    ISE offers various complex order auctions that are designed to
provide members an opportunity to trade and to potentially receive
price improvement for complex orders that are entered on the Exchange,
including an ``Exposure'' auction pursuant to Rule 722(b)(3)(iii), a
Complex Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'') pursuant to Supplementary
Material .09 to Rule 723, a Complex Facilitation Mechanism pursuant to
Supplementary Material .08 to Rule 716, and Complex Solicited Order
Mechanism also pursuant to Supplementary Material .08 to Rule 716.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to delay implementation
of simultaneous complex order auctions in the same complex strategy in
connection with a system migration to Nasdaq INET technology.\3\ No
other changes to the complex order auction mechanisms are being
proposed, and these auctions will continue to function as they do
today, with the exception

that after the migration to the INET platform a member will not be
permitted to initiate a complex order auction in a particular complex
strategy if another complex order auction is already ongoing in that
complex strategy. With this proposed change, the Exchange will handle
multiple complex order auctions in the same complex strategy in a
manner that is consistent with implementation on other options
exchanges,\4\ and will reintroduce simultaneous complex order auctions
in the same complex strategy at a later date within one year of this
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80432 (April 11,
2017 (SR-ISE-2017-03) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, to Amend Various Rules in Connection
with a System Migration to Nasdaq INET Technology). INET is the
proprietary core technology utilized across Nasdaq's global markets
and utilized on The NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM''), NASDAQ PHLX
LLC (``Phlx''), NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX''), and introduced recently on
Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX''). The migration of ISE to the INET
architecture would result in higher performance, scalability, and
more robust architecture.
    \4\ See infra notes 6-8 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, only one PIM may be ongoing at any given time in a series or
complex strategy, and PIMs are not permitted to queue or overlap in any
manner; \5\ however, there are no similar restrictions for non-PIM
auctions, and any such auctions may be processed concurrently,
including in parallel with a PIM auction. For example, while the
trading system would prohibit a member from entering a PIM auction when
another PIM auction is already ongoing in a complex strategy, if there
was an Exposure auction already running a member would be able to start
a PIM, Facilitation, Solicitation, or even another Exposure auction in
that strategy. This allows maximum ability of members to express their
trading intent on the Exchange by permitting multiple complex order
auctions in the same complex strategy to be ongoing at any particular
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Supplementary Material .04 to Rule 723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, other options exchanges do not offer the same
functionality for simultaneous complex order auctions in a complex
strategy provided by the Exchange. The Exchange's affiliate, Nasdaq
Phlx, LLC (``Phlx''), for example, does not allow the initiation of a
Complex Order Live Auction (``COLA'') when there is already a Price
Improvement XL (``PIXL'') auction already ongoing in the strategy.\6\
Similarly, MIAX can limit the frequency of Complex Auctions by
establishing a minimum time period between such auctions,\7\ and
permits only one Complex Auction per strategy to be in progress at any
particular time.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Phlx Rule 1098(e)(2). Phlx would also similarly not
allow a PIXL auction to be initiated if there is a COLA already
ongoing in the complex strategy.
    \7\ See MIAX Rule 518(d)(2).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 78620 (August 18,
2016), 81 FR 58769, 58799 (August 25, 2016) (Notice); 79072 (October
7, 2016), 81 FR 71131 (October 14, 2016)) (Approval) (SR-MIAX-2016-
26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to give the Exchange additional time to develop and test
this functionality, the Exchange proposes to delay the implementation
of simultaneous complex order auctions in the same complex strategy in
connection with the migration of the trading system to the INET
platform. With the proposed change, only one complex order auction may
be ongoing at any given time in a complex strategy, and such auctions
will not queue or overlap in any manner. For PIM, Facilitation, or
Solicitation auctions, the Exchange will reject a complex order auction
of the same or different auction type in a complex strategy that is
initiated while another complex order auction is ongoing in that
complex strategy.\9\ In the case where a complex order auction has
already been initiated in a complex strategy, an Exposure auction for
an order for that strategy will not be initiated and the order will be
processed as a complex order that is not marked for price
improvement,\10\ instead of rejecting the complex order. If the member
requested the order to be cancelled after the exposure period, then the
complex order will be cancelled back to the member. Simultaneous
complex order auctions in the same complex strategy will be
subsequently rolled out on the INET trading system within one year of
the date of filing of this proposed rule change. The Exchange is
staging the re-platform of its trading system to provide maximum
benefit to its members while also ensuring a successful rollout. This
delay in implementing simultaneous complex order auctions in the same
complex strategy will provide the Exchange additional time to test and
implement this functionality on the INET platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The rejection message sent to the member will contain an
appropriate reason code indicating that the auction was rejected due
to another ongoing complex order auction in the same complex
strategy.
    \10\ Currently, an Exposure order auction is automatically
initiated when a member submits an eligible complex order that is
marked for price improvement. See Rule 722(b)(3)(iii). Pursuant to
Rule 722(b)(3)(iii), complex orders may be marked for price
improvement, and if so marked, the complex order may be exposed on
the complex order book for a period of up to one-second before being
automatically executed. Members can also request that their complex
orders be cancelled after the exposure period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that implementing simultaneous complex order
auctions in the same complex strategy at a later date will not have a
significant impact on members as it is rare for multiple complex order
auctions in a complex strategy to be ongoing at a particular time. This
is particularly the case today due to the recent decrease in the
Exchange's auction timers to 100 milliseconds.\11\ The Exchange notes
that simultaneous complex order auctions in a strategy only occur
approximately 0.5% of the time that an auction runs on the Exchange.
The Exchange therefore believes that the impact on members will be
insignificant, and if a member does have auction eligible interest to
execute when another complex order auction is ongoing, the member can
either re-submit that order to the Exchange, after the auction has
concluded, or submit it to another options market that provides similar
auction functionality. In this regard, the Exchange notes that its
market data feeds provide information to members about when a complex
order auction is ongoing, and members can therefore use this
information to make appropriate routing decisions based on applicable
market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79733 (January 4,
2017), 82 FR 3055 (January 10, 2017) (SR-ISE-2016-26) (permitting
the Exchange to determine auction timers for PIM, Facilitation, and
Solicitation within a range of 100 milliseconds and one second).
Each of these auction timers are currently set to 100 milliseconds--
i.e., the bottom of the range approved in the filing. Exposure
auctions can be any duration up to one second (See Rule 722(b)(3)),
and are also currently set to 100 milliseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The proposed rule change will be implemented on the Exchange's new
INET trading system, which is scheduled to launch in Q2 2017.\12\ The
INET migration will take place on a symbol by symbol basis \13\ as
specified by the Exchange in a notice to be provided to Members.\14\
The Exchange is proposing to implement this rule change on the INET
platform as the symbols migrate to that platform. As such, the proposed
change will be rolled out in symbols as they migrate to the INET
platform, at which point only one complex order auction will be
permitted to be ongoing in a complex strategy. Members will still be
able to use all of the Exchange's complex order auctions, provided that
there is not another auction already ongoing in the complex strategy.
The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert to all members
notifying them that simultaneous complex order auctions will no longer
be available with the symbol migration to INET. The Exchange proposes
to launch the simultaneous complex order auction functionality on the
INET platform within one year from the date

of filing of this rule change to be announced in an Options Trader
Alert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 3.
    \13\ When a symbol is migrated to INET, all strikes and
strategies will migrate with that symbol.
    \14\ The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert prior to
the migration and will specify the dates that symbols will migrate
to the INET platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\15\ In
particular, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\16\ because it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act as it will provide additional time for the Exchange to
rebuild this technology on the INET platform. By delaying the
implementation of simultaneous complex order auctions in a complex
strategy, the Exchange will have additional time to test and implement
this functionality. The Exchange will provide members with ample notice
of the delayed implementation of this functionality in an Options
Trader Alert, and will continue to provide notifications to members to
ensure clarity about the availability of this functionality with the
symbol migration. The Exchange will also issue an Options Trader Alert
indicating when simultaneous complex order auctions in a complex
strategy will become available on the INET platform.
    The Exchange does not anticipate that the proposed rule change will
have any meaningful impact with respect to members' ability to execute
complex order auctions as similar restrictions are already in place on
other options exchanges.\17\ Simultaneous complex order auctions in a
complex strategy are rare, and therefore the vast majority of the time
members will be able to enter a complex order auction notwithstanding
the temporary delay of the implementation of concurrent auctions. With
respect to Exposure auctions, in the case where another complex order
auction in the same strategy has already been initiated, the Exchange
proposes to allow the complex order to continue to be processed without
an auction in the same manner as complex orders that are not marked for
price improvement. If the member has marked the complex order to be
cancelled after the exposure period, however, the Exchange will cancel
the order back to the member consistent with that instruction. If the
member is not able to initiate a complex order auction because another
complex order auction in the same strategy has been initiated, the
member may either re-initiate the auction after the auction concludes
or submit the order to another options market that offers similar
functionality. Thus, members will be able to continue to express their
trading intent regardless of the proposed delay in concurrent auction
functionality. When the simultaneous complex order auction
functionality is rebuilt and appropriately tested, the Exchange will
then reintroduce this functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra notes 6-8 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\18\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change is designed to prevent simultaneous complex order auctions
in a complex strategy in connection with the migration of the trading
system to INET technology, and is not designed to have any significant
competitive impact. Similar restrictions are already in place on other
options exchanges.\19\ The Exchange does not believe that the proposed
rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition because
all Members uniformly will not be able to initiate simultaneous
auctions in the same complex order strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \19\ See supra notes 6-8 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \20\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2017-33 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-ISE-2017-33. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
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-ISE-2017-33 and should be submitted on or before May 22,
2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08702 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 171 (Thursday, September 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53318-53319]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0010]

Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Open Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board)
will meet on September 22-23, 2015, in Emmitsburg, Maryland. The
meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will take place on Tuesday, September 22, 8:30 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time and on Wednesday, September 23, 8:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Please note that the meeting
may close early if the Board has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Emergency Training
Center, 16825 South Seton Avenue, Building H, Room 300, Emmitsburg,
Maryland. Members of the public who wish to obtain details on how to
gain access to the facility and directions may contact Ruth MacPhail as
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by close of
business September 15, 2015. Picture identification is needed for
access. Members of the public may also participate by teleconference
and may contact Ruth MacPhail to obtain the call-in number and access
code. For information on services for individuals with disabilities or
to request special assistance, contact Ruth MacPhail as soon as
possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the Board as listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Comments must be submitted in
writing no later than September 15, 2015, must be identified by Docket
ID FEMA-2008-0010 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the docket number
in the subject line of the message.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Ruth MacPhail, 16825 South Seton
Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the Docket ID for this action.
Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received by the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, click on ``Advanced Search,'' then enter
``FEMA-2008-0010'' in the ``By Docket ID'' box, then select ``FEMA''
under ``By Agency,'' and then click ``Search.'' Meeting materials will
be posted at http://www.usfa.fema.gov/nfa/about/bov.shtm by September
15, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Alternate Designated Federal Officer: Kirby E. Kiefer, telephone
(301) 447-1117, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Logistical Information: Ruth MacPhail, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board of Visitors for the National Fire
Academy (Board) will meet on Tuesday, September 22, and Wednesday,
September 23, 2015. The meeting will be open to the public. Notice of
this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C. Appendix.

Purpose of the Board

    The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the
National Fire Academy (NFA) and advise the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States Fire
Administrator, on the operation of the NFA and any improvements therein
that the Board deems appropriate. In carrying out its responsibilities,
the Board examines NFA programs to determine whether these programs
further the basic missions that are approved by the Administrator of
FEMA, examines the physical plant of the NFA to determine the adequacy
of the NFA's facilities, and examines the funding levels for NFA
programs. The Board submits a written annual report through the United
States Fire Administrator to the Administrator of FEMA. The report
provides detailed comments and recommendations regarding the operation
of the NFA.

Agenda

    On the first day of the meeting, there will be five sessions, with
deliberations and voting at the end of each session as necessary. The
Board will also select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for Fiscal
Year 2016.
    1. The Board will receive updates on U.S. Fire Administration data,
research, and response support initiatives.
    2. The Board will then deliberate and vote on recommendations on
NFA program activities, including:
     The Managing Officer Program, a multiyear curriculum that
introduced emerging emergency services leaders to personal and
professional skills in change management, risk reduction, and adaptive
leadership; a progress report on this new program will be discussed;
     Report of the Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP)
Symposium held September 10-12, 2015; an annual event for alumni which
recognizes outstanding applied research completed by present EFOP
participants, recognizes recent EFOP graduates, provides high-quality
presentations offered by private and public sector representatives,
facilitates networking between EFOP graduates, promotes further dialog
between EFOP graduates and U.S. Fire Administrator and National Fire
Academy faculty and staff.
     Curriculum and Instruction program activities;
     Status of Staff Vacancies and Challenges;
     Resident class enrollment increase.
     Report of the Annual National Professional Development
Symposium and Support Initiatives, held June 10-12, 2015, which brought
national training and education audiences together for their annual
conference and support initiatives.
    3. The Board will then discuss deferred maintenance and capital
improvements on the National Emergency Training Center campus and
Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request/Budget Planning.
    4. The Board will then receive annual ethics training.
    5. The Board will also conduct classroom visits.
    On the second day, the Board will continue classroom visits, as
well as tour the campus facility. The Board will then engage in an
annual report writing session. Deliberations or voting may occur as
needed during the report writing session.
    There will be a 10-minute comment period after each agenda item;
each speaker will be given no more than 2 minutes to speak. Please note
that the public comment period may end before the time indicated,
following the last call for comments. Contact Ruth MacPhail to register
as a speaker.

    Dated: August 28, 2015.
Terry P. Gladhill,
Executive Officer, National Fire Academy, United States Fire
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-21835 Filed 9-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-45-P