[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38872-38877]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15442]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0581; A-1-FRL-9827-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Idaho Amalgamated Sugar Company Nampa BART Alternative

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revised BART determination and an alternate control measure
for The Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC. (TASCO) plant located in Nampa,
Canyon County, Idaho, to meet the requirements of Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) for regional haze. The EPA previously
approved the State's BART determination for TASCO as meeting the
requirements for the regional haze provisions in the Clean Air Act
(CAA) on June 22, 2011. On June 29, 2012, the State of Idaho submitted
revisions to its Regional Haze State Implementation Plan that included
a revised BART determination for the TASCO facility, a revised emission
limitation for particulate matter (PM), and an alternative control
measure for TASCO to replace the Federally approved sulfur dioxide
(SO2) BART determination. The EPA proposes to vacate the
previously approved SO2 BART determination for TASCO,
approve the revised BART determination, the revised emission
limitation, and the alternative control measure at TASCO.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0581, by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Mail: Steve Body, EPA, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-
107, 1200

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    C. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>[or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    D. Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Steve Body, Office of Air
Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2012-0581. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Regional Haze Rule Provisions for BART Alternative Measures
III. Idaho's State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision Submittal
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of SIP Revision Submittal
V. The EPA's Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. Background

    In the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, Congress established
a program to protect and improve visibility in the Nation's national
parks and wilderness areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the
visibility provisions in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the
problem of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. The EPA promulgated
regional haze regulations (RHR) in 1999 to implement sections 169A and
169B of the Act. These regulations require states to develop and
implement plans to ensure reasonable progress toward improving
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \1\ (Class I areas). 64
FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR
60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused
by air pollution, principally fine particulate, produced by numerous
sources and activities, located across a broad regional area. The
sources include but are not limited to, major and minor stationary
sources, mobile sources, and area sources including non-anthropogenic
sources. These sources and activities may emit fine particles
(PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some cases,
ammonia and volatile organic compounds). Fine particulate can also
cause serious health effects and mortality in humans, and contributes
to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
See 64 FR at 35715.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time in most national parks and
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas in the
western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-
thirds the visual range that would exist without manmade air
pollution.\2\ Visibility impairment also varies day-to-day and by
season depending on variations in meteorology and emission rates. The
deciview (dv) is the metric by which visibility is measured in the
regional haze program. A change of 1 dv is generally considered the
change in visual range that the human eye can perceive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RHR requires each State's regional haze implementation plan to
contain emission limitations representing BART and schedules for
compliance with BART for each source subject to BART, unless the State
demonstrates that an emissions trading program or other alternative
will achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility
conditions. A State may opt to implement or require participation in an
emission trading program or other alternative measure rather than
require sources subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART.
    On April 16, 2007, Idaho submitted to the EPA for approval new and
revised rules that provide the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ) the regulatory authority to address regional haze and to
implement BART (BART Authority rule). The EPA approved these rules on
June 9, 2011. 76 FR 33651. Idaho submitted its Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 to the
EPA on October 25, 2010 (2010 RH SIP submittal). The 2010 RH SIP
submittal covers the planning

period of 2008 through 2018 and, among the other required elements,
includes a BART determination for the TASCO facility in Nampa, Idaho.
On June 22, 2011, the EPA approved the BART related provisions of
Idaho's 2010 RH SIP submittal, including the final BART determination
for the TASCO facility.\3\ 76 FR 36329. That approval incorporated by
reference the September 7, 2010, TASCO Tier II Operating Permit No. T2-
2009.0105 (2010 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit) that contained the
emission limitations representing BART for TASCO. On November 8, 2012,
EPA took final action to approve the remaining elements in the Idaho
Regional Haze SIP. 77 FR 66929. Thus, Idaho's 2010 RH SIP is fully
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Upon EPA's final action, TASCO filed a petition for review
in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging EPA's approval of
Idaho's BART determination for their Nampa facility. See Amalgamated
Sugar v. EPA, No. 11-72445 (9th Cir.) The case is pending before the
Ninth Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 29, 2012, Idaho submitted revisions (2012 RH SIP submittal)
to the 2010 RH SIP that includes: a revised NOX BART
determination; a more stringent particulate matter (PM) emission
limitation; and an alternative control measure to replace the
SO2 BART determination for TASCO's fossil fuel-fired Riley
Boiler. This alternative control measure is also referred to as the
BART Alternative. In addition to the new NOX and PM emission
limitations on the Riley Boiler, the alternative control measure relies
on control of NOX emissions from two other boilers at the
TASCO facility in Nampa, that are not BART eligible emission units
(non-BART boilers). The alternative measure also takes into account
emission reductions resulting from the permanent shutdown of three coal
fired pulp-dryers. The revised NOX BART determination, more
stringent PM emission limitation, and the BART Alternative are
contained in a revised Tier II Operating Permit, T2-2009.0105 issued to
TASCO December 23, 2011 (2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit). As
explained below this alternative measure and revised permit result in
greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than
the improvement expected from the BART determination previously
approved.

II. Regional Haze Rule Provisions for BART Alternative Measures

    The RHR contains provisions whereby a state may choose to implement
an alternative measure as an alternative to BART, if the state can
demonstrate that the alternative measure achieves greater reasonable
progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions than would be
achieved through the installation, operation and maintenance of BART.
The requirements for alternative measures are established at 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2). As explained in the RHR, the state must demonstrate that
all necessary emission reductions will take place during the first long
term strategy period (i.e., by 2018) and that the emissions reductions
resulting from the alternative measure will be surplus to those
reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the
CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.
    The Idaho rules provide IDEQ authority to consider and adopt
alternative measures as an alternative to BART. See IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>8.06.\4\ The EPA approved this BART Alternative rule when it
approved the Idaho BART Authority rule. 76 FR 33652 (June 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specifically the IDEQ BART Alternative rule provides: ``BART
Alternative. As an alternative to the installation of BART for a
source or sources, the Department may approve a BART alternative. If
the Department approves source grouping as a BART alternative, only
sources (including BART-eligible and non-BART eligible sources)
causing or contributing to visibility impairment to the same
mandatory Class I Federal Area may be grouped together: a. If a
source(s) proposes a BART alternative, the resultant emissions
reduction and visibility impacts must be compared with those that
would result from the BART options evaluated for the source(s). b.
Source(s) proposing a BART alternative must demonstrate that this
BART alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress than would
be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. c.
Source(s) proposing a BART alternative shall include in the BART
analysis an analysis and justification of the averaging period and
method of evaluating compliance with the proposed emission
limitation. IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>8.06.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sources subject to BART must be in compliance with the BART
emission limitations as soon as practical but no later than 5 years
after EPA approves the implementation plan revision. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv). The EPA approval of Idaho's BART provisions became
effective July 22, 2011, thus TASCO must be in compliance with the BART
requirements no later than July 22, 2016. Under the BART Alternative,
as specified in the revised permit, TASCO must comply with the emission
limitations by July 22, 2016, which is well within the first long term
strategy period which ends December, 2018.

III. Idaho's SIP Revision Submittal

    TASCO operates a sugar beet processing facility in Nampa, Idaho,
that includes a fossil fuel fired boiler referred to as the ``Riley
Boiler''. The Riley Boiler is a BART eligible source and is subject to
BART. In the final action on the BART provisions in the 2010 RH SIP
submittal, the EPA approved IDEQ's BART determination for the Riley
Boiler. 76 FR 36329. The approved BART level technology and emission
limitations identified for the Riley Boiler and contained in the 2010
TASCO Tier II Operating Permit are:
    PM: 14 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) and requires the emissions to be
controlled using a baghouse;
    SO2: 115 lbs/hr and requires the emissions to be
controlled with spray-dry flue gas desulfurization (spray-dry FGD); and
    NOx: 186 lbs/hr and requires the NOX
emissions to be controlled using low NOX burners with
overfire air (LNB-OFA).
    Subsequent to the 2010 RH SIP submission and approval, TASCO
submitted to IDEQ additional site-specific engineering analyses and a
proposal for an alternative measure to replace the SO2 BART
determination for its facility. Dispersion modeling was conducted to
compare the visibility improvement expected from the alternative
control measure to visibility improvement expected from implementation
of BART. Based on the new information and proposal, IDEQ revised
portions of Chapter 10 of the 2010 RH SIP and submitted the revisions,
along with supporting technical documentation, to the EPA. The 2012 RH
SIP submittal contains, among other elements, a new NOX BART
determination for the Riley Boiler and the 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating
Permit for the Riley Boiler.
    The 2012 RH SIP submittal revises the NOX BART
determination for the Riley Boiler. The 2010 RH SIP submittal
identified low NOX burners (LNB), LNB with overfire air
(OFA), and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) as all technically
feasible NOX controls for the Riley Boiler. The State
evaluated the cost effectiveness of each technology and determined
that: LNB is cost effective at $921/ton; LNB-OFA is cost effective at
$1270/ton with an incremental cost over LNB at $2431/ton. At that time,
the State determined that SCR had a cost effectiveness value of $3768/
ton and an incremental cost over LNB-OFA of $10,245/ton. In the 2010 RH
SIP submittal, Idaho determined that SCR is not cost effective based on
the incremental cost of SCR over the cost of LNB-OFA. In the final
action on Idaho's 2010 RH SIP submittal, the EPA approved the State's
BART determination. As explained, based on additional on-site
engineering analysis conducted by TASCO, Idaho subsequently determined
that neither LNB-OFA nor SCR are technically feasible at this facility.
See 2012 RH SIP submittal, Chapter 10, Section 10.5. In

the detailed engineering analysis conducted for installation of LNB-
OFA, TASCO determined that there is insufficient space in the
combustion chamber for LNB-OFA for adequate combustion and flame
management. As also explained, TASCO and the State now consider SCR to
be technically infeasible due to inadequate space between the boiler
and baghouse and concerns about catalyst fouling and erosion. The
analysis also determined that installation after the baghouse would not
provide adequate exhaust temperature for SCR to function properly. Id.
Thus, the 2012 RH SIP submittal finds that LNB is the only technically
feasible NOX control technology for the Riley Boiler.
    Regardless of the revised determination of what NOx control is
technically feasible for the Riley Boiler, new, more stringent, BART
emission limitations for NOx were included in the State's revised BART
determination and the new, more stringent, NOx and PM emission
limitations are included in the revised 2011Tier II Operating Permit.
See 2012 RH SIP submittal Chapter 10, Section 10.5 Table 3, and 2011
TASCO Tier II Operating Permit Condition 3.4. The revised NOx BART
determination is based on LNBs for NOx control. The revised NOx BART
determination for the Riley Boiler strengthens the emission limitations
from 186 lbs/hr to 147 lbs/hr, and results in a 21% reduction in NOx
emissions from the original BART determination for the Riley Boiler. It
also changes the identified control technology for NOx upon which the
BART emission limitation is based, from LNB-OFA to LNBs. As explained
below, this new BART determination and more stringent emission
limitations were used in the demonstration that the BART Alternative
provides for greater reasonable progress to achieve natural visibility
conditions than BART.
    The 2012 RH SIP submittal also proposes as a BART Alternative an
alternative measure to the SO2 BART determination for the
Riley Boiler. This alternative measure covers six emission units at the
TASCO facility: the Riley Boiler, the Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) Boilers
1 and 2, and the South, Center, and North Pulp
dryers. The alternative measure replaces the spray-dry FGD
SO2 control on the Riley Boiler with LNB NOx control on the
B&W Boilers 1 & 2 and takes into account the emission
reductions resulting from the shutdown of the three pulp dryers. Thus,
the retrofit of the coal-fired low-NOx burners on the B&W Boilers and
resulting NOx reductions and credit for the permanent shutdown of the
three pulp dryers are intended to replace the BART SO2
emission limitation for the Riley Boiler. The controls for the B&W
Boilers 1 & 2 and shutdown requirements for the South
Pulp Dryer in the 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit, (Condition 4.1)
will become Federally enforceable upon final approval of this proposal.
The permanent shutdown of the Center and North pulp dryers is Federally
enforceable, as required by the September 30, 2002, TASCO Tier II
permit currently in the Federally approved SIP. The 2011 TASCO Tier II
Operating Permit also includes a revised PM limitation for the Riley
Boiler, reducing the PM emission limitation from 14 lbs/hr to 12.4 lbs/
hr. The strengthened PM emission limitation results in an 11% reduction
in PM emissions from the emissions expected from the BART determination
previously approved.
    TASCO conducted air quality dispersion modeling to estimate
visibility improvement in affected Class I areas in accordance with the
three-state, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon BART Modeling Protocol to
demonstrate greater reasonable progress in achieving natural visibility
conditions. This protocol underwent extensive review and approval and
formed the basis for much of the BART modeling for regional haze
conducted in the Pacific Northwest, including modeling in Idaho's 2010
RH SIP submittal. In the 2012 RH SIP submittal, the State demonstrated
the visibility improving advantages of the BART Alternative by
comparing the visibility improvement of the revised BART for the Riley
Boiler in the 2012 RH SIP submittal with the improvement resulting from
the BART Alternative. The model input emissions for SO2, NOx
and PM were determined for all six emission units included in the
alternative measure: the Riley Boiler (SO2, NOx, and PM),
B&W Boilers 1 and 2 (NOx), and the three coal-fired
pulp dryers (SO2, NOx and PM). Three scenarios were modeled
for all six emission units: baseline (pre-BART), revised BART for Riley
Boiler, and the BART Alternative.
    Emissions from the TASCO facility impairs visibility at seven
mandatory Class I areas within 300 kilometers (km): Eagle Cap
Wilderness Area, Oregon; Craters of the Moon National Monument, Idaho;
Hells Canyon Wilderness Area, Oregon; Jarbidge Wilderness Area, Nevada;
Sawtooth Wilderness Area, Idaho; Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness Area,
Idaho; and the Strawberry Wilderness Area, Oregon. The results of this
modeling effort for all seven Class I areas are presented in the 2012
RH SIP submittal, Chapter 10, Section 10.5, Table 6. The deciview
impact for the 22nd highest day over the 2003 to 2005 time period is
presented for each of the seven Class I areas. The submittal shows the
number of days with impairment greater than 0.5 dv in the 2003 to 2005
time period.
    The Table below presents the modeled visibility, at all Class I
areas within 300 km of the TASCO facility at baseline conditions (2003
to 2005), under the revised BART, and under the proposed BART
Alternative. As shown, the proposed BART Alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress toward natural conditions than would be achieved
through the installation, operation and maintenance of BART.

                                                                             Table 1--Modeled Visibility Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
                                                                                Visibility      Visibility       visibility                                                      Decrease in
                                                                   Baseline      impact under    impact under     improvement    Days above 0.5  Days above 0.5  Days above 0.5    days >0.5 dv
                         Class I area                             visibility       proposed      proposed BART     with BART      dv  baseline      dv under      dv under BART     from BART
                                                                  impact (dv)    revised BART     alternative    alternative vs        \e\        revised BART     alternative    alternative vs
                                                                    \a\ \d\      (dv) \b\ \d\    (dv) \c\ \d\     revised BART                         \e\             \e\         revised BART
                                                                                (dv) \d\                                                           \e\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Cap Wilderness, OR......................................           2.201           1.512           1.411           0.101              195             149             126              23
Craters of the Moon Wilderness, ID............................           0.393           0.267           0.245           0.022               10               4               3               1
Hells Canyon Wilderness, ID/OR................................           1.582           1.092           1.059           0.033              129              87              80               7
Jarbidge Wilderness, NV.......................................           0.375           0.256           0.234           0.022                8               5               5               0

Sawtooth Wilderness, ID.......................................           0.47            0.319           0.307           0.012               18               6               6               0
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, ID..............................           0.439           0.281           0.298          (0.017)              15               3               4              (1)
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness, OR............................           1.462           1.076           0.917           0.159               80              62              51              11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes pre-BART emissions of all sources involved in BART and the BART Alternative: Riley Boiler, B&W Boilers 1&2 and three pulp dryers.
\b\ Includes all sources involved in BART and the BART Alternative under BART operations: Riley Boiler (LNB + SD-FGD), B&W Boilers 1&2, three pulp dryers operating.
\c\ Includes all sources involved in BART and the BART Alternative under BART Alternative operations: Riley Boiler (LNB), B&W Boilers 1&2 (LNB), three pulp dryers shut down.
\d\ The 22nd highest dv value for the three-year period (2003-2005).
\e\ Total number of days in the three-year period that exceed 0.5 dv.

IV. The EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision Submittal

1. Revised BART Determination for the Riley Boiler

    The provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, followed by Idaho,
set forth the process used to identify control technologies and to
consider the five statutory factors that must be evaluated as part of a
BART determination. After site specific consideration of the factors,
the best achievable retrofit technology is identified and the BART
emission limitation is specified.
    As discussed previously in this notice, based on a revised analysis
conducted and provided by TASCO, Idaho determined that SCR is
technically infeasible for the Riley Boiler. This new finding does not
affect the State's final BART determination because, as the EPA
previously agreed, Idaho's determination found that even if SCR was
technically feasible it was not cost effective and thus, would not
qualify as BART. 76 FR 3632. Thus, the 2012 RH SIP submittal
determination that SCR is technically infeasible does not change the
EPA's previous agreement that SCR is not BART for this facility. The
EPA previously approved the NOX BART emission limitation for
the Riley Boiler of 186 lbs/hr, based on LNB-OFA control technology.
However, TASCO's further engineering analysis determined that while
there is insufficient space in the combustion chamber for LNB-OFA for
adequate combustion and flame management, LNB alone could achieve
greater NOX control than the LNB-OFA control. Accordingly,
Idaho revised its NOX BART determination to reflect the
technology change, greater control and tighter emission limitations.
The compliance date of July 22, 2016 remains unchanged.
    In the 2012 RH SIP submittal, Idaho strengthened the NOX
BART emission limitation to 147 lbs/hr based on TASCO's reassessment of
LNB performance for the Riley Boiler. In light of TASCO's revised
analysis that the original BART determination is not technically
feasible and because the revised BART determination results in a more
stringent NOX BART emission limitation, the EPA is proposing
to vacate our original BART determination and approve the revised
NOX BART determination and this new limitation for the TASCO
facility.
    The EPA previously approved Idaho's PM BART emission limitation for
the Riley Boiler of 14 lbs/hr, based on baghouse control technology as
provided in the 2010 RH SIP submittal. In the 2012 RH SIP submittal,
Idaho strengthened the PM emission limitation to 12.4 lbs/hr, based on
TASCO's analysis of the performance of the baghouse. The revised PM
emission limitation is more stringent than the limitation previously
approved and therefore the EPA is proposing to approve this revised PM
limitation as a SIP strengthening measure.

2. Alternative to BART for the TASCO facility

    The 2012 RH SIP submittal includes a proposed alternative measure
to the previously approved SO2 BART determination for Riley
Boiler. This alternative measure is intended to replace the
SO2 BART emission limitation of 115 lb/hr for the Riley
Boiler \5\ with a combined NOX emission limitation on the
B&W Boilers 1 and 2 of 103 lbs/hr, and takes into
account the emission reductions resulting from the permanent shutdown
of three coal-fired pulp dryers. The baseline emissions for all three
pulp dryers are: NOX--191.2 lbs/hr; SO2--17.9
lbs/hr; and PM-927 lbs/hr. These emissions were permanently eliminated
when the pulp dryers were shutdown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Current statewide regulations limit the sulfur content of
coal to 1% by weight. IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5.04. This limit would not be
affected by the action proposed today and the limit remains
applicable to the TASCO facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Installation of LNB control and establishing emission limitations
on the B&W Boilers, along with permanently eliminating the emissions
associated with the three pulp dryers, result in a total reduction in
NOX of 221 t/y, SO2 of 20.6 t/y, and PM of 113 t/
y. The B&W Boilers are non-BART units. The pulp dryers were shutdown
because installation of a drying process using waste steam from the
boilers instead of the pulp dryers reduced the fuel demand that
resulted in a lower cost operation, eliminating the need for the pulp
dryers. The shutdown of the pulp dryers is not required under the CAA.
Thus, these emission reductions may be considered surplus. The total
emissions are reduced under the BART Alternative measure compared to
both the original 2010 RH SIP approved BART determination and the
revised BART determination in the 2012 RH SIP submittal.
    As presented in Table 1 above, dispersion modeling of visibility in
all Class I areas within 300 km of the TASCO facility demonstrates
there is overall greater progress towards achieving natural conditions
under the BART Alternative. In particular, there is greater progress in
the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area (the Class I area most impacted by
emissions from the TASCO facility) of 0.101 dv under the BART
alternative than under the revised BART determination and in the
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area of 0.159 dv.
    The 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit, Permit Condition 3.3
requires compliance with the BART Alternative by July 22, 2016, the
same compliance

date as the approved BART. Additionally, the permit provides that
unless LNBs have been installed and operating, as required in Permit
Condition 3.7, on and after July 22, 2016, the Riley Boiler may be
fired only using natural gas, and that on, and after July 22, 2016, the
Riley Boiler may not be fired with coal until such date that the coal-
fired LNBs are installed and operated in accordance with the permit.
See 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit, Permit Condition 3.9. Permit
condition 14.9 of TASCO's Tier I Operating Permit T1-050020, issued May
23, 2006, required the North and Central pulp dryers to be permanently
shut down and Permit Condition 4.1 of the 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating
Permit, requires the South Pulp Dryer to be permanently shutdown. Thus,
there is no delay in compliance with BART requirements under the BART
Alternative.
    The 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit contains the emission
limitations discussed above. See 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit,
Permit Condition 3.4 and 3.5. The permit also contains requirements for
a non-visibility impairing pollutant, specifically carbon monoxide
(CO). Permit Condition 3.12 requires performance testing for CO. The
EPA proposes no action on this permit condition, as it does not pertain
to visibility.
    The second paragraph of Condition 3.3 of the Permit allows TASCO to
submit a request to obtain IDEQ approved alternatives to BART and to
revise the Permit and explains that IDEQ will process the request in
accordance with its permitting rules. The condition further provides
that the request must be submitted in time for any such revision to the
permit and the corresponding revision to the RH SIP to be approved
prior to July 22, 2016. This provision is administrative in nature and
addresses the State's procedure for possible future revisions to the
permit. As such it is not necessary or appropriate for EPA to act on
this provision. Nevertheless, we note that a revision to a Federally
approved permit must meet applicable Federal requirements before it
could be incorporated into the Federally approved SIP. The EPA cannot
assure Idaho or TASCO that any submitted BART Alternative measure will
be approved until that measure has been thoroughly evaluated by the EPA
as meeting Federal requirements.

V. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to vacate our previous BART determination for
the TASCO facility and to approve Idaho's 2012 RH SIP submittal
including the revised NOX BART determination for the TASCO
Riley Boiler and the 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit containing the
BART Alternative conditions 1.2 including the table of Regulated
Emission Point Sources Table, 3.2, 3.3 (first paragraph only), 3.4,
3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.11, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, and 4.1.
Specifically, the EPA proposes to approve new BART emission limitations
for NOX, the revised PM emission limitations and the BART
Alternative at the TASCO facility because they provide greater overall
reasonable progress toward achieving natural conditions in affected
Class I areas than the previously approved BART determination for the
TASCO facility.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    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 proposed 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 proposed 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
rule neither imposes substantial direct compliance costs on tribal
governments, nor preempts tribal law. Therefore, the requirements of
section 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

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, Sulfur oxides, and
Visibility.

    Dated: June 14, 2013.
R. David Allnutt,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-15442 Filed 6-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48527-48530]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17004]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95414; File No. SR-BOX-2022-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend IM-2040-
5 To Add the Firm Element Component to the Continuing Education
Requirement, and Make Other Conforming and Clerical Updates to IM-2040-
4 and Delete IM 2020-1

August 3, 2022. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on July 26, 2022, BOX Exchange LLC (``BOX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BOX IM-2040-5 to add the Firm
Element component to the Continuing Education requirement. The Exchange
also proposes to make other conforming and clerical updates to IM-2040-
4 and to delete IM-2020-1 (Temporary Extension for Representatives to
Function as Principals). The text of the proposed rule change is
available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet
website at http://boxexchange.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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
    As set forth below, the Exchange proposes to amend IM-2040-5 to add
the Firm Element to require broker-dealers to establish a formal
training program to keep registered persons up to date on job- and
product-related subjects. The Exchange also proposes to make other
conforming and clerical updates to IM-2040-4 and to delete IM-2020-1
(Temporary Extension for Representatives to Function as Principals).
IM-2040-5
    The Exchange recently filed SR-BOX-2022-16 in which the Exchange
amended IM-2040-5 and established BOX Rule 2130 (Continuing Education
Program for Persons Maintaining Their Qualification Following the
Termination of a Registration Category) and IM-2130-1 to require that
the Regulatory Element of Continuing Education be completed annually
rather than every three years and provide a path through Continuing
Education for individuals to maintain their qualification following the
termination of a registration.\3\ This was a conforming filing that was
based on a filing submitted by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), and was intended to harmonize the
Exchange's Continuing Education rules with those of FINRA so as to
promote uniform standards across the securities industry.\4\ The
Exchange now proposes to make additional conforming changes to IM-2040-
5 to further align with the FINRA Continuing Education Rule Change by
adding the Firm Element component to IM-2040-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-94794 (April 26,
2022), 87 FR 25683 (May 2, 2022) (SR-BOX-2022-16).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93097 (September 21,
2021), 86 FR 53358 (September 27, 2021) (SR-FINRA-2021-015) (``FINRA
Continuing Education Rule Change''). The proposed changes are based
on the changes to the Firm Element Program approved by the
Commission in the approval order for SR-FINRA-2021-015. The Exchange
is proposing to adopt such Firm Element changes substantially in the
same form as proposed by FINRA, with the exception of differences
necessary to update the Exchange's Continuing Education rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Continuing Education requirements for BOX Participants are
detailed in IM-2040-5. No Participant shall permit any Representative
or Principal to continue to, and no Representative or Principal shall
continue to, perform his or her respective duties on behalf of such
Participant unless such person has complied with the requirements of
this IM-2040-5. This filing adds the Firm Element as a part of the
Exchange's Continuing Education program to require broker-dealers to
establish a formal training program to keep registered persons up to
date on job- and product-related subjects.
    To adopt the Firm Element program the Exchange proposes to add
paragraph (b)(2) under IM-2040-5 to require each Participant to
implement and administer a required annual Firm Element training
program for registered persons.\5\ Proposed paragraph (b)(2) is

based on and substantially similar to FINRA Rule 1240(b), as amended.
As proposed, each Participant shall conduct an annual needs analysis to
determine the appropriate training.\6\ At a minimum the Firm Element
training must cover ethics and professional responsibility, as well as
applicable regulatory requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See proposed IM-2040-5(b)(2)(a) Standards for the Firm
Element. Each Participant must maintain a continuing and current
education program for its registered persons to enhance their
securities knowledge, skill, and professionalism. At a minimum, each
Participant shall at least annually evaluate and prioritize its
training needs and develop a written training plan. The plan must
take into consideration the Participant's size, organizational
structure, and scope of business activities, as well as regulatory
developments and the performance of registered persons in the
Regulatory Element. If a Participant's analysis establishes the need
for supervisory training for persons with supervisory
responsibilities, such training must be included in the
Participant's training plan.
    \6\ See proposed IM-2040-5(b)(2)(b) Minimum Standards for
Training Programs. Programs used to implement a Participant's
training plan must be appropriate for the business of the
Participant and, at a minimum must cover training topics related to
the role, activities or responsibilities of the registered person
and to professional responsibility.
    \7\ See proposed IM-2040-5(b)(2)(c) Administration of Continuing
Education Program. A Participant must administer its Continuing
Education programs under this paragraph (2) in accordance with its
annual evaluation and written plan and must maintain records
documenting the content of the programs and completion of the
programs by registered persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange then proposes to specify that a Participant,
consistent with its needs analysis, may determine to apply toward the
Firm Element other required training. The Participant may consider
training relating to its anti-money laundering (``AML'') compliance
program toward satisfying an individual's annual Firm Element
requirement.\8\ To better align the Firm Element requirement with other
required training, the Exchange proposes amending IM-2040-5 to
expressly allow Participants to consider training relating to the AML
compliance program and the annual compliance meeting toward satisfying
an individual's annual Firm Element requirement.\9\ The Exchange also
proposes amending IM-2040-5 to extend the Firm Element requirement to
all registered persons, including individuals who maintain solely a
permissive registration consistent with BOX Rule 2020 (Participant
Eligibility and Registration), thereby further aligning the Firm
Element requirement with other broadly-based training requirements.\10\
Consistent with FINRA's amendments, the Exchange shall extend Firm
Element requirements to all registered persons, with such training to
cover topics related to the role, activities, or responsibilities of
the individual registered persons and to professional
responsibility.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed IM-2040-5(b)(2)(d) Participation in Other
Required Training. A Participant may consider a registered person's
participation in the Participant's anti-money laundering compliance
training under Rule 10070 toward satisfying the registered person's
Continuing Education requirement under this paragraph (2).
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ See proposed IM-2040-5(b)(2).
    \11\ See proposed IM-2040-5(b)(2)(e) Participation in the Firm
Element. Registered persons of a Participant must take all
appropriate and reasonable steps to participate in Continuing
Education programs under this paragraph (2) as required by the
Participant. See also proposed IM-2040-5(b)(2)(f) Specific Training
Requirements. The Exchange may require a Participant, individually
or as part of a larger group, to provide specific training to its
registered persons in such areas as the Exchange deems appropriate.
Such a requirement may stipulate the class of registered persons for
which it is applicable, the time period in which the requirement
must be satisfied and, where appropriate, the actual training
content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IM-2040-4
    The Exchange then proposes to make minor clerical and conforming
changes to IM-2040-4. First the Exchange proposes to remove the term
``options'' from IM-2040-4 to reflect and make clear that the rule does
not apply solely to those engaged in the ``options'' securities
business but would also apply to a Boston Security Token Exchange
(``BSTX'') Participant engaged in the equities securities business.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-94092 (January
27, 2022), 87 FR 5881 (February 2, 2022) (SR-BOX-2021-06, Amendment
Nos. 2 and 3). The rules for the BSTX trading facility were recently
approved and would introduce the trading of equity securities on the
Exchange when launched.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend IM-2040-4 to include the ``Firm
Element'' as a part of its Continuing Education requirement for all
persons engaged in the securities business. Proposed IM-2040-4 would
reflect that the Continuing Education requirement is not options
specific and that the proposed rule change applies for all persons
engaged in the securities business of a Participant who are to function
as Principals or Representatives of Members.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that none of the proposed changes to the
current IM-2040-4 would materially alter the application of the
rule, other than by extending IM-2040-4 to apply to BSTX
Participants and including the Firm Element as a requirement of the
Continuing Education requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes the proposed rule changes to IM-2040-4 and IM-
2040-5 to include the Firm Element will have an implementation date of
January 1, 2023.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 21-41 at https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/21-41. In SR-BOX-2022-16 the Exchange made
changes to IM-2040-5 and established Rule 2130 and IM-2130-1 to: (1)
provide eligible individuals who terminate any of their
representative or principal registration categories the option of
maintaining their qualification for any terminated registration
categories by completing annual Continuing Education (``CE'')
through a new program, the Maintaining Qualifications Program
(``MQP''); and (2) require registered persons to complete CE
Regulatory Element annually for each representative or principal
registration category that they hold. The adoption of Rule 2130 and
IM-2130-1 to establish the MQP became effective April 13, 2022. All
other changes to the Exchange's Continuing Education requirement,
including the changes relating to the Regulatory Element and the
two-year qualification period, will have an implementation date of
January 1, 2023. The Exchange's proposed change to IM-2040-5 to
include the Firm Element will also have an implementation date of
January 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's clerical updates to remove the term ``options'' from
IM-2040-4 would be immediately effective to reflect and make clear that
the rule does not apply solely to those engaged in the ``options''
securities business but would also apply to a BSTX Participant engaged
in the equities securities business, accounting for the recent approval
of the BSTX trading facility which would introduce the trading of
equity securities on the Exchange when launched.
IM-2020-1
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete IM-2020-1 as the temporary
extension period detailed within the rule has expired. Neither FINRA
nor the Exchange has elected to further extend the temporary relief
granted in IM-2020-1 and therefore the Exchange proposes to delete the
rule as it is no longer necessary.\15\ The Exchange's proposed
elimination of the obsolete IM-2020-1 would be immediately effective to
reduce potential confusion and improve the clarity of the Exchange's
rules, thereby ensuring that participants, regulators, and the public
can more easily navigate and understand the Exchange's rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See BOX IM-2020-1 (Temporary Extension for Representatives
to Function as Principals). IM-2020-1 currently provides that any
Representative who was designated to function as a Principal under
paragraph (d) of this Rule prior to March 3, 2021, may continue to
function as a Principal without having successfully passed an
appropriate qualification examination until June 30, 2021. IM-2020-1
is based on a filing submitted by the FINRA in response to the
COVID-19 global pandemic to address disruptions to the
administration of FINRA qualification examinations caused by the
pandemic that had significantly limited the ability of individuals
to sit for examinations due to Prometric test center capacity
issues. See also Exchange Act Release No. 34-91506 (April 8, 2021),
86 FR 19671 (April 14, 2021) (SR-FINRA-2021-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of

the Act,\17\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposed rule change to add the Firm Element
component to the Exchange's Continuing Education requirement seeks to
align the Exchange Rules with recent changes submitted by FINRA to the
Commission.\18\ Recently the Exchange filed SR-BOX-2022-16,\19\ in
which the Exchange amended IM-2040-5 and established BOX Rule 2130
(Continuing Education Program for Persons Maintaining Their
Qualification Following the Termination of a Registration Category) and
IM-2130-1 to require that the Regulatory Element of Continuing
Education be completed annually rather than every three years and
provide a path through Continuing Education for individuals to maintain
their qualification following the termination of a registration. The
Exchange is now proposing to make additional conforming changes to
align with the FINRA Continuing Education Rule Change by adding the
Firm Element component under IM-2040-5. The Exchange's proposed
additional conforming changes would allow the Exchange to harmonize the
Exchange's Continuing Education rules with the FINRA Continuing
Education Rule Change by adding the Firm Element under IM-2040-5.\20\
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the Firm Element will
ensure registered individuals receive timely and relevant training,
which will, in turn, enhance compliance and investor protection.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 3.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ The proposed changes to IM-2040-5, including new paragraph
(b)(2) and subsections (a) through (f) are based on and
substantially similar to FINRA Rules 1240(b)(1)-(4).
    \21\ The Exchange previously filed SR-BOX-2022-16, in that
filing the Exchange adopted the Regulatory Element component of the
FINRA Continuing Education Rule Change. The Exchange is now
proposing to complete the harmonization of its Continuing Education
rules with FINRA by including the Firm Element components in its
current filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change to IM-2040-5 to include
the Firm Element is consistent with the Act as the proposed change is a
conforming change that is based on a filing submitted by FINRA and
approved by the Commission and is intended to harmonize the Exchange's
Continuing Education rules with those of FINRA so as to promote uniform
standards across the securities industry.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to IM-2040-4 is
consistent with the Act as the Exchange is clarifying that the
Continuing Education requirement is not limited to only Participants
engaged in options securities but applies to a wider range of
Participants trading in both equity and/or options securities.\23\ The
Exchange believes the removal of the term ``options'' from IM-2040-4 to
reflect and make clear that the rule does not apply solely to those
engaged in the ``options'' securities business but would also apply to
a BSTX Participant engaged in the equities securities business is
consistent with the Act.\24\ Further, the Exchange believes that, by
ensuring the rulebook accurately reflects the intention of the
Exchange's rules, the proposed rule change reduces potential investor
or market participant confusion. Additionally, the inclusion of the
Firm Element as part of the Continuing Education requirement is
consistent with the Act as the proposed change is a part of the
Exchange's conforming change that is intended to harmonize the
Exchange's Continuing Education rules with those of FINRA so as to
promote uniform standards across the securities industry.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra notes 12 and 13.
    \24\ See supra note 12.
    \25\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed removal of IM-2020-1 is
consistent with the just and equitable principles of trade. By deleting
IM-2020-1 the Exchange would remove an outdated and potentially
confusing rule. The temporary extension period expired on June 30,
2021, and both FINRA and the Exchange have declined to extend the
temporary relief.\26\ Thus, the Exchange believes that the elimination
of the obsolete IM-2020-1 would reduce potential confusion and improve
the clarity of the Exchange's rules, thereby ensuring that
participants, regulators, and the public can more easily navigate and
understand the Exchange's rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change, which harmonizes its rules with recent rule
changes adopted by FINRA, will reduce the regulatory burden placed on
market participants engaged in trading activities across different
markets. The Exchange recently filed SR-BOX-2022-16 in which the
Exchange amended IM-2040-5 and established BOX Rule 2130 and IM-2130-1
to require that the Regulatory Element of Continuing Education be
completed annually rather than every three years and provide a path
through Continuing Education for individuals to maintain their
qualifications following the termination of a registration. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes to add the
Firm Element component to its Continuing Education requirement will
impose any burden on competition as the proposed rule change to include
the Firm Element further harmonizes the Exchange's Continuing Education
rules with those of FINRA.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed changes to IM-2040-4
will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Further, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not alter the
application of the rule, except as described herein. The Exchange
believes that by removing the term ``options'' from IM-2040-4, it would
reflect and make clear that the rule does not apply solely to those
engaged in the ``options'' securities business, it would become clear
that a person engaged, or to be engaged in the securities business of a
Participant, such as a BSTX Participant engaged in the equities
business, would be required to satisfy the Exchange's Continuing
Education requirement.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed change to IM-2020-1 will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue, but rather it is designed to
eliminate an obsolete rule and enhance the clarity of the Exchange's
rules.
    As such, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change is one that that: (i) does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (iii) by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \27\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative immediately upon filing.
    Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would permit the Exchange to
include both the Regulatory Element rules discussed in SR-BOX-2022-16,
and the proposed Firm Element rules discussed herein as a part of its
annual 17d-2 review.\29\ As a part of the Exchange's 17d-2 agreement
with FINRA, FINRA would have regulatory responsibility for the
Exchange's Continuing Education requirement, including both the
Regulatory Element and the proposed Firm Element components of the
Exchange's Continuing Education requirement.\30\ Waiver of the 30-day
period would allow the Exchange to implement its plan for allocating
regulatory responsibility to FINRA to include the Firm Element as part
of the Exchange's ongoing Rule 17d-2 agreement. Additionally, waiver of
the operative delay is appropriate here because the Exchange seeks to
adopt changes already approved by the Commission for FINRA and would
help avoid confusion for Participants of the Exchange that are also
FINRA members. For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiver
of the 30-day operative delay for this proposal is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Exchange currently has a 17d-2 agreement in place with
FINRA permitting the Exchange to allocate to FINRA certain
regulatory responsibilities for common members to eliminate
regulatory duplication. As part of the Exchange's agreement, FINRA
would have regulatory responsibility for the Exchange's Continuing
Education requirement, which as proposed, includes both the
Regulatory Element and Firm Element components of the Exchange's
Continuing Education requirement. Waiver of the 30-day period would
allow the Exchange to implement its plan for allocating regulatory
responsibility to FINRA to include the Firm Element as part of the
Exchange's ongoing 17d-2 agreement.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2022-23 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-BOX-2022-23. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2022-23 and should be submitted on
or before August 30, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-17004 Filed 8-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P