[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36956-36960]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15911]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0205; FRL-9929-68-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Infrastructure for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards

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
the State of New Mexico for the Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The submittal addresses
how the existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or i-
SIP). This i-SIP ensures that the State's SIP is adequate to meet the
state's responsibilities under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R06-OAR-2014-0205, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.
     Email: Sherry Fuerst at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or delivery: Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Deliveries are accepted only
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on legal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2014-0205. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with her or Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    On June 22, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS
(hereafter the 2010 SO2 NAAQS) to establish a new 1-hour
standard, with a level of 75 parts per billion, based on the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations (75 FR 35520). Each state must submit an i-SIP within
three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) of the CAA includes a list of specific elements the i-SIP
must meet. EPA issued guidance addressing the i-SIP elements for
NAAQS.\1\ The Secretary of the New Mexico Environmental Department
(NMED) submitted an i-SIP revision to address this revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve the New Mexico i-SIP submittal for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Additional information on: The history of SO2,
its levels, forms and, determination of compliance; EPA's approach
for reviewing i-SIPs; the details of the SIP submittal and EPA's
evaluation; the effect of recent court decisions on i-SIPs; the
statute and regulatory citations in the New Mexico SIP specific to
this review; the specific i-SIP applicable CAA and EPA regulatory
citations; Federal Register Notice citations for New Mexico SIP
approvals; New Mexico's minor New Source Review program and EPA
approval activities; and, New Mexico's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program can be found in the Technical Support
Document (TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation of New Mexico's i-SIP Submittal

    Below is a summary of EPA's evaluation of the New Mexico i-SIP for
each applicable element of 110(a)(2) A-M.\3\ New Mexico provided a
demonstration of how the existing New Mexico SIP met all the
requirements of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on February 14, 2014.
This SIP submission became complete by operation of law on August 14,
2014. See CAA section 110(k)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A detailed discussion of our evaluation can be found in the
TSD for this action. The TSD can be accessed through
www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0205).

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

    (A) Emission limits and other control measures: The SIP must
include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means
or techniques, schedules for compliance and other related matters as
needed to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS.\4\ New
Mexico's Environmental Improvement Act (EIA) and Air Quality Control
Act (AQCA) provide the Secretary, the NMED and the New Mexico
Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) with broad legal authority. They
can adopt emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to
regulated entities; emission standards and limitations and any other
measures necessary for attainment and maintenance of national
standards; and, enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards and
compliance schedules, and seek injunctive relief. This authority has
been employed to adopt and submit multiple revisions to the New Mexico
State Implementation Plan. The approved SIP for New Mexico is
documented at 40 CFR part 52.1620, subpart GG.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section
110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirements of section 172,
not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1). Thus, section
110(a)(2)(A) does not require that states submit regulations or
emissions limits specifically for attaining the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. Those SIP provisions are due as part of each state's
attainment plan, and will be addressed separately from the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). 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.
    \5\ https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/52.1620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: The SIP must
provide for establishment and implementation of ambient air quality
monitors, collection and analysis of monitoring data, and providing the
data to EPA upon request.
    The AQCA provides the authority allowing EIB and NMED to collect
air monitoring data, quality-assure the results, and report the data.
New Mexico maintains and operates a SO2 network to measure
ambient levels. All monitoring data is measured using EPA approved
methods and subject to the EPA quality assurance requirements. NMED
submits all required data to EPA, following the EPA rules. The
statewide network was approved into the SIP and it undergoes recurrent
annual review by EPA.\6\ In addition, NMED conducts a recurrent
assessment of its monitoring network every five years, which includes
an evaluation of the need to conduct ambient monitoring for
SO2, as required by EPA rules. The most recent of these 5-
year monitoring network assessments was conducted by NMED and approved
by EPA.\7\ The NMED Web site provides the monitor locations and posts
past and current concentrations of criteria pollutants measured in the
State's network of monitors.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A copy of the 2014 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan and
EPA's approval letter are included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
    \7\ A copy of the 2010 5-year ambient monitoring network
assessment and EPA's approval letter are included in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking.
    \8\ See http://air.nmenv.state.nm.us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (C) Program for enforcement: The SIP must include the following
three elements: (1) A program providing for enforcement of the measure
in paragraph A above; (2) a program for the regulation of the
modification and construction of stationary sources as necessary to
protect the applicable NAAQS (i.e., state-wide permitting of minor
sources); and (3) a permit program to meet the major source permitting
requirements of the CAA (for areas designated as attainment or
unclassifiable for the NAAQS in question).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As discussed in further detail in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Enforcement of SIP Measures. As noted in (A), the state
statutes provide authority for the Secretary, EIB and the NMED to
enforce the requirements of the AQCA, and any regulations, permits, or
final compliance orders. Its statutes also provide the Secretary, the
NMED and the EIB with general enforcement powers. Among other things,
they can file lawsuits to compel compliance with the statutes and
regulations; commence civil actions; issue field citations; conduct
investigations of regulated entities; collect criminal and civil
penalties; develop and enforce rules and standards related to
protection of air quality; issue compliance orders; pursue criminal
prosecutions; investigate, enter into remediation agreements; and issue
emergency cease and desist orders. The AQAC also provides additional
enforcement authorities and funding mechanisms.
    (2) Minor New Source Review (NSR). The SIP is required to include
measures to regulate construction and modification of stationary
sources to protect the NAAQS. New Mexico's minor NSR permitting
requirements are approved as part of the SIP.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove New Mexico's
existing minor NSR program to the extent that it may be inconsistent
with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA has maintained
that the CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP
submissions correct any defects in existing EPA-approved provisions
of minor NSR programs in order for EPA to approve the infrastructure
SIP for element C (e.g., 76 FR 41076-41079, July 13, 2011). EPA
believes that a number of states may have minor NSR provisions that
are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. The
statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for
considerable flexibility in designing minor NSR programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program.
New Mexico's PSD portion of the SIP covers all NSR regulated pollutants
as well as the requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and has
been approved by EPA.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As discussed further in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (D) Interstate and international transport: There are four
requirements the SIP must include relating to interstate transport.
These four requirements are referred to as prongs 1 through 4. Prongs 1
and 2 require adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type
of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to
nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of any NAAQS in another
state. Prong 3 and 4 prohibit interfering with measures required of any
other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to
protect visibility. In addition, States must comply with requirements
to prevent transport of international air pollution.
    New Mexico did not address Prongs 1 and 2 in this submission. EPA
intends to develop guidance and additional information for the states
to address these requirements. We expect that New Mexico will make a
SIP submittal for prongs 1 and 2 at a later time.
    The necessary provisions for prong 3 are contained in the PSD
portion of the SIP. The prong 4 requirement was met by our approval of
the regional haze and visibility component of the SIP.
    New Mexico's SIP includes provisions that satisfy the CAA
interstate pollution abatement requirements prongs 3 and 4. There are
no final findings by EPA that New Mexico air emissions affect other
countries. Therefore, New Mexico has no international obligations. If
EPA makes such a finding, NMED will consult with EPA.
    (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight:
The SIP must provide for the following: (1) Necessary assurances that
the state (and other entities within the state responsible for
implementing the SIP) will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state or local law to implement the SIP, and that there
are no legal impediments to such implementation; (2) requirements
relating to state boards; and (3) necessary assurances that the state
has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of any plan
provision for which it relies on local governments

or other entities to carry out that portion of the plan.
    Both elements A and E address the requirement that there is
adequate authority to implement and enforce the SIP and that there are
no legal impediments.
    This i-SIP submission for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS describes
the SIP regulations governing the various functions of personnel within
the EIB and NMED, including the administrative, technical support,
planning, enforcement, and permitting functions of the program.
    With respect to funding, the AQCA requires NMED to establish an
emissions fee schedule for sources in order to fund the reasonable
costs of administering various air pollution control programs and
authorizes NMED to collect additional fees necessary to cover
reasonable costs associated with processing of air permit applications.
EPA conducts periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has
adequate resources and funding to among other things implement and
enforce the SIP.
    As required by the CAA, the EIA and the SIP stipulate that any
board or body, which approves permits or enforcement orders, must 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 or who appear before the
board on issues related to the CAA or AQCA. The members of the board or
body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, are required to
adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
    With respect to assurances that the State has responsibility to
implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies
to carry out portions of the plan, the EIA and the AQCA designate the
NMED as the primary air pollution control agency. The statutes allow
for local agencies to carry out some or all of the Act's
responsibilities.
    There is one local air quality control agency, the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board, which assumes jurisdiction
for local administration and enforcement of the AQCA in Bernalillo
County. There are Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP provisions which
are part of the New Mexico SIP.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County SIP http://yosemite.epa.gov/r6/Sip0304.nsf/home!OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Collapse=4.4#4.4 or
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/52.1620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (F) Stationary source monitoring system: The SIP requires the
establishment of a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources
and to submit periodic emission reports. It must require the
installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources, to monitor emissions from sources. The SIP shall
also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions
and emissions-related data from sources, and require that the state
correlate the source reports with emission limitations or standards
established under the CAA. These reports must be made available for
public inspection at reasonable times.
    The AQCA authorizes the NMED to require persons engaged in
operations which result in air pollution to monitor or test emissions
and to file reports containing information relating to the nature and
amount of emissions. There also are SIP state regulations pertaining to
sampling and testing and requirements for reporting of emissions
inventories. In addition, SIP rules establish general requirements for
maintaining records and reporting emissions.
    The NMED uses this information, in addition to information obtained
from other sources, to track progress towards maintaining the NAAQS,
developing control and maintenance strategies, identifying sources and
general emission levels, and determining compliance with SIP
regulations and additional EPA requirements. The SIP requires this
information be made available to the public. Provisions concerning the
handling of confidential data and proprietary business information are
included in the SIP's regulations. These rules specifically exclude
from confidential treatment any records concerning the nature and
amount of emissions reported by sources.
    (G) Emergency authority: The SIP must provide for authority to
address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare or the environment and to include contingency
plans to implement such authorities as necessary.
    The AQCA provides NMED with authority to address environmental
emergencies, and NMED has contingency plans to implement emergency
episode provisions.
    Upon a finding that any owner/operator is unreasonably affecting
the public health, safety or welfare, or the health of animal or plant
life, or property, AQCA authorizes NMED to, after a reasonable attempt
to give notice, declare a state of emergency and issue without hearing
an emergency special order directing the owner/operator to cease such
pollution immediately.
    The New Mexico ``Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan for New
Mexico,'' is part of the SIP. However, because of the low levels of
SO2 emissions monitored statewide, New Mexico is not
required to have contingency plans for this revised NAAQS. However, to
provide additional protection, the State has general emergency powers
to address any possible dangerous SO2 episode if necessary
to protect the environment and public health.
    (H) Future SIP revisions: States must have the authority to revise
their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of
improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in response to an EPA
finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS.
    The AQCA requires the NMED to revise its SIP, as necessary, to
account for revisions of the NAAQS, new NAAQS, to attain and maintain
the NAAQS, to abate air pollution, to adopt more effective methods of
attaining the NAAQS, and to respond to EPA SIP calls.
    (I) Nonattainment areas: New Mexico presently does not have any
non-attainment areas for SO2 and EPA believes that
nonattainment area requirements should be treated separately from the
i-SIP requirements.\13\ If necessary, EPA will take action through a
separate rulemaking process on the non-attainment area requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This infrastructure SIP rulemaking will not address the New
Mexico program for provisions related to nonattainment areas, since
EPA considers evaluation of these provisions to be outside the scope
of infrastructure SIP actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (J) Consultation with government officials, public notification,
PSD and visibility protection: The SIP must meet the following three
requirements: (1) Relating to interagency consultation regarding
certain CAA requirements; (2) relating to public notification of NAAQS
exceedances and related issues; and, (3) prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality and visibility protection.
    (1) Interagency consultation: As required by the AQCA, there must
be a public hearing before the adoption of any regulations or emission
control requirements and all interested persons are given a reasonable
opportunity to submit data, view, or arguments orally or in writing and
to examine witnesses testifying at the hearing. In addition, the AQAC
provides the NMED the power and duty to ``advise, consult, contract

with and cooperate with local authorities, other states, the federal
government and other interested persons or groups in regard to matters
of common interest in the field of air quality control . . .''.
Furthermore, New Mexico's PSD SIP rules mandate that the NMED shall
provide for public participation and notification regarding permitting
applications to any other state or local air pollution control
agencies, local government officials of the city or county where the
source will be located, tribal authorities, and Federal Land Managers
(FLMs) whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source or
modification. Additionally, the State's PSD SIP rules require the NMED
to consult with FLMs regarding permit applications for sources with the
potential to impact Class I Federal Areas. The SIP also includes a
commitment to consult continually with the FLMs on the review and
implementation of the visibility program, and the State recognizes the
expertise of the FLMs in monitoring and new source review applicability
analyses for visibility and has agreed to notify the FLMs of any
advance notification or early consultation with a major new or
modifying source prior to the submission of the permit application. The
State's Transportation Conformity SIP rules provide procedures for
interagency consultation, resolution of conflicts, and public
notification.
    (2) Public Notification: The i-SIP provides the SIP regulatory
citations requiring the NMED to regularly notify the public of
instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded. Included in the SIP
are the rules for NMED to advise the public of the health hazard
associated with such exceedances; and enhance public awareness of
measures that can prevent such exceedances and of ways in which the
public can participate in the regulatory and other efforts to improve
air quality. In addition, as discussed for infrastructure element B
above, the NMED air monitoring Web site provides live air quality data
for each of the monitoring stations in New Mexico.\8\ The Web site also
provides information on the health effects of ozone, particulate
matter, and other criteria pollutants.
    (3) PSD and Visibility Protection: The PSD requirements here are
the same as those addressed under (C). The New Mexico SIP requirements
relating to visibility and regional haze are not affected when EPA
establishes or revises a NAAQS. Therefore, EPA believes that there are
no new visibility protection requirements due to the revision of the
NAAQS, and consequently there are no newly applicable visibility
protection obligations pursuant to infrastructure element J after the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
    (K) Air quality and modeling/data: The SIP must provide for
performing air quality modeling, as prescribed by EPA, to predict the
effects on ambient air quality of any emissions of any NAAQS pollutant,
and for submission of such data to EPA upon request.
    The NMED has the power and duty, under the AQCA to investigate and
develop facts providing for the functions of environmental air quality
assessment. Past modeling and emissions reductions measures have been
submitted by the State and approved into the SIP. Additionally, New
Mexico has the ability to perform modeling for the primary and
secondary SO2 standards and other criteria pollutant NAAQS
on a case-by-case permit basis consistent with their SIP-approved PSD
rules and with EPA guidance.
    The New Mexico AQCA authorizes and requires NMED to cooperate with
the federal government and local authorities concerning matters of
common interest in the field of air quality control, thereby allowing
the agency to make such submissions to the EPA.
    (L) Permitting Fees: The SIP must require each major stationary
source to pay permitting fees to the permitting authority, as a
condition of any permit required under the CAA, to cover the cost of
reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and, if
the permit is issued, the costs of implementing and enforcing the terms
of the permit. The fee requirement applies until a fee program
established by the state pursuant to Title V of the CAA, relating to
operating permits, is approved by EPA.
    See element (E) above for the description of the mandatory
collection of permitting fees outlined in the SIP.
    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities: The SIP
must provide for consultation and participation by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    See element J (1) and (2) for a discussion of the SIP's public
participation process, the authority to advise and consult, and the PSD
SIP's public participation requirements. Additionally, the AQCA also
requires initiation of cooperative action between local authorities and
the NMED, between one local authority and another, or among any
combination of local authorities and the NMED for control of air
pollution in areas having related air pollution problems that overlap
the boundaries of political subdivisions, and entering into agreements
and compacts with adjoining states and Indian tribes, where
appropriate. NMED has a long history of successful cooperation with the
local air quality authority in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County and tribal
governments. The transportation conformity component of New Mexico's
SIP requires that interagency consultation and opportunity for public
involvement be provided before making transportation conformity
determinations and before adopting applicable SIP revisions on
transportation-related issues.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the February 14, 2014, infrastructure
SIP submission from New Mexico, which addresses the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the following
infrastructure elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is not proposing
action on section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions, nor on the visibility protection portion of section
110(a)(2)(J) as EPA believes these need not be addressed in the i-SIP.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions and
relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced
in these submissions or referenced in New Mexico's SIP, EPA believes
that New Mexico has the infrastructure in place to address all
applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) (except
otherwise noted) to ensure that the 2010 SO2 NAAQS are
implemented in the state.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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).
    EPA is not proposing to approve this infrastructure SIP
certification 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, this proposed approval
of an infrastructure SIP certification does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: June 18, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-15911 Filed 6-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From:	Lanelle Wiggins/DC/USEPA/US

To<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Date:	07/11/2011 05:07 PM

Subject:	tentative agenda for the second SBAR Panel Outreach meeting for
the Utility GHG NSPS Rulemaking - Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Dear Small Entity Representatives:

Below is a tentative agenda for our meeting this Wednesday, July 13 from
1:30pm - 5:00pm eastern time.  Please note that I have stretched the
meeting to run until 5, rather than the originally scheduled ending time
of 4:30.  We have access to the room until 5, and we wanted to
accommodate the meeting topics that were suggested by Theresa Pugh and
Rae Cronmiller (see Theresa's 7/6 email, I believe you all were cc'd
on).

TENTATIVE AGENDA - July 13, 2011

1:30pm - 5:00pm eastern

1:30    Welcome/Introductions/Allotment of Time in Agenda*  (15 min)

1:45    Discussion of SER suggested issues (2 hrs)

Limited use boilers with limited opportunities for efficient
improvements due to NSR complications for conventional pollutants (even
though we believe that the pollution control exclusion applies in the
context of NSPS).

Variances per kwH and heat rates over monthly and annual operations
(six  real world case studies by utilities)

Why age of plant is significant in setting any NSPS for CO2
(Wyandotte)

A brief presentation on legal issues on NSPS for CO2 (Bill Wehrum)

Why knowing the end game on biomass is critical before proposing NSPS
for EPA and utilities (Holland)

Why municipal government electric utilities are different from other
utilities. Examples: why the business model is based upon cost-effective
decisions that integrate wastewater treatment waste combustion, etc. Why
waste heat for snow melt and community energy plan provides high
temperature for high temperature water in buildings to reduce CO2 used
from heating of water, etc (Holland)

3:45    Discussion of 'Questions for SERs' (slides 53-63)  (1 hr)

4:45    Summary and closing (15 min)

*Please note:  In the initial 15 minutes of the meeting, we will open a
quick discussion of the allotment of time in the agenda.  In the absence
of having a third Panel outreach meeting, we'd like to devote time at
this meeting to discussion of the topics/issues that SERs feel are most
important for the Panel to hear.  We can either stick to the suggested
allotment of time, or decide as a group to shift some of the time from
the discussion of slides 53-63 up to the bullet points suggested by
Theresa and Rae.  The SERs listed as speakers under Theresa and Rae's
bullets should be prepared to adjust themselves to fit into the time
period allotted (anywhere from 2 hrs to about 2 hrs and 45 minutes).
EPA is assessing the feasibility of having a 3rd outreach meeting, and
yet you should be prepared for this meeting to be your only opportunity
for a verbal discussion.  Remember that EPA will also accept written
comments for two weeks after Wednesday (deadline COB July 27)  on the
issues that we cover verbally, as well as on any topics that we do not
get to in any meetings.

Location for Wednesday's meeting:

Room 6530, Ariel Rios North

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20004

(Federal Triangle metro stop on the Orange line, entrance along 12th
street about half way between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues)

OR you can participate via conference call by calling 1-866-299-3188 and
entering code<PHONE_NUMBER>

If you have not done so already and you are attending in person, please
send me your name by noon tomorrow.  I will need to give your name to
our guards to make your entry to the building as easy as possible.  When
you arrive, please use the entrance to the Ariel Rios North building
located under the arches and next to the Metro entrance.  Be prepared to
present an ID to the guards.  The guards will scan your bags, sign you
in, and give you a visitor pass.  Someone from my team will meet you at
the guard desk to escort you to our meeting room.

For your handy reference, I have attached two documents from our first
Panel outreach meeting: the presentation on the rulemaking (“EGU NSPS
Panel Outreach Presentation 2011.06.15.pdf”) and the outline of
regulatory options that EPA heard at the five GHG NSPS listening
sessions (“Final NSPS Markup 05-05-2011.pdf”).

Please call or email me if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Lanelle

Final NSPS Markup 05-05-2011.pdf

EGU NSPS Panel Outreach Presentation 2011.06.15.pdf

************************************************************

Lanelle Bembenek Wiggins

RFA/SBREFA Team Leader

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Policy

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1806A)

Washington, DC  20460

202/566-2372

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
************************************************************


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59891-59893]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23511]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2014-0011-N-18]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below requesting regular review is being forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected
burden. The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on June 30, 2014 (79 FR 36860).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 3, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning
and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:
(202) 493-6292), or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information
Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-
6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public
comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve
paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.12. On June 30, 2014, FRA published a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register soliciting comments on the ICR for which the agency is seeking
OMB approval. See 79 FR 36860. The ICR relates to the Emergency Order
(EO) issued on May 7, 2014, by the Secretary of Transportation (Docket
No. DOT-OST-2014-0067). The EO requires affected railroad carriers to
provide certain information to the State Emergency Response Commissions
(SERCs) for each State in which they operate individual trains carrying
1 million gallons or more of petroleum crude oil sourced from the
Bakken shale formation in the Williston Basin (Bakken crude oil). FRA
received one comment in response to its 60-day notice.
    On August 29, 2014, FRA received a joint comment from the
Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) (Commenters). The Commenters
raised three main points. First, the Commenters assert that the crude
oil routing information the EO requires railroads to provide to SERCs
is sensitive information from a security perspective and should only be
available to persons with a need-to-know the information (e.g.,
emergency responders and emergency response planners). Second, the
Commenters assert that the same information is commercially-sensitive
information that should remain confidential and not be publically
available. Finally, the Commenters assert that the EO is not serving a
useful purpose as the information required by the EO to be provided to
the SERCs is already provided to emergency responders through AAR
Circular OT-55-N. See AAR, ``Circular OT-55-N: Recommended Railroad
Operating Practices For Transportation of Hazardous Materials,'' (Aug.
5, 2013) (OT-55). The Commenters specifically suggest that the EO ``be
withdrawn because it has resulted in information confidential from
security, safety, and business perspectives being made public and
because the objective of the emergency order, informing government

officials of the transportation of Bakken crude oil through their
jurisdictions, was already being met, and would continue to be met, if
the EO is withdrawn.'' AAR and ASLRRA continued:

    The EO requires that railroads make crude oil routing
information available to [SERCs]. Specifically, the EO requires that
a railroad provide to the SERC in each state in which it operates
trains transporting 1,000,000 gallons or more of Bakken crude oil
information on the number of such trains traveling per week through
each county and the routes over which the trains operate.
    While AAR and ASLRRA do not believe it was DOT's intention, the
EO resulted in the information required to be disclosed by the EO to
be made publicly available. Such a result is hardly a necessary
consequence of informing government officials of the transportation
of Bakken crude oil through their jurisdictions. Railroads were
already informing government officials of the hazardous materials
transported through their communities pursuant to AAR's circular
governing operating practices for the transportation of hazardous
materials, OT-55.\1\

    \1\ OT-55 provides that AAR members will provide emergency
response agencies or emergency response planning groups with
``commodity flow information covering at a minimum the top 25
hazardous commodities transported through the community in rank
order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their comment, AAR and ASLRRA further remarked:

    Unfortunately, in so far as confidentiality is concerned, the
result of the EO has proven inconsistent with DOT's intent. Since
SERCs in many states have contended they have no choice but to make
the routing information public because of the laws governing SERCs,
the SERCs have refused to keep crude oil routing information
confidential.
    The EO is not needed to provide emergency responders with notice
that crude oil shipments are being transported through their
communities because railroads have been providing that information
for many years. OT-55 provides that railroads will give emergency
response agencies and planning groups information on the hazardous
materials transported through their communities. Class I railroads
and short lines have notified communities as provided by OT-55.
    For emergency response planning purposes, there is no need to
disclose the actual route taken by a crude oil train. Notifying an
emergency responder of the hazardous materials transported through
the community, including crude oil, is sufficient.
    Railroading is a highly competitive business. A railroad's
traffic is susceptible to competing railroads and competing modes.
As is the case with any company engaged in a competitive business,
railroads keep their customers confidential to the extent possible.
Forced disclosure of routing information provides a means for
competitors to ascertain a railroad's customers and constitutes the
disclosure of confidential commercial information.

    Although DOT and FRA in particular, recognize the Commenters
concerns relating to the potential confidentiality of the information
required to be provided under the EO, DOT notes that the information
does not fall into any of the fifteen categories of Sensitive Security
Information (SSI) defined by either DOT or Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) regulations. See 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520.
Further, at this time, DOT finds no basis to conclude that the public
disclosure of the information is detrimental to transportation safety.
DOT has consulted with the Department of Homeland Security and TSA in
making this decision. Accordingly, the Secretary of Transportation has
not designated the information as SSI.
    The Commenters are correct in that DOT's intent in issuing the EO
was not to cause the widespread public disclosure of the information,
but rather to ensure that emergency responders have an understanding of
the volume and frequency with which Bakken crude oil is transported
through their communities so that they can prepare their response plans
and resources accordingly. DOT notes that the Commenters do not
document any actual harm that has occurred by the public release of the
information required to be provided to the States under the EO. That
being said, DOT understands that railroads may have an appropriate
claim that the information required to be provided to the SERCs
constitutes confidential business information, but the merit of such
claims may differ by State depending on each State's open records and
sunshine laws. For these reasons, FRA concludes that the information
required to be provided to the SERCs under the EO is neither security-
sensitive nor commercially-sensitive information that is protected by
Federal law.
    With regard to the Commenters' assertion that the EO is not serving
a useful purpose as the information required by the EO to be provided
to the States is already available to emergency responders through OT-
55, FRA notes that there are important distinctions between the
information required to be provided by railroads under the EO and the
nature and content of the information provided pursuant to OT-55.
First, the railroad's sharing of information contemplated by OT-55 is
only voluntary. Second, the railroad's voluntary sharing of information
under OT-55 is only upon written request of emergency response or
emergency planning groups. Third, the information voluntarily shared
pursuant to OT-55 is ``commodity flow information'' covering ``the top
25 hazardous commodities transported through the community in rank
order.'' Large quantities of Bakken crude oil in single trains may or
may not be part of this top-25 commodity ranking in any given
community. In contrast, by mandating in the EO that railroads provide
the identified information on the transportation of large quantities of
Bakken crude oil to States, the EO helps ensure that local emergency
responders have access to that information. Further, the information
that the EO mandates railroads to provide to States is very specific,
limited to one commodity (Bakken crude oil), more detailed than the
information voluntarily shared pursuant to OT-55, and specifically
designed to ensure that local emergency responders are provided
sufficient information to confirm that they have an understanding of
the volume, route, and frequency with which Bakken crude oil is
transported through their jurisdictions so that they can prepare
emergency response plans and resources accordingly. For these reasons,
FRA strongly disagrees with the Commenters' assertion that the EO is
not serving a useful purpose.
    Finally, DOT notes that a pending Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to
codify into Federal regulations the terms of the EO. See 79 FR 45016
(Aug. 1, 2014). The public comment period on this NPRM is scheduled to
close on September 30, 2014. It would be premature to change the terms
of the EO now and prohibit the disclosure of the specified information
to SERCs before those terms undergo full public scrutiny and comment
through the rulemaking process.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30-day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.

    The summary below describes the nature of the ICR and the expected
burden. The revised request is being submitted for clearance by OMB as
required by the PRA.
    Title: Secretary of Transportation Emergency Order Docket No. OST-
2014-0067.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0604.
    Abstract: On May 7, 2014, the Secretary of Transportation issued
Emergency Order Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0067 (EO), requiring affected
railroad carriers to provide certain information to the State Emergency
Response Commissions (SERCs) for each State in which their trains
carrying 1 million gallons or more of Bakken crude oil travel. This EO
is available through the Department's public docket system at
www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0067. The EO took
effect immediately upon issuance, although affected railroads were
permitted 30 days to provide the required information to the SERCs. The
EO is the DOT's direct and proactive response to a recent series of
train accidents involving the transportation of petroleum crude oil, a
hazardous material the transportation of which is regulated by the DOT.
The most recent accident occurred on April 30, 2014, when a train
transporting petroleum crude oil derailed in Lynchburg, Virginia and
released approximately 30,000 gallons of its contents into the James
River. Further, the EO explains that, with the rising demand for rail
transportation of petroleum crude oil throughout the United States, the
risk of rail incidents has increased commensurate with the increase in
the volume of the material shipped and that there have been several
significant derailments in both the U.S. and Canada over the last
several months causing deaths and property and environmental damage
that involved petroleum crude oil. DOT emergency orders are rare and
the EO itself describes the most recent accidents and circumstances
leading the agency to issue the EO. The collection of information
included under this EO is aimed at ensuring that railroads that
transport in a single train a large quantity of petroleum crude oil (1
million gallons or more), particularly crude oil from the Bakken shale
formation in the Williston Basin, provide certain information to the
relevant SERCs in each State in which the railroad operates such
trains. Ensuring that railroads provide this information to SERCs is
critical to ensuring that local and State emergency responders are
aware of the large quantities of crude oil that are being transported
through their jurisdictions and are prepared to respond to accidents
involving such trains should they occur.
    Affected Public: Businesses (Railroads).
    Form(s): N/A.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 3,778 hours.
    Addressee: Send comments regarding this information collection to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB
at the following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of
the burden of the proposed information collections; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 29, 2014.
Erin McCartney,
Acting Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-23511 Filed 10-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39824-39827]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16858]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75361; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC To Amend Exchange Rule 612 Regarding Enhanced
Aggregate Risk Manager Protections for Exchange Market Makers

July 6, 2015.
    Pursuant to the provisions of section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on June 26, 2015, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 612 to
provide Enhanced Aggregate Risk Manager Protections for Exchange Market
Makers.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 612, Aggregate Risk
Manager (``ARM'') to provide optional enhanced risk protections for
Exchange Market Makers.\3\ Currently, ARM protects Market Makers by
limiting the number of contracts they execute in an option class on the
Exchange within a specified time period that has been established by
the Market Maker (a ``specified time period''), which may have a
duration of up to 15 seconds. MIAX Market Makers establish a percentage
of their quotations (the ``Allowable Engagement Percentage'') and the
specified time period for each option class in which they are
appointed.\4\ When an execution against a Market Maker's Standard quote
\5\ or Day eQuote (as defined below) occurs, the MIAX System \6\ looks
back over the specified time period to determine whether the execution
is of sufficient size to trigger the Aggregate Risk Manager. The System
engages the Aggregate Risk Manager when it has determined that a Market
Maker has traded a number of contracts equal to or above their
Allowable Engagement Percentage during the specified time period. The
Aggregate Risk Manager then automatically cancels and removes the
Market Maker's Standard quotes and Day eQuotes from the Exchange's
disseminated quotation in all series of that particular option class
until the Market Maker sends a notification to the System of the intent
to reengage quoting and submits a new revised quotation in the affected
class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market Makers,''
``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market Makers''
collectively. A Lead Market Maker is a Member registered with the
Exchange for the purpose of making markets in securities traded on
the Exchange and that is vested with the rights and responsibilities
specified in chapter VI of these Rules with respect to Lead Market
Makers. A Primary Lead Market Maker is a Lead Market Maker appointed
by the Exchange to act as the Primary Lead Market Maker for the
purpose of making markets in securities traded on the Exchange. A
Registered Market Maker is a Member registered with the Exchange for
the purpose of making markets in securities traded on the Exchange,
who is not a Lead Market Maker. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ The Exchange's Board or designated committee appoints one
Primary Lead Market Maker and other Market Makers to each options
class traded on the Exchange. For a complete description of the
Exchange's appointment process, see Exchange Rule 602.
    \5\ A Standard quote is a quote submitted by a Market Maker that
cancels and replaces the Market Maker's previous Standard quote, if
any. See Exchange Rule 517(a)(1).
    \6\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add new, optional enhanced functionality
to the ARM by adopting new Interpretations and Policies .02 to Rule
612, entitled Enhanced Aggregate Risk Manager Protections. The proposed
rule would address circumstances where a Market Maker experiences
multiple, successive triggers of the Aggregate Risk Manager. The
Enhanced ARM Protections would be triggered when the Allowable
Engagement Percentage has been equaled or exceeded a specified number
of times (not less than three times and not greater than 99 times)
within a specified time period (not less than one second and not
greater than 24,300 seconds) (each as determined by the Market Maker).
For purposes of the Enhanced ARM Protections, the specified time period
will be called the ``ARM trigger counting period'' in the rule.\7\
Market Makers may determine not to engage the Enhanced ARM Protections
or may determine to engage either or both of two proposed Enhanced ARM
Protections in the System: the Class Protection feature and the Market
Maker Protection feature, each described more fully below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Respecting the proposed Enhanced ARM Protections, the
Exchange proposes to adopt the term ``ARM trigger counting period''
in order to distinguish it from the ``specified time period''
defined in current Rule 612(a). The term ``specified time period''
describes the time period within which the System counts the number
of executed contracts to determine whether the Allowable Engagement
Percentage has been equaled or exceeded; the term ``ARM trigger
counting period'' describes the time period within which the System
counts the number of times the Allowable Engagement Percentage is
equaled or exceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Enhanced ARM Protections may be engaged simultaneously and will
operate independently of one another. The ARM trigger counting period
may be set differently for each Enhanced ARM Protection when they are
engaged simultaneously. The determination not to engage the Enhanced
ARM Protections does not require any action on the part of Market
Makers.
eQuotes
    Current Interpretations and Policies .01 to Rule 612 states that
eQuotes \8\ do not participate in the Aggregate Risk Manager. The
Exchange proposes to amend Interpretations and Policies .01 to clarify
that one type of eQuote, the

Day eQuote,\9\ participates in the ARM. The System does not include
contracts traded through the use of an eQuote that is not a Day eQuote
in the counting program for purposes of this Rule. eQuotes will remain
in the System available for trading when the Aggregate Risk Manager is
engaged. Day eQuotes participate in the Aggregate Risk Manager and will
be included in the Enhanced ARM Protections. Day eQuotes are the only
type of eQuote with a time in force (up to an entire trading session if
not executed) that can last longer than an extremely brief time period,
and thus are included in the current ARM counting period and will be
included in the ARM trigger counting period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An eQuote is a quote with a specific time in force that does
not automatically cancel and replace a previous Standard quote or
eQuote. An eQuote can be cancelled by the Market Maker at any time,
or can be replaced by another eQuote that contains specific
instructions to cancel an existing eQuote. See Exchange Rule
517(a)(2).
    \9\ A Day eQuote is a quote submitted by a Market Maker that
does not automatically cancel or replace the Market Maker's previous
Standard quote or eQuote. Day eQuotes will expire at the close of
trading each trading day. The Exchange reserves the right to limit
the number of Day eQuotes that a single Market Maker may place on
the same side of an individual option. The same limit will apply to
all types of Market Makers. If the Exchange determines to establish
a limit, it will be no more than ten Day eQuotes on the same side of
an individual option. The Exchange will publish the limit through
the issuance of a Regulatory Circular. See Exchange Rule
517(a)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All other eQuotes (Auction or Cancel,\10\ Opening Only,\11\
Immediate or Cancel,\12\ Fill or Kill,\13\ and Intermarket Sweep \14\
eQuotes) are not included in ARM and will not be included in the
Enhanced ARM Protections. These types of eQuotes have a very short time
in force and thus are present in the Exchange's disseminated quotation
for an extremely brief time period before they are cancelled
automatically if not executed. A Market Maker that submits an eQuote
other than a Day eQuote expects and intends that such eQuote will be
executed or cancelled without the need for ARM protection. Therefore
eQuotes that are not Day eQuotes are not included in the ARM counting
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 517(a)(2)(ii).
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 517(a)(2)(iii).
    \12\ See Exchange Rule 517(a)(2)(iv).
    \13\ See Exchange Rule 517(a)(2)(v).
    \14\ See Exchange Rule 517(a)(2)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Class Protection Feature
    Proposed Interpretations and Policies .02(a) would provide that a
Market Maker may determine to engage the Class Protection feature for a
particular option class in which the Market Maker is appointed (an
``appointed option class''). When the Allowable Engagement Percentage
in such appointed option class has been equaled or exceeded a specified
number of times within the ARM trigger counting period, the Class
Protection feature will remove the Market Maker's quotations from the
Exchange's disseminated quotation in such appointed option class until
the Market Maker instructs the Exchange (in a manner required by the
Exchange and communicated to Members by Regulatory Circular) to reset
the Class Protection feature. Additional quotations from the Market
Maker in the affected class are not accepted until the Class Protection
feature is reset.
    The Class Protection feature is distinguished from the regular
function of ARM because the ARM trigger counting period, during which
the System counts the number of times ARM is triggered for the affected
option class, usually would be longer than the ``specified time
period'' described in Rule 612(a), during which the ARM counts executed
contracts. The Class Protection feature is intended to alert Market
Makers that there may be ongoing volatile or otherwise unusual market
conditions that necessitate specific evaluation of their ARM settings,
and of the conditions that result in the number of ARM triggers that
occurred during the ARM trigger counting period.
    The Class Protection feature removes quotes from the Exchange's
disseminated quotation until the Market Maker instructs the Exchange
(in a manner required by the Exchange and communicated to Members by
Regulatory Circular) to reset the Class Protection feature.\15\ This
non-automated instruction requires the Exchange to reset the Enhanced
ARM Protection feature, as opposed to the method of resetting the
standard ARM feature, where the Market Maker resets the ARM by sending
a notification to the System of the intent to reengage quoting and
submits a new revised quotation in the affected class. The purpose of
the non-automated method of re-engaging the Class Protection feature is
to give Market Makers the ability to reconsider, reset and confirm
their Enhanced ARM Protection settings during times of peak or unusual
market activity, rather than an automated re-engagement. The Exchange
believes that this non-automated contact will strengthen the efficiency
of the Enhanced ARM Protections by providing Market Makers with the
ability to thoroughly assess current market conditions in setting risk
management levels and controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Any communication regarding the Enhanced ARM Protections
must be in writing from the Market Maker or Market Maker
organization via email or other electronic means to be described in
the Regulatory Circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker Protection Feature
    The System will aggregate the specified number of times that the
Allowable Engagement percentage has been equaled or exceeded in the
Market Maker's specified number of unique appointed option classes
within the ARM trigger counting period for an entire Market Maker
organization. The Market Maker Protection feature will remove the
Market Maker organization's quotations in all of the Market Maker
organization's appointed option classes when the Allowable Engagement
Percentage has been equaled or exceeded in the Market Maker
organization's specified number of appointed option classes within the
ARM trigger counting period, regardless of how many individual Market
Makers in the same Market Maker organization are submitting quotations
on MIAX. As with the Class Protection feature, and for the reasons
described above, such quotes will be removed until the Market Maker
instructs the Exchange (in a manner required by the Exchange and
communicated to Members by Regulatory Circular) to reset the Market
Maker Protection feature. Additional quotations from the Market Maker
are not accepted until the Market Maker Protection feature is reset.
One representative from a Market Maker organization may instruct the
Exchange to reset the Market Maker Protection feature on behalf of his
or her Market Maker organization.
Examples
    Market Maker organization ``Red, Inc.'' has three individual Market
Makers (``MMs'') properly registered on MIAX. Red, Inc. MM 1 is
appointed in option classes A, B and C. Red, Inc. MM2 is appointed in
option classes D, E, F, and G. Red, Inc. MM3 is appointed in option
classes H and I. Assume Red, Inc. determines that the Market Maker
Protection feature will be engaged when the Allowable Engagement
Percentage is equaled or exceeded three times (as described below)
within their designated ARM trigger counting period.
    If within the ARM trigger counting period the Allowable Engagement
Percentage is equaled or exceeded in option classes A, B, and C, the
Market Maker Protection feature will remove Red Inc.'s quotations in
all of its appointed option classes, (classes A through I), even though
the only individual Market Maker affected is MM1, who is appointed in
the three affected option classes.
    If within the ARM trigger counting period the Allowable Engagement

Percentage is equaled or exceeded in option classes A, D, and H, the
Market Maker Protection feature will remove Red Inc.'s quotations in
all of its appointed option classes, (classes A through I), because the
Allowable Engagement Percentage in three of Red, Inc.'s appointed
option classes has been equaled or exceeded, regardless of the fact
that the three affected appointed option classes are not appointed to
the same individual Red, Inc. Market Maker.
    In the event that the Allowable Engagement Percentage in one
appointed option class is equaled or exceeded multiple times during the
ARM trigger counting period, the System will consider such multiple
events to be one single trigger for purposes of the activation of the
Market Maker Protection feature. For example, if during the ARM trigger
counting period there is one trigger in option class A, and there are
five triggers in option class D, the System will calculate one trigger
for option class A and just one trigger for option class D.
Accordingly, the System will consider only two triggers to have
occurred in Red, Inc.'s appointed option classes (one trigger in option
class A, and one in option class D) during the ARM trigger counting
period. In this example, the Market Maker Protection feature will not
be engaged because Red, Inc. has determined that there must be three
triggers during the ARM trigger counting period before the Market Maker
Protection feature is to be activated. The purpose of this provision is
to ensure that unusual activity or volatility in one particular
appointed option class does not unnecessarily prompt the Market Maker
Protection feature to remove a Market Maker or Market Maker
organization's quotations from the Exchange's disseminated quotation in
all of their other unaffected appointed option classes. In such a
situation, the normal ARM functionality described in Exchange Rule 612
(or the Class Protection feature \16\) is in place to remove such
quotations in the single affected appointed option class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A Market Maker could elect to engage the Class Protection
feature for a single option class. That feature is designed to
provide an additional alert to Market Makers of an unusual number of
ARM triggers in the affected assigned option class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the instant proposal should further
assist Exchange Market Makers in managing their risk by establishing
and making available additional risk management tools in the System.
The Enhanced ARM Protection features will enable Exchange Market Makers
to target a specific appointed option class, or all of its appointed
option classes, for enhanced risk management and protection. This
should assist Exchange Market Makers in targeting appointed option
classes that could become extremely volatile under certain market
conditions or when market events, news or other factors affect a Market
Maker's ability to manage risk. The Enhanced ARM Protections are
intended to address both foreseeable and unforeseeable market
conditions in general, and can be tailored to meet the risk management
needs of Exchange Market Makers and Market Maker organizations.
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change by Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 60
days following the operative date of the proposed rule. The
implementation date will be no later than 60 days following the
issuance of the Regulatory Circular.
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b) of the Act \17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
section 6(b)(5) of the Act \18\ 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in, securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that Members will benefit from the proposed
Enhanced Aggregate Risk Manager Protections. Market Makers, who are
obligated to submit continuous two-sided quotations in a certain number
of series in their appointed option classes for a certain percentage of
each trading session,\19\ are vulnerable to risk from unusual market
conditions, volatility in specific option classes, and other market
events that may cause them to receive multiple, extremely rapid
automatic executions before they can adjust their quotations and
overall risk exposure in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For a complete description of MIAX Market Maker quoting
obligations, see Exchange Rule 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Without adequate risk management tools in place on the Exchange,
such as the existing ARM and the proposed Enhanced ARM Protections, the
incentive for Exchange Market Makers to quote aggressively respecting
both price and size could be diminished, and could result in a
concomitant reduction in the depth and liquidity they provide to the
market. Such a result may undermine the quality of the markets that
would otherwise be available to customers and other market
participants. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes the Enhanced ARM
Protections to help Market Makers better manage their risk exposure and
thus encourage Market Makers to provide additional depth and liquidity
to the Exchange's markets, thereby removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, protecting investors and the public
interest.
    In addition, the Enhanced ARM Protections promote just and
equitable principles of trade by providing Exchange Market Makers with
more risk management mechanisms available on the Exchange to give them
confidence that protections are in place to reduce the risks associated
with their Market Making obligations. The Exchange notes that the
implementation and use of the Enhanced ARM Protections will not relieve
Exchange Market Makers of their continuous quoting obligations under
Exchange Rule 604 and under Reg NMS Rule 602.\20\ All of a Market
Maker's quotes in each option class will be considered firm until such
time as the Allowable Engagement Percentage threshold has been equaled
or crossed and the Market Maker's quotes are removed by the Aggregate
Risk Manager in all series of that option class.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 242.602.
    \21\ See Exchange Rule 612(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed Enhanced ARM Protections are designed to
protect investors and the public interest by helping Market Makers
prevent executions resulting from activity that exceeds their risk
tolerance level under these rules as established by the Exchange.
    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange notes that it has analyzed its capacity and represents that it
and the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary
systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated
with the proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its members
will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose

any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    On the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed Enhanced
ARM Protections will foster competition by providing Exchange Market
Makers with an additional set of tools to use in submitting quotations
with the best possible price and size in order to compete for
executions and order flow. The Exchange believes the proposed Enhanced
ARM Protections will not impose any burden on intra-market competition
because its use is voluntary and is available to all Exchange Market
Makers and Market Maker organizations.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues who offer similar functionality. As to inter-market competition,
the Exchange believes that the proposed Enhanced ARM Protections should
promote competition because they are designed to protect Exchange
Market Makers from unusual market conditions or events that may cause
them to receive multiple, automatic executions before they can adjust
their quotation exposure in the market.
    For all the reasons stated, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, and
believes the proposed change will in fact enhance competition.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \23\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2015-44 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-MIAX-2015-44. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-44 and should be
submitted on or before July 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16858 Filed 7-9-15; 08:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P