Page 1 of 2  Forwarded by Angela Hofmann/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 05/ 15/ 2004 10: 49 AM  Rick Westlund 05/ 14/ 2004 12: 47 PM To: Angela Hofmann, Ron Carlson/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, PatriciaA Johnson/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Nancy Vogel/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Peterj Smith/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: 2070 0074 OMB NOTICE OF ACTION Rick Westlund Office of Environmental Information ( 2822T) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Phone: ( 202) 566 1682 Fax: ( 202) 566 1639  Forwarded by Rick Westlund/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 05/ 14/ 2004 12: 47 PM  oira_ docket@ omb. eop. gov 05/ 14/ 2004 01: 13 PM To: actionnotices. prams@ epamail. epa. gov cc: Keith_ B._ Belton@ omb. eop. gov, Rick Westlund/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Susan Auby/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: 2070 0074 OMB NOTICE OF ACTION NOTICE OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ACTION Rick Westlund 05/ 14/ 2004 Office of Environmental Information ( 2822T) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Washington, DC 20460 In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB has taken the following action on your request for the extension of approval of an information collection received on 12/ 08/ 2003.

TITLE: Recordkeeping Requirements for Certified Applications Using 1080 Collars for Livestock Protection AGENCY FORM NUMBER( S): 1249.07 Page 2 of 2 ACTION : APPROVED WITHOUT CHANGE OMB NO.: 2070 0074 EXPIRATION DATE: 05/ 31/ 2007 BURDEN: RESPONSES HOURS COSTS($, 000) Previous 84 3,353 0 New 40 1,753 0 Difference  44  1,600 0 Program Change 0 0 Adjustment  1,600 0 TERMS OF CLEARANCE: None _____________________________________________________________ OMB Authorizing Official Title Donald R. Arbuckle Deputy Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 190 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61673-61680]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20516]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0664; FRL-10013-18-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2015 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
Wisconsin regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to
ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality
management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities
under the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2018-0664 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What is EPA's analysis of this SIP submission?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This type of
SIP submission is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.''
These submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity in some of the language of
CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret
these provisions in the specific context of acting on infrastructure
SIP submissions. EPA has previously provided comprehensive guidance on
the application of these provisions through our September 13, 2013
Infrastructure SIP Guidance and through regional actions on
infrastructure submissions (EPA's 2013 Guidance).\1\ Unless otherwise
noted below, we are following that existing approach in acting on this
submission. In addition, in the context of acting on such
infrastructure submissions, EPA evaluates the submitting state's SIP
for facial compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, not
for the state's implementation of its SIP.\2\ EPA has other authority
to address any issues concerning a state's implementation of the rules,
regulations, consent orders, etc. that comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its
approach to address them in our September 13, 2013 Infrastructure
SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including EPA's prior
action on Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP to address the 2012 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS (81 FR 95043 (December
27, 2016)).
    \2\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in
Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933 (Aug.
30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's analysis of this SIP submission?

    Wisconsin provided a detailed synopsis of how various components of
its SIP meet each of the applicable requirements in section 110(a)(2)
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, as applicable. The following review evaluates
the State's submission.

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits
and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for
compliance, and other related matters. EPA has long interpreted
emission limits and control measures for attaining the standards as
being due when nonattainment planning requirements are due.\3\ In the
context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing
SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating
whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the
implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., EPA's final rule on ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964 at 67034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Wisconsin Statutes (Wis. Stats.) 227 and 285, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) holds the authority to create
new rules and implement existing emission limits and controls.
Authority to monitor, update, and implement revisions to Wisconsin's
SIP, including revisions to emission limits and control measures as
necessary to meet NAAQS, is contained in Wis. Stats. 285.11-285.19.
Authority related to specific pollutants, including the establishment
of ambient air quality standards and increments, identification of
nonattainment areas, air resource allocations, and performance and
emissions standards, is contained in Wis. Stats. 285.21-285.29.
    Specifically, authority for WDNR to create new rules and
regulations is found in Wis. Stats. 227.11, 285.11, 285.17, and 285.21.
Wis. Stats. 227.11(2) expressly confers rulemaking authority to an
agency. Wis. Stats. 285.11(1) and (6) require that WDNR promulgate
rules and establish control strategies in order to prepare and
implement the SIP for the prevention, abatement, and control of air
pollution in Wisconsin. Wis. Stats. 285.17(1) requires WDNR to classify
sources or categories of sources that may cause or contribute to air
pollution, and Wis. Stats. 285.21(1) requires that WDNR promulgate
ambient air quality standards that are similar to the NAAQS.

    EPA's 2013 Guidance states that to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(A)
requirements, ``an air agency's submission should identify existing
EPA-approved SIP provisions or new SIP provisions that the air agency
has adopted and submitted for EPA approval that limit emissions of
pollutants relevant to the subject NAAQS, including precursors of the
relevant NAAQS pollutant where applicable.'' WDNR identified existing
controls and emission limits in the Wisconsin Administrative Code that
can be applied to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. These regulations include
controls and emission limits for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX), which are precursors to ozone. VOC as
an ozone precursor is regulated by Wisconsin Administrative Code
Chapters Natural Resources (NR) 419-425, and NOX as an ozone
precursor is regulated by NR 428.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve any new
provisions in NR 419-425 or NR 428. EPA is also not proposing to
approve or disapprove any existing state provisions or rules related to
start-up, shutdown or malfunction or director's discretion in the
context of section 110(a)(2)(A). EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met
the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    This section requires SIPs to provide for establishing and
operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing
ambient air quality data, and, upon request, make these data available
to EPA. EPA's review of a state's annual monitoring plan includes EPA's
determination that the state: (i) Monitors air quality at appropriate
locations throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal Reference
Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits data to
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, (iii) provides
EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned changes to
monitoring sites or the network plan.
    In accordance with 40 CFR part 53 and 40 CFR part 58, WDNR
continues to operate an air monitoring network that is used to
determine compliance with the NAAQS. WDNR enters air monitoring data
into AQS and provides EPA with prior notification when changes to its
monitoring network or plan are being considered. Further, WDNR submits
annual monitoring network plans to EPA. On October 2, 2019, EPA
approved the State's 2020 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan, including
the plan for ozone. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures;
Minor NSR; PSD

    This section requires SIPs to set forth a program providing for
enforcement of all SIP measures, and the regulation of construction of
new and modified stationary sources to meet New Source Review (NSR)
requirements under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160-
169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections 171-193)
addresses NNSR requirements. EPA's 2013 Guidance states that the NNSR
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) are generally outside the scope of
infrastructure SIPs; however, a state must provide for regulation of
minor sources and minor modifications (minor NSR).
1. Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
    A state's infrastructure SIP submission should identify the
statutes, regulations, or other provisions in the SIP that provide for
enforcement of emission limits and control measures.
    WDNR maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP
requirements. The Bureau of Air Management houses an active statewide
compliance and enforcement team that works in all geographic regions of
the State. WDNR refers actions as necessary to the Wisconsin Department
of Justice with the involvement of WDNR. Wis. Stats. 285.83 and Wis.
Stats. 285.87 provide WDNR with the authority to enforce violations and
assess penalties, to ensure that required measures are ultimately
implemented. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the enforcement of SIP
measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
2. Minor NSR
    An infrastructure SIP submission should identify the existing EPA-
approved SIP provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction
program that regulates emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutant.
    EPA approved Wisconsin's minor NSR program on January 18, 1995 (60
FR 3543); since that date, WDNR and EPA have relied on the existing
minor NSR program to ensure that new and modified sources not captured
by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. As stated in EPA's 2013 Guidance, the CAA
allows EPA to approve infrastructure SIP submissions that do not
implement the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. Therefore, EPA is not proposing
action on existing NSR Reform regulations for Wisconsin. EPA proposes
that Wisconsin has met the minor NSR requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
3. PSD
    The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the PSD
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i) PSD provisions that
explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone in the PSD
program; (ii) identification of precursors to PM2.5 \4\ and
the identification of PM2.5 and PM10 \5\
condensables in the PSD program; (iii) PM2.5 increments in
the PSD program; and (iv) greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting and the
``Tailoring Rule'' in the PSD program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, also referred to
as ``fine'' particles.
    \5\ PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers.
    \6\ In EPA's April 28, 2011 proposed rulemaking for
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS,
we stated that each state's PSD program must meet applicable
requirements for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD
permits (76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in EPA's
August 2, 2012 proposed rulemaking for infrastructure SIPs for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words,
if a state lacks provisions needed to adequately address
NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors,
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, PM2.5
increments, or the Federal GHG permitting thresholds, the provisions
of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a suitable PSD permitting program
must be considered not to be met irrespective of the NAAQS that
triggered the requirement to submit an infrastructure SIP, including
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some PSD requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C) overlap with
elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), section 110(a)(2)(E), and section
110(a)(2)(J). These links are discussed in the appropriate areas below.
a. PSD Provisions That Explicitly Identify NOX as a
Precursor to Ozone in the PSD Program
    EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects
of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate
Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase
2 Rule) was published on November 29, 2005

(70 FR 71612). Among other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated
states to revise their PSD programs to explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612 at 71679, 71699-
71700). This requirement was codified in 40 CFR 51.166.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Similar changes were codified in 40 CFR 52.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Phase 2 Rule required that states submit SIP revisions
incorporating the requirements of the rule, including provisions
specifically identifying NOX as a precursor to ozone, by
June 15, 2007 (see 70 FR 71612 at 71683, November 29, 2005).
    EPA approved revisions to Wisconsin's PSD SIP reflecting these
requirements on February 7, 2017 (82 FR 9515), and therefore proposes
that Wisconsin has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
b. Identification of Precursors to PM2.5 and the
Identification of PM2.5 and PM10 Condensables in
the PSD Program
    On May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), EPA issued the Final Rule on the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (2008 NSR Rule).
The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPs to
address sources that emit direct PM2.5 and other pollutants
that contribute to secondary PM2.5 formation. One of these
requirements is for NSR permits to address pollutants responsible for
the secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise known as
precursors. In the 2008 rule, EPA identified precursors to
PM2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX (unless the state demonstrates to
the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that
NOX emissions in an area are not a significant contributor
to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 2008 NSR
Rule also specifies that VOCs are not considered to be precursors to
PM2.5 in the PSD program unless the state demonstrates to
the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of
VOCs in an area are significant contributors to that area's ambient
PM2.5 concentrations.
    The explicit references to SO2, NOX, and VOCs
as they pertain to secondary PM2.5 formation are codified at
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of
identifying pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, the
2008 NSR Rule also required states to revise the definition of
``significant'' as it relates to a net emissions increase or the
potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) define ``significant'' for
PM2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tons per
year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40
tpy of NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX
emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's
ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The deadline for states to
submit SIP revisions to their PSD programs incorporating these changes
was May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341, May 16, 2008).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 2008
NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA's requirements for
PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, part D, subpart 4),
and not the general requirements for nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 (Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08-1250).
As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to nonattainment areas, EPA
does not consider the portions of the 2008 rule that address
requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable
areas to be affected by the court's opinion. Moreover, EPA does not
anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated by
the 2008 NSR rule in order to comply with the court's decision.
Accordingly, EPA's approval of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP as to
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), or (J) with respect to the PSD
requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule does not
conflict with the court's opinion. The court's decision with respect
to the nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by the 2008
implementation rule also does not affect EPA's action on the present
infrastructure action. EPA interprets the CAA to exclude
nonattainment area requirements, including requirements associated
with a nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure SIP
submissions due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS.
Instead, these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment
SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by the dates
statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D,
extending as far as 10 years following designations for some
elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2008 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for
gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as
condensables, in PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits
in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to account for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for applicability
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for
PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or
after January 1, 2011. This requirement is codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states'
PSD programs incorporating the inclusion of condensables were due to
EPA by May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341, May 16, 2008).
    EPA approved revisions to Wisconsin's PSD SIP reflecting these
requirements on October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62008), and therefore proposes
that Wisconsin has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
c. PM2.5 Increments in the PSD Program
    On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the final rule on the ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (2010 NSR
Rule). This rule established several components for making PSD
permitting determinations for PM2.5, including a system of
``increments'' which is the mechanism used to estimate significant
deterioration of ambient air quality for a pollutant. These increments
are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c), and are included
in the table below.

Table 1--PM2.5 Increments Established by the 2010 NSR Rule in Micrograms
                             per Cubic Meter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual
                                                    arithmetic   24-Hour
                                                       mean        max
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I..........................................            1         2
Class II.........................................            4         9
Class III........................................            8        18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2010 NSR Rule also established a new ``major source baseline
date'' for PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new trigger date
for PM2.5 as October 20, 2011. These revisions are codified
in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule
revised the definition of ``baseline area'' to include a level of
significance of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter, annual average, for
PM2.5. This change is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i)
and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i).
    EPA approved revisions to Wisconsin's PSD SIP reflecting these
requirements on February 7, 2017 (82 FR 9515), and therefore proposes
that Wisconsin has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
d. GHG Permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule'' in the PSD Program
    With respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) as well as
section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to
make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that
demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program
meeting the current

requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating that
the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly
addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. Wisconsin has shown that it
currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR
pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat
GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source
is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said
that EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required
based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations
on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT).
    In accordance with the Court's decision, on April 10, 2015, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C.
Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that
implemented Step 2 of the EPA's PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of that
rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule covers sources that are required to
obtain a PSD permit based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs.
Step 2 applied to sources that emitted only GHGs above the thresholds
triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. The amended judgment
preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the
application of the BACT requirement to GHG emissions from Step 1 or
``anyway'' sources. With respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. Circuit's
amended judgment vacated the regulations at issue in the litigation,
including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ``to the extent they require a
stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the
only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit
above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there
is a significant emission increase from a modification.''
    EPA is planning to take additional steps to revise Federal PSD
rules in light of the Supreme Court's opinion and subsequent D.C.
Circuit's ruling. Some states have begun to revise their existing SIP-
approved PSD programs in light of these court decisions, and some
states may prefer not to initiate this process until they have more
information about the planned revisions to EPA's PSD regulations. EPA
is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs in
anticipation of EPA's planned actions to revise its PSD program rules
in response to the court decisions. For purposes of infrastructure SIP
submissions, EPA is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the
state's program addresses GHGs consistent with both court decisions.
    At present, EPA has determined the Wisconsin SIP is sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to GHGs.
This is because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA
into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits issued to ``anyway''
sources contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application
of BACT. On August 1, 2018, EPA updated the Wisconsin SIP to include
revised PSD rules to reflect both courts' decisions, and preserving PSD
permitting requirements for GHGs for ``anyway'' sources (83 FR 37434).

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures
required of any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality, or from interfering with measures required of any other state
to protect visibility. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to
contain adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable
requirements of CAA section 126 and section 115 (relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement, respectively).
1. Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
    In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to significant contribution to
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate
these requirements in a separate rulemaking.
2. Interference With Maintenance
    In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to interference with
maintenance for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate these
requirements in a separate rulemaking.
3. Interference With PSD
    EPA notes that Wisconsin's satisfaction of the applicable
infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS has been
detailed in the section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA further
notes that the proposed actions in that section related to PSD are
consistent with the proposed actions related to PSD for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and they are reiterated below.
    EPA has previously approved revisions to Wisconsin's SIP that meet
certain requirements obligated by the Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR
Rule. These revisions included provisions that: Explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone, explicitly identify
SO2 and NOX as precursors to PM2.5,
and regulate condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in
applicability determinations and for purposes of establishing emission
limits. EPA has also previously approved revisions to Wisconsin's SIP
that incorporate the PM2.5 increments and the associated
implementation regulations including the major source baseline date,
trigger date, and level of significance for PM2.5 per the
2010 NSR Rule. EPA is proposing that Wisconsin's SIP contains
provisions that adequately address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    States also have an obligation to ensure that sources located in
nonattainment areas do not interfere with a neighboring state's PSD
program. One way that this requirement can be satisfied is through an
NNSR program consistent with the CAA that addresses any pollutants for
which there is a designated nonattainment area within the state.
    Wisconsin's SIP-approved NNSR regulations, specifically in chapter
NR 408 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, are consistent with 40 CFR
51.165, or 40 CFR part 51, appendix S. Therefore, EPA proposes that
Wisconsin has met all of the applicable section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requirements relating to interference with PSD for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
4. Interference With Visibility Protection
    Under the applicable requirements for visibility protection of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). EPA's 2013 Guidance states that

these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, or an
approved SIP addressing regional haze.
    On August 7, 2012, EPA published its final approval of Wisconsin's
regional haze plan (77 FR 46952). Therefore, EPA proposes that
Wisconsin has met all the applicable section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requirements relating to interference with visibility protection for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
5. Interstate and International Pollution Abatement
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate
provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of
section 126 and section 115 (relating to interstate and international
pollution abatement, respectively).
    Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify
neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute
does not specify the method by which the source should provide the
notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a
provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources. A
lack of such a requirement in state rules would be grounds for
disapproval of this element.
    Wisconsin's EPA-approved portion of its PSD program contains
provisions requiring new or modified sources to notify neighboring
states of potential negative air quality impacts. Wisconsin's
submission references these provisions as being adequate to meet the
requirements of section 126(a). Wisconsin has no pending obligations
under section 115, and no sources in Wisconsin are the subject of an
active finding under section 126. Therefore, EPA proposes that
Wisconsin has met all the applicable section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources; State Board Requirements

    This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP and
related issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to
comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128.
1. Adequate Resources
    To satisfy the adequate resources requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E), the state must provide assurances that its air agency has
adequate resources, personnel, and legal authority to implement the
relevant NAAQS.
    Wisconsin's biennial budget ensures that EPA grant funds as well as
state funding appropriations are sufficient to administer its air
quality management program, and WDNR has routinely demonstrated that it
retains adequate personnel to administer its air quality management
program. Wisconsin's Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement
with EPA documents certain funding and personnel levels at WDNR. As
discussed in previous sections, basic duties and authorities in the
State are outlined in Wis. Stats. 285.11. EPA proposes that Wisconsin
has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section
110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2015 ozone, NAAQS.
2. State Board Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to set forth provisions
that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the
CAA. Section 128 contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any board
or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter
have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest
and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons
subject to permits and enforcement orders under this chapter, and (ii)
that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or
body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be
adequately disclosed.
    On July 2, 2015, WDNR submitted rules from Wis. Stats. for
incorporation into the SIP, pursuant to section 128 of the CAA. Under
Wis. Stats. 15.05, the administrative powers and duties of the WDNR,
including issuance of permits and enforcement orders, are vested in the
Secretary. Therefore, Wisconsin has no further obligations under
section 128(a)(1) of the CAA.
    Under section 128(a)(2) of the CAA, the head of the executive
agency with the power to approve permits or enforcement orders must
adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest. In Wisconsin,
this power is vested in the Secretary of the WDNR. Wis. Stats. 19.45(2)
prevents financial gain of any public official, which addresses the
issue of deriving any significant portion of income from persons
subject to permits and enforcement orders. Additionally, Wis. Stats.
19.46 prevents a public official from taking actions where there is a
conflict of interest. As a public official under Wis. Stats. 19, the
Secretary of the WDNR is subject to these ethical obligations. EPA
concludes that WDNR's submission as it relates to the state board
requirements under section 128 is consistent with applicable CAA
requirements. EPA approved these rules on January 21, 2016 (81 FR
3334). Therefore, EPA is proposing that Wisconsin has satisfied the
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for this section of
110(a)(2)(E) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System

    In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section 110(a)(2)(F)
requirements relating to stationary source monitoring for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate these requirements in a
separate rulemaking.

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers

    This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is
analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate
contingency plans to implement such authority. EPA's 2013 Guidance
states that infrastructure SIP submissions should specify authority,
vested in an appropriate official, to restrain any source from causing
or contributing to emissions which present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.
    Wis. Stats. 285.85 provides the requirement for WDNR to act upon a
finding that an emergency episode or condition exists. The language
contained in this chapter authorizes WDNR to seek immediate injunctive
relief in circumstances of substantial danger to the environment or to
public health. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for this portion of section
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions

    This section requires states to have the authority to revise their
SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, to the availability of
improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or to an EPA finding that the
SIP is substantially inadequate.
    Wis. Stats. 285.11(6) provides WDNR with the authority to develop
all rules, limits, and regulations necessary to meet the NAAQS as they
evolve, and to respond to any EPA finding of inadequacy for the overall
Wisconsin SIP and air management programs. EPA proposes that Wisconsin
has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of

section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Planning Requirements of Part D

    The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas.
    EPA has determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to
the infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA will action on part D
attainment plans through separate processes.

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notification; PSD; Visibility Protection

    The evaluation of the submissions from Wisconsin with respect to
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are described below.
1. Consultation With Government Officials
    States must provide a process for consultation with local
governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS
implementation requirements.
    Wis. Stats. 285.13(5) contains the provisions for WDNR to advise,
consult, contract, and cooperate with other agencies of the state and
local governments, industries, other states, interstate or inter-local
agencies, the Federal government, and interested persons or groups
during the entire process of SIP revision development and
implementation and for other elements regarding air management for
which WDNR is the officially charged agency. WDNR's Bureau of Air
Management has effectively used formal stakeholder structures in the
development and refinement of all SIP revisions. Additionally,
Wisconsin is an active member of the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO), which provides technical assessments and a forum
for discussion regarding air quality issues to member states. EPA
proposes that Wisconsin has satisfied the infrastructure SIP
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
2. Public Notification
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
    WDNR maintains portions of its website specifically for issues
related to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\9\ Public notification is provided
through this website, and through a contracted email subscription
service known as ``GovDelivery.'' Information related to monitoring
sites is also found on Wisconsin's website, as is the calendar for all
public events and public hearings held in the State. EPA proposes that
Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion
of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/Ozone.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. PSD
    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. Wisconsin's PSD program in the context of
infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed above in the paragraphs
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
EPA notes that the proposed actions for those sections are consistent
with the proposed actions for this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J).
    Therefore, EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met all the
infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD associated with section
110(a)(2)(D)(J) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
4. Visibility Protection
    States are subject to visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and
169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not
change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation
``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data

    SIPs must provide for performance of air quality modeling to
predict the effects on air quality from emissions of any NAAQS
pollutant and the submission of such data to EPA upon request.
    WDNR maintains the capability of performing computer modeling of
the air quality impacts of emissions of all criteria pollutants,
including both source-oriented and more regionally directed complex
photochemical grid models. WDNR collaborates with LADCO, EPA, and other
Lake Michigan states in performing modeling. Wis. Stats. 285.11, Wis.
Stats. 285.13, and Wis. Stats. 285.60-285.69 authorize WDNR to perform
modeling. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees

    This section requires SIPs to mandate each major stationary source
to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving,
implementing, and enforcing a permit.
    WDNR implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA
approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62951). EPA approved revisions to
the program on February 28, 2006 (71 FR 9934). NR 410 contains the
provisions, requirements, and structures associated with the costs for
reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing various types of
permits. EPA proposes that Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local
Entities

    States must consult with and allow participation from local
political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    In addition to the measures outlined in the paragraph addressing
WDNR's submittals regarding consultation

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), as contained in Wis. Stats.
285.13(5), the State follows a formal public hearing process in the
development and adoption of all SIP revisions that entail new or
revised control programs or strategies and targets. For SIP revisions
covering more than one source, WDNR is required to provide the standing
committees of the state legislature with jurisdiction over
environmental matters with a 60-day review period to ensure that local
entities have been properly engaged in the development process. EPA
proposes that Wisconsin has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve most elements of a submission from
Wisconsin certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the
required infrastructure elements under section 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    EPA's proposed actions for the State's satisfaction of
infrastructure SIP requirements pursuant to section 110(a)(2) and NAAQS
are contained in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Element                             2015 Ozone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)--Emission limits and other control measures........               A
(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/data system........               A
(C)1--Program for enforcement of control measures......               A
(C)2--Minor NSR........................................               A
(C)3--PSD..............................................               A
(D)1--I Prong 1: Interstate transport--significant                   NA
 contribution to nonattainment.........................
(D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate transport--interference                  NA
 with maintenance......................................
(D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate transport--interference                  A
 with PSD..............................................
(D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate transport--interference                  A
 with visibility protection............................
(D)5--Interstate and international pollution abatement.               A
(E)1--Adequate resources...............................               A
(E)2--State board requirements.........................               A
(F)--Stationary source monitoring system...............              NA
(G)--Emergency powers..................................               A
(H)--Future SIP revisions..............................               A
(I)--Nonattainment planning requirements of part D.....               *
(J)1--Consultation with government officials...........               A
(J)2--Public notification..............................               A
(J)3--PSD..............................................               A
(J)4--Visibility protection............................               *
(K)--Air quality modeling/data.........................               A
(L)--Permitting fees...................................               A
(M)--Consultation/participation by affected local                     A
 entities..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................................  Approve.
NA................................  No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
 *................................  Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 10, 2020.
Cheryl Newton,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2020-20516 Filed 9-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 33187]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of Draft Air Tour Management Plans and
Draft Environmental Assessments (EA) and Public Meetings; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration, in cooperation with the
National Park Service, published a document in the Federal Register on
May 18, 2023, regarding the development of Air Tour Management Plans
for Haleakal[amacr] National Park, Hawai`i Volcanoes National Park,
Mount Rushmore National Memorial, and Badlands National Park pursuant
to the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 and its
implementing regulations. The document contained incorrect dates
regarding the comment deadlines on the draft ATMPs and draft EAs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Fox,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of May 18, 2023, in FR Doc. 2023-10622, on
page 31840, in the third column, correct the DATES caption to read:
COMMENT PERIOD DATES: For Haleakal[amacr] and Hawai`i Volcanoes
National Parks, comments must be received on or before June 20, 2023,
by 8:00 p.m. HST. For Mount Rushmore National Memorial and Badlands
National Park, comments must be received on or before June 20, 2023, by
11:59 MDT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2023.
Sandra Fox,
Environmental Protection Specialist, FAA Office of Environment &
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023-10975 Filed 5-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 26 (Thursday, February 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10070-10073]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02639]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79957; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt a New Type of Logical Port Known as a Purge Port

February 3, 2017.
    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 January 23, 2017, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule to modify its fee
schedule applicable to the Exchange's options platform (``EDGX
Options'') to identify and to set fees for Purge Ports. The Exchange
also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 22.11, Mass Cancellation of
Trading Interest, to reflect the proposed Purge Port functionality.
    The text of the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 22.11 is attached
as Exhibit 5A. The proposed changes to the fee schedule are attached as
Exhibit 5B. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange's Web site at www.bats.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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify the Options Logical Port Fee
section of the EDGX Options fee schedule to identify and adopt fees for
Purge Ports. The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 22.11,
Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, to reflect the proposed Purge
Port functionality. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to offer
Members,\5\ including Market Makers,\6\ with an additional tool to
manage risk and exercise additional control over their quotations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is defined as ``any registered broker or dealer
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See Exchange
Rule 1.5(n).
    \6\ Market Maker is defined as ``an Options Member registered
with the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in options
contracts traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the rights
and responsibilities specified in Chapter XXII of these Rules.'' See
Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    A logical port represents a port established by the Exchange within
the Exchange's system for trading and billing purposes. Each logical
port established is specific to a Member or non-Member and grants that
Member or non-Member the ability to accomplish a specific Member
function, such as order entry, order cancellation, or data receipt. In
addition, logical ports enable Users,\7\ including Market Makers, to
access information such as execution reports, execution report
messages, auction notifications, and administrative data through a
single feed. The Exchange also offers a bulk-quoting interface which
allows Users of EDGX Options to submit and update multiple bids and
offers in one message through logical ports enabled for bulk-quoting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A User on EDGX Options is either a member of EDGX Options or
a sponsored participant who is authorized to obtain access to the
Exchange's system pursuant to EDGX Rule 11.3. See Exchange Rule
16.1(a)(63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purge Ports
    The Exchange now proposes to modify the EDGX Options fee schedule
to identify fees for Purge Ports, a new type of logical port which
would enable Options Members\8\ to cancel/purge all open orders, or a
subset thereof, across multiple logical ports through a single cancel/
purge message. The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 22.11,
Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest, to reflect the proposed Purge
Port functionality. The proposed ports are designed to assist Options
Members, including Market Makers, in the management of, and risk
control over, their quotes, particularly if the Options Member is
dealing with a large number of options. For example, if an Options
Member detects market indications that may influence the direction or
bias of his or her quotes the Options Member may use the proposed Purge
Port(s) to reduce uncertainty and to manage risk by purging all quotes
in a number of options seamlessly to avoid unintended executions, while
continuing to evaluate the direction of the market. While Purge Ports
will be available to all Options Members, the Exchange anticipates they
will be used primarily by Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Options Member'' is defined as ``a firm, or organization
that is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter XVII of
these Rules for purposes of participating in options trading on EDGX
Options as an `Options Order Entry Firm' or `Options Market
Maker.''' See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Options Members may currently cancel orders through their existing
logical ports and may send a mass cancel message pertaining to multiple
contracts cancelling all orders sent though a particular logical port.
The Exchange now proposes to expand the ability of Options Members to
cancel orders through the proposed Purge Ports, which would enable them
to cancel/purge all open orders, or a subset thereof, across multiple
logical ports through a single cancel/purge message. The mass cancel
request may be limited to a subset of orders by identifying the range
of orders to be purged.\9\ An Options Member may also request via a
Purge Port that the Exchange block all or a subset of its new inbound
bids, offers, and orders in all series of options or in all options for
a specified underlying security. The block will remain in effect until
the Options Member requests the Exchange remove the block.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Options Member may identify a subset of orders based on
their own risk profile by selecting orders across series, strike
price, and/or expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the Options Logical Port Fee
section of the EDGX Options fee schedule to adopt a fee for Purge Ports
of $750 per port/per month. The Exchange also proposed to add language
to its fee schedule making clear that logical port fees, including
Purge Ports, are limited to logical ports within the primary data
center.\10\ No logical port fees, including for Purge Ports, will be
assessed for redundant secondary data center ports. New requests will
be prorated for the first month of service. Cancellation requests are
billed in full month increments as firms are required to pay for the
service for the remainder of the month, unless the session is
terminated within the first month of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange does not currently charge fees for other forms
of logical port connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 22.11, Mass
Cancellation of Trading Interest, to reflect the proposed Purge Port
functionality. Exchange Rule 22.11 currently states that an Options
Member may simultaneously cancel all its bids, offers, and orders in
all series of options or in all options for a specified underlying
security by requesting the Exchange staff to effect such cancellation.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 22.11 to state that an
Options Member may also cancel all or a subset of its bids, offers, and
orders in all series of options or in all options for a specified
underlying security by requesting the Exchange to effect such
cancellation.\11\ The

Exchange further proposes to amend Rule 22.11 to state that an Options
Member may also request that the Exchange block all or a subset of its
new inbound bids, offers, and orders in all series of options or in all
options for a specified underlying security. Rule 22.11 will further
state that the block will remain in effect until the Options Member
requests the Exchange remove the block.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange also proposes to the remove reference to the
Exchange ``staff'' as such cancellation request may also be through
the logical ports or the proposed Purge Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in 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. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act,\14\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among Members and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote just and
equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market because offering Options Members,
including Market Makers, designated Purge Ports would enhance their
ability to manage quotes, quote traffic, and their quoting
obligations,\15\ which would, in turn, improve their risk controls to
the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the
Purge Ports would foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in facilitating transactions in securities because designating
Purge Ports for purges only may encourage better use of such dedicated
ports. This may, concurrent with the logical ports that carry quote and
other information necessary for market making activities, enable more
efficient, as well as fair and reasonable, use of Market Makers'
resources. Because Purge Ports, as the name suggests, are only
available for purging and not for activities such as order or quote
entry, the Purge Ports are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
but rather are designed to enable Market Makers to manage their quoting
risk and meet their heightened quoting obligations that other market
participants are not subject to, which, in turn, benefits all market
participants. The Exchange also notes that similar connectivity and
functionality is offered by other exchanges.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ See Exchange Rules 22.5 and 22.6.
    \16\ See Chapter VII of the NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') pricing
schedule (setting forth fees for SQF Purge Ports, which only allow
for the mass purging of quotations). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 77613 (April 13, 2016), 81 FR 23023 (April 19, 2016)
(SR-Phlx-2016-45). See Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'') Rule 519C, Mass Cancellation of Trading Interest
(allowing members to remove all or a subset of its quotations in and
to block new inbound quotations). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 78974 (September 29, 2016), 81 FR 69090 (October 5,
2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will not relieve
Market Makers of their continuous quoting obligations under Exchange
Rule 22.6 and under Regulation NMS Rule 602.\17\ Specifically, any
interest that is executable against an Options Member's or Market
Maker's quotes and orders that is received by the Exchange prior to the
time the removal of quotes request will automatically execute at that
price, up to the quote's size. Market Makers that purge their quotes
will not be relieved of the obligation to provide continuous two-sided
quotes on a daily basis, nor will it prohibit the Exchange from taking
disciplinary action against a Market Maker for failing to meet their
continuous quoting obligation each trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 242.602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposed fees should facilitate the
ability of the Exchange to recoup some costs associated with Purge
Ports as well as provide, maintain, and improve Purge Ports.\18\ The
Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges
offer connectivity services as a means to facilitate the trading
activities of Members and other participants. Accordingly, fees charged
for connectivity are constrained by the active competition for the
order flow of such participants as well as demand for market data from
the Exchange. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for
connectivity, affected Members will opt to terminate their connectivity
arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of
alternative strategies, including routing to the applicable exchange
through another participant or market center or taking that exchange's
data indirectly. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees
would stand to lose not only connectivity revenues but also revenues
associated with the execution of orders routed to it by affected
Members, and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues. The
Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful
restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees
for connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Purge Ports will be fee liable on a monthly basis (and not
only when such ports are active), which will help the Exchange to
recoup the cost of these ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange does not currently charge fees for existing
logical ports connections, it believes the proposed fee for Purge Ports
is equitable and reasonable because the proposed Purge Ports would
offer unique functionality by allowing for the sending of a single
message to impact multiple orders. Additionally, Purge Port requests
may cancel orders submitted over numerous ports and contain added
functionality to purge only a subset of these orders. The Exchange also
believes the proposed fee for the Purge Ports is equitable and
reasonable as compared to the rates proposed by other exchanges for the
same functionality.\19\ In addition, the proposed rate is competitive
with that charged by competitor exchanges for similar functionality.
For example, Phlx charges a rate of $500 per month for the first five
SQF Purge Ports, which only allow for the mass purging of quotations
and not the purging of a subset of orders and the blocking of new
orders as proposed herein.\20\ The Exchange also believes clarifying
within its fee schedule how Purge Port charges are applied to the
primary data center only and pro-rated when subscribed to or terminated
mid-month is equitable and reasonable because it adds clarity to the
Exchange's fee schedule regarding how the proposed fee would be
applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange notes that Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. has also
proposed to provide similar purge port functionality for a fee of
$750 per month/per port on its equity options platform. See SR-
BatsBZX-2017-05 (filed January 20, 2017).
    \20\ See Chapter VII of the Phlx pricing schedule (setting forth
fees for SQF Purge Ports). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 77613 (April 13, 2016), 81 FR 23023 (April 19, 2016) (SR-Phlx-
2016-45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its fee
schedule are non-discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to
all Members. The proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary and no
Member is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them.
All Members that voluntarily select this service options will be
charged the same amount for the same services. All

Members have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is
no differentiation among Members with regard to the fees charged for
the services offered by the Exchange.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its fee schedule
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. On the contrary,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition
because it will enable it to offer similar connectivity and
functionality as its competitor exchanges.\21\ In addition, the
proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary and no Member is required
or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. The Exchange does
not believe that the proposed change represents a significant departure
from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the
Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the
Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better
value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that fees for the proposed Purge Ports and
connectivity, in general, are constrained by the robust competition for
order flow among exchanges and non-exchange markets. Further, excessive
fees for connectivity, including Purge Port fees, would serve to impair
an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening
competition. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule
change would impact intramarket competition as it would apply to all
Members and non-Members equally.

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

    No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, 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) of the Act \22\ and
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\23\ the Exchange has
designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has
given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) 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 proposal 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 No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-07 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 No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also 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 No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-07 and should be
submitted on or before March 2, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02639 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56749-56750]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-51-000]

Northern Laramie Range Alliance; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on July 12, 2011, Northern Laramie Range Alliance
filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, requesting the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) issue an order declaring that two
Form 556 self certifications filed under the names Pioneer Wind Park I
and Pioneer Wind Park II are void and without effect.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.

There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to
a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 26, 2011.

    Dated: August 29, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23404 Filed 9-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

	OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

POLLUTION PREVENTION

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

Date:		8/24/11

SUBJECT:	Abamectin.  Amendment to the Human Health Risk Assessment for
Proposed Uses on the Bulb Onion Subgroup 3-07A, Chives, and Dry Beans to
include Cowpea in the Dry Bean Tolerance.

PC Code:  122804	DP Barcode:  D393232

Decision No.: 436528	Registration Nos.: 100-1351, 100-898, 100-1154

Petition No.: 0E7738 	Regulatory Action: Section 3 Registration

Risk Assessment Type: Single Chemical/Aggregate	Case No.: None

CAS No.: 71751-41-2

TXR No.: None	40 CFR: 180.449

MRID No.: None

FROM:	Nancy Dodd, Chemist/Risk Assessor

		Nancy Tsaur, Chemist

		Whang Phang, Toxicologist

		Risk Assessment Branch III (RAB3)

		Health Effects Division (HED) (7509P) 	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

THROUGH:	Paula Deschamp, Branch Chief

		RAB3/HED (7509P)

TO:		Barbara Madden/Laura Nollen, RM#5

		Registration Division (7505P)		  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1

I.	CONCLUSIONS

HED, in consultation with the ChemSAC, has determined that the tolerance
for abamectin on dry beans should be on "bean, dry, seed" as originally
proposed by the petitioner.  Cowpea does not need to be excluded from
the tolerance.  A label restriction should be added such as the
following: "To be grown for bean, dry seed only.  Do not feed or harvest
cowpea forage or hay.”

II.	ACTION REQUESTED

The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) proposed a tolerance for
abamectin on “bean, dry, seed.”  HED recommended for a tolerance on
“bean, dry, seed, except cowpea” in DP#380523 (N. Dodd, 7/18/11).
In review of the Federal Register Notice for the proposed use, HED’s
recommended exclusion of cowpea from the tolerance was questioned.  The
issue was referred to the ChemSAC for review on 8/24/11.

III.	BACKGROUND

HED intended to exclude cowpea from the dry bean tolerance since Table I
Feedstuffs (June 2008) lists cowpea forage and hay as feeds for dairy
cattle at 20% of the diet.  Cowpea forage and hay are not designated as
under grower control in Table I.

As part of the review of the FR notice, HED was asked to reconsider
exclusion of cowpea for the following reasons:

1) To harvest dry bean, forage and hay cannot be harvested.

2) The crop is specifically grown for hay or forage in some areas.

3) Forage varieties are distinct from dry seed varieties since they are
developed for high dry seed yields.

4)  If cowpea is excluded, HED should exclude others.  Southern pea,
blackeye pea, cowpea, and crowder are all the same crop (Vigna
unguiculata) (Monograph 450, Food and Feed Crops).

IV.	RESULTS/DISCUSSION

HED has determined, on advice from the ChemSAC, to include cowpea in the
tolerance for dry beans.  A label restriction to restrict use of cowpea
forage and hay should be added.

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  2