[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2808-2809]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00655]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2013-0483; FRL-9905-20-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Title V
Operating Permit Program; State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the state
of Iowa. These revisions will amend the Iowa air quality rules to
eliminate state-only emissions testing procedures and adopt Federal
methods; to reduce notification time for portable plant relocations,
and allow electronic submittals of notifications; to update air quality
definitions to be consistent with Federal definitions, and to place
into rule the specific procedures for conducting emissions testing.
    EPA is also proposing to approve revisions to the Iowa Title V
Operating Permits Program to revise the definition of ``EPA Reference
Method,'' and to adopt by reference the revised Title V Periodic
Monitoring Guidance.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
February 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2013-0483 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Road, Lenexa, Kansas
66219.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-
Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 11201 Renner Road, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operations.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:00 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's revision to the SIP as a direct
final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rules
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA

receives adverse comments on part of this rule and if that part can be
severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: December 23, 2013.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2014-00655 Filed 1-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                  REGION III
	1650 Arch Street
	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:     March 11, 2014

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for the Maryland State Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

FROM:	Ruth Knapp, Environmental Protection Specialist /s/
      Office of Air Program Planning

TO:	File

THRU: 	Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director   /s/
            Office of Air Program Planning

A.  INTRODUCTION

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action on a submittal made by the State of Maryland to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2) requirements of the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

B.  BACKGROUND

      EPA first set standards for NO2 in 1971, setting both a primary standard (to protect health) and a secondary standard (to protect the public welfare) at 53 parts per billion (ppb), averaged annually.  EPA has reviewed the standards twice since that time, but chose not to revise the annual standards at the conclusion of each review.  On February 9, 2010, EPA established an additional primary standard at 100 ppb, averaged over one hour.  Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.  Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

      Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.  Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances.  In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission.  The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.  More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs.  Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for "infrastructure" SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS.  As mentioned above, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

C.  EPA REQUIREMENTS

      As discussed above, for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, states must provide SIP submissions, or provide certification that the existing SIP contains provisions addressing relevant infrastructure SIP elements from sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) of the CAA.

D.  STATE'S SUBMITTAL

      On August 14, 2013, Maryland provided a submittal to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.  This submittal addressed the following infrastructure elements that EPA is proposing to approve:  Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA, or portions thereof.  This submittal did not include or address element (I) which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a separate process if necessary.

E.  EVALUATION OF STATE SUBMITTAL

1.  Section 110(a)(2)(A)

	Maryland's August 14, 2013 SIP submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS includes enforceable emission limitations and other control measures to meet applicable requirements of the CAA which have been approved as part of Maryland's SIP under 40 CFR 52.1070(c).  Several of the relevant measures for the NO2 NAAQS are listed in Table 1.

           Table 1:  Emission limitations and other control measures
             Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) Subtitle/Chapter
                                 Chapter Name
                                   26.11.01
General Administrative Provisions
                                   26.11.02
Permits, Approvals, and Registration
                                   26.11.04
Ambient Air Quality Standards
                                   26.11.06
General Emissions Standards, Prohibitions, and Restrictions
                                   26.11.09
Control of Fuel-Burning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burning Installations
                                   26.11.27
Emission Limitations for Power Plants
                                   11.14.08
Vehicle Emissions Inspections Program
                                     20.79
Applications Concerning the Construction or Modification of Generating Stations and Overhead Transmission Lines
       Annotated Code of Maryland  -  Public Utilities Article, Sections
                                 Section Title
                                     7-205
Electric companies  -  Modification of power plant
                                     7-207
Generating stations or transmission lines  -  General certification procedure
                                     7-208
Generating stations or transmission lines  -  Joint construction of station and associated lines

      EPA finds Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) through the SIP approved measures.

      EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D of Title I of the CAA to be governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1).  Nevertheless, the State of Maryland may have included some previously EPA approved SIP provisions originally submitted in response to part D in its submission documenting its compliance with the requirements of sections 110(a)(l) and (2) of the CAA, including 110(a)(2)(A).  For the purposes of this action, EPA has reviewed Maryland's 110(a)(2) SIP submittal, which may include rules originally submitted in response to part D, or references thereto, solely for the purposes of determining whether such submittal supports a finding that the state has met the basic infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2).

      In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing Maryland provisions with regard to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility.  EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (August 11, 1999 Steven Herman and Robert Perciasepe Guidance Memorandum, "State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown"), and the Agency is addressing such state regulations in a separate rulemaking.  See 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22, 2013).  In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct it as soon as possible.

      Also in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing Maryland rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions.  EPA believes that a number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109, November 1987), and the Agency is addressing such state regulations in a separate rulemaking.  See 78 FR 12460.  In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having director's discretion or variance provisions which are contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

2.  Section 110(a)(2)(B)

      Maryland's authority to monitor and analyze ambient air quality, coordinate State agency programs, and use monitoring facilities originates in the Annotated Code of Maryland (Code), Sections 2-103(b)(2) and 2-301(a)(1) of the Environment Article.  The ambient air quality standards, definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement have been approved into the SIP and are found under COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.  This regulation provides that Maryland's ambient air quality standards are identical to the federal standards specified in 40 CFR parts 50, 51, 53, and 58, as amended, at all times.

      Maryland maintains and operates a network of ambient monitors throughout the State to measure ambient air quality levels and to determine compliance with the NAAQS as required by 40 CFR 58.  All monitors in the network have been designated by EPA as either Reference or Equivalent, and are subjected to the Quality Assurance requirements of 40 CFR 58, Appendix A, and all samplers are located at sites that have met the minimum siting requirements of 40 CFR 58, Appendix E.  EPA approved Maryland's 2013 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Design Plan on December 10, 2013.

      Maryland provides such ambient air quality data to EPA and keeps EPA informed of changes to the sampling network by providing prior notification of any planned changes and seeking approvals of the changes.  Maryland sends EPA an annual summary of all changes to the network, which includes a description, explanation, and other relevant information regarding each change.

      The data is submitted to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) system, in a timely manner in accordance with the scheduled prescribed by EPA in 40 CFR 58.  EPA finds Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B).

3.  Section 110(a)(2)(C)

      EPA finds Maryland has established and currently operates a program to provide for the enforcement of the emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, as well as schedules and time tables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate, as discussed for Section 110(a)(2)(A), in order to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA.  Table 2 shows the various enforcement provisions.

                       Table 2:  Enforcement Provisions
                            COMAR Subtitle/Chapter
                                  Description
                                   26.11[a]
Enforcement of provisions described in Section 110(a)(2)(A), with the exception of the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program.
                                <IP_ADDRESS>[a]
Implementing regulations for the Vehicle Inspection Program
                                  26.11.02[a]
Permits, Approvals, and Registration
                                  <IP_ADDRESS>
Enforcement of Title V permits
                                <IP_ADDRESS>[a]
Pre-construction permitting for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) sources
              <IP_ADDRESS>[a], <IP_ADDRESS>[a], and <IP_ADDRESS>[a]
Regulation of construction and modification of electric generating stations
                Annotated Code of Maryland  -  Article, Section
                                  Description
                    Environment Article, 2-601 through 614
Enforcement of provisions described in Section 110(a)(2)(A), with the exception of the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program.
                          Environment Article, 2-1005
Enforcement of the Maryland Healthy Air Act (HAA)
                        Transportation Article, 23-207
Enforcement of the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program
                           Public Utilities Article,
                         7-205[a], 207[a], and 208[a]
Requirements for construction and modification of generating stations
[a] These provisions have been previously approved by EPA and are included in the Maryland SIP.

      In addition, the Maryland SIP includes an approved program to provide for regulation of modification and construction of stationary sources within the state, including Maryland's permitting program for part C of Title I of the CAA.  These SIP approved provisions are discussed below in Table 3.

                        Table 3:  Permitting Provisions
                            COMAR Subtitle/Chapter
                                  Description
                                   26.11.02
"Permits, Approvals, and Registration"  -  Maryland's permit to construct and PSD approval program requirements which also contains enforcement provisions for violations of permits to construct, PSD approvals, and operating permits
                                  <IP_ADDRESS>
"Pre-construction permitting for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) sources" - contains pre-construction permitting requirements for PSD sources and implements the requirements of EPA's final PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.  See 75 FR 31514.
                   <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS>
Regulation of construction and modification of electric generating stations including consideration of related air quality impacts
                Annotated Code of Maryland  -  Article, Section
                                  Description
                 Public Utilities Article, 7-205, 207, and 208
Requirements for construction and modification of generating stations

      EPA finds Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).

4.  Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

      Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA prohibits any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS, or  interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS.  In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the Maryland SIP submission and determine that the existing Maryland SIP contains provisions sufficient to satisfy all of the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the NO2 NAAQS.  EPA reviewed Maryland's August 14, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS and based on that review and EPA's review of relevant air quality data, EPA is proposing to determine that Maryland's SIP includes adequate provisions to prohibit sources or other emission activities within the State from emitting nitrogen oxides (NOx) in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect specifically to the NO2 NAAQS.  NO2  is a component of NOx.

      To meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), Maryland presented various EPA SIP approved statutory and regulatory provisions which are listed below in Table 4 and, more specifically, control measures to control NOx emissions from major stationary sources listed in Table 5.

         Table 4:  Control Measures to Comply with 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                            COMAR Subtitle/Chapter
                                  Description
                                   26.11.27
Maryland Healthy Air Act implementing regulations
                                   11.14.08
Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Program
                                   26.11.34
Low Emissions Vehicle Program implementing regulations
                                  <IP_ADDRESS>
National Low Emissions Vehicle Program
                                  <IP_ADDRESS>
Reformulated Gasoline in On-road Vehicles

        Table 5:  Control of NOx Emissions for Major Stationary Sources
                             COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>...
                                  Description
                             EPA SIP approval date
                                    A and B
Fuel-Burning Equipment Located at Major Sources  -  General Requirements and Conditions
                                   2/8/2001
                                       C
Fuel-Burning Equipment with a Rated Heat Input Capacity of 250 MMBtu/hr or Greater
                                   2/8/2001
                                       D
Fuel-Burning Equipment with a Rated Heat Input
Capacity of Less than 250 MMBtu/hr and Greater than 100 MMBtu/hr
                             2/8/2001 and 5/1/2003
                                       E
Fuel-Burning Equipment with a Rated Heat Input Capacity of 100 MMBtu/hr or Less
                                   2/8/2001
                                       F
Space Heaters
                                   2/8/2001
                                     G(1)
Fuel-Burning Equipment with a Capacity Factor of 15 Percent or Less
                                   2/8/2001
                                     G(2)
Combustion Turbines with a Capacity Factor Greater
than 15 Percent
                                   2/8/2001
                                     H(3)
Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incinerators
(HMIWI)
                                   2/8/2001
                                     H(4)
Municipal Waste Combustors (MWC)
                                   2/8/2001
                                 I(1) and (2)
Glass Melting Furnaces
                                   2/8/2001
                                       J
Industrial Furnaces and Other Miscellaneous Installations that Cause Emissions of NOx
                                   2/8/2001
                                    C(2)(h)
Kraft Pulp Mills
                                   2/8/2001
                                 H(1) and (2)
Portland Cement Manufacturing Plants
                                   2/8/2001
                                 I(3) and (4)
Stationary Internal Combustion Engines at Natural Gas Compression Stations
                                   2/8/2001

      Maryland's Healthy Air Act (HAA) requires reductions in total emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOx, and mercury from applicable electric generating units (EGUs) in the state.  The HAA does not allow facilities to obtain out-of-state emissions allowances in lieu of adding pollution control locally.  During the first phase of the HAA, NOx emissions were reduced by approximately 70% in 2009 and SO2 emissions were reduced by approximately 80% in 2010.  At full implementation, the HAA has reduced NOx emissions by approximately 75% in 2012 from 2002 levels.  (See 77 FR 11827 at 11836)

      In addition, all major stationary sources of NO2 are subject to the SIP approved requirements for PSD and New Source Review (NSR) which provide preconstruction review and permitting requirements in attainment and nonattainment areas and which help ensure that no new or modified NO2 emitting source will cause or contribute to any potential exceedances of the NO2 NAAQS.  See COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, 26.11.17, and <IP_ADDRESS> through <IP_ADDRESS>.  See also Sections 7-205, 7-207, and 7-208 of the Public Utilities Article of the Code.

      On February 17, 2012 (77 FR 9532), EPA promulgated a rule that established air quality designations for all areas of the country for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS based on air quality monitoring data for the period 2008-2010.  Based upon this 2008-2010 air quality monitoring data, EPA determined that no area of the country is violating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

      EPA reviewed NO2 air quality monitoring data for monitors within Maryland and within a 50 kilometer radius from the State, including monitors in Virginia, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania.  EPA selected fifty kilometers from Maryland for reviewing design values at monitors because 50 kilometers is the standard distance for modeling analysis in EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51) and EPA is acting consistent with that Guideline.  The most recent design values (DVs) that are computed using quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data using the Federal Reference method or equivalent data is reported by states, tribes and local agencies to EPA's AQS.  Data for 2008-2010, 2009-2011 and 2010-2012 for monitors in Maryland and in states surrounding or bordering Maryland within 50 kilometers of Maryland are in Table 6 below and show that the DVs are well below the NAAQS for NO2..  The level of the 1-hour NAAQS for NO2 is 100 parts per billion (ppb) and the form is the 3-year average of the annual 98[th] percentile of the daily 1-hour maximum.

      In the states surrounding and bordering Maryland within the 50 kilometers reviewed by EPA, there are no areas with design values for 2008-2010, 2009-2011 and 2010-2012 that exceed the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.  For example, the highest DV for 2008-2010, 2009-2011 and 2010-2012 is 61 (in the District of Columbia), well below the 100 ppb NAAQS.  See Table 6 below for DVs surrounding and bordering Maryland within 50 kilometers of Maryland.

          Table 6:  Design Values Surrounding and Bordering Maryland
                                     State
                                    County
                                     Site
                           2008-2010
Final DV (ppb)
                           2009-2011
Final DV (ppb)
                           2010-2012
Final DV (ppb)
                                      VA
                                Alexandria City
                                   515100009
                                      54
                                      52
                                     52[a]
                                      VA
                                   Arlington
                                   510130020
                                      50
                                      49
                                      47
                                      VA
                                    Loudoun
                                   511071005
                                      40
                                      41
                                      39
                                      VA
                                Prince William
                                   511530009
                                      30
                                      28
                                      28
                                      DC
                                      N/A
                                   110010041
                                      61
                                      59
                                      55
                                      DC
                                      N/A
                                   110010043
                                      59
                                      57
                                      53
                                      DC
                                      N/A
                                   110010025
                                      52
                                     54[a]
                                     55[a]
                                      DE
                                  New Castle
                                   100032004
                                      N/A
                                     50[a]
                                     48[a]
                                      PA
                                   Lancaster
                                   420710007
                                      40
                                      43
                                      42
                                      PA
                                     Adams
                                   420010001
                                      N/A
                                     15[a]
                                     15[a]
[a] These values were calculated based on incomplete data as determined by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and are shown for informational purposes only.

      Based on this air quality monitoring data analysis and EPA's review of NOx emission trends within Maryland, EPA does not expect NOx emissions in Maryland to increase significantly.  A review of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data shows a reduction of over 23,413 tons per year of total NOx emissions in Maryland from 2008 to 2011.  EPA's analysis of the air quality monitoring data and emission trends (in addition to Maryland's SIP provisions) also demonstrate that NO2 emissions are not increasing significantly in the states surrounding Maryland.  EPA therefore does not expect monitors identified in the table above which all have DVs well below the NO2 NAAQS to have difficulty maintaining the NAAQS for NO2.

      This data also supports EPA's proposed conclusion that Maryland emission sources are not significantly contributing to nonattainment in another state for the NO2 NAAQS and are not interfering with maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS in another state.  For all these reasons, EPA proposes to find that Maryland's federally enforceable SIP provisions with NOx emission limits for NOx emission sources contain adequate provisions to ensure Maryland emission sources will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state with respect to the NO2 NAAQS.

      Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data and the State's submittal, EPA is proposing to determine that the State has met its obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

5.  Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)

	Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) consists of what the EPA refers to as prong 3 (interference with PSD) and prong 4 (interference with visibility protection).  With respect to prong 3, Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that SIPs include provisions prohibiting emissions that would interfere with measures required to be in another state's SIP under part C of Title I of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.  In describing how its submission meets this requirement, the State referenced the following EPA SIP-approved regulations:

                   Table 7:  EPA SIP-approved PSD Provisions
                            COMAR Subtitle/Chapter
                                  Description
                                   26.11.02
Permits, Approvals, and Registration
                                  <IP_ADDRESS>
Pre-construction permitting for PSD sources
                   <IP_ADDRESS>,<IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS>
Provisions implementing EPA's final PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
                        <IP_ADDRESS> through <IP_ADDRESS>
Regulation of construction and modification of electric generating stations
            Annotated Code of Maryland  -  Public Utilities Article
                                  Description
                       Sections 7-205, 7-207, and 7-208
Requirements for construction and modification of generating stations

      EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) because Maryland's SIP contains an approved PSD program.

      With respect to prong 4, Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures to protect visibility required to be included in another state's SIP.  In describing how its submission meets this requirement, the State referred to its February 13, 2012 regional haze SIP submittal which was fully approved by EPA on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39938).

      Thus, EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 because Maryland's approved regional haze SIP adequately prevents sources in Maryland from interfering with measures adopted by other states to protect visibility during the first planning period.

6.  Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)

      As discussed above for 110(a)(2)(C) and (D)(i)(II), Maryland has a SIP approved permitting program for part C of Title I of the CAA.  Therefore, Maryland has demonstrated that it has met its obligations pursuant to CAA section 126(a).  Maryland has no currently pending obligations pursuant to CAA Section 126(b) and has made the necessary submittals through its NO2 infrastructure SIP submittal to demonstrate that the State has adequate provisions insuring future compliance with the requirements of sections 126 and 115 of the CAA.  Therefore, EPA finds Maryland's infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).

7.  Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)

      The funding resources to carry out the implementation plan in Maryland are provided through Title V permit fees, the Section 103 and 105 grant process, funding from the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) (which, in turn, receives funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)) to fund Transportation Related Air Pollution Programs (TRAPP) efforts, Maryland's Environmental Trust Fund via the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), fees collected for motor vehicle inspections via MDOT, and application fees for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for power plants via the Maryland Public Service Commission.

      As for personnel, Maryland states that MDE's Air and Radiation Management Administration currently has 141 personnel on staff in its air and support/operational services programs.

      With regard to legal authority, Maryland cites provisions contained in the Code and COMAR and describes the authority that each provision provides to MDE in order for MDE to carry out SIP obligations.  These provisions are listed below in Table 8.

                       Table 8:  Authorities Provisions
                            COMAR Subtitle/Chapter
                                  Description
                   <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS>
Title V permit fees  -  used to fund permitting of new and existing sources, compliance and enforcement of sources, and monitoring of air quality
                Annotated Code of Maryland  - Article, Section
                                  Description
                      Environment Article, Section 2-403
Title V permit fees  -  used to fund permitting of new and existing sources, compliance and enforcement of sources, and monitoring of air quality
                     Environment Article, Section 2-103(a)
Authority for MDE to obtain Federal and State funds available for purposes of Title 2 of the Article
                 Environment Article, Section 2-103(b)(1)-(3)
Gives MDE jurisdiction over emissions into the air and ambient air quality in the State, responsibility for monitoring ambient air quality in the State, and coordinating all State agency programs on ambient air quality control
                      Environment Article, Section 2-105
Authority for MDE to advise the Governor when an air pollution emergency exists
                   Environment Article, Section 2-301(a)(2)
Authority for MDE to adopt regulations that establish standards and procedures to be followed whenever pollution of the air reaches an emergency condition
                  Environment Article, Sections 2-201- 2-206
Air Quality Control Advisory Council - consultation advice regarding proposed regulations
                   Environment Article, Section 2-301(a)(1)
Authority to adopt rules and regulations for the control of air pollution in the State, including testing, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements
                   Environment Article, Section 2-302(a)-(d)
Authority to set emission standards and ambient air quality standards for each air quality control area in the State
                    Environment Article, Section 2-601-614
Authority for MDE to enforce the standards and impose penalties
                    Transportation Article, Section 23-207
Authority for MDOT to adopt rules and regulations for implementation, administration, and regulation of programs, such as Maryland's Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program
                    Transportation Article, Section 23-205
Authority for MDOT to set fees for vehicle inspections and testing
       Public Utilities Article, Sections 2-112, 2-113, 2-117, and 2-121
Authority for the Public Service Commission to supervise and regulate public service companies, including consideration of the preservation of environmental quality
                   Natural Resources Article, Section 3-303
Authority for the DNR to establish the Power Plant Research Program (PPRP); also establishes the purview of PPRP's work including research regarding impacts of air pollutants from power plants on public health and welfare and related modeling, and an environmental evaluation of power plant sites proposed for future development

      Therefore, EPA finds Maryland's infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).

8.  Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)

      On December 6, 2013, EPA took a direct final action to approve a SIP submittal for Maryland that meets section 128 of the CAA and therefore E(ii) for this NO2 NAAQS regarding compliance with state boards as described in section 128 of the CAA.  A detailed rationale for the approval was set forth in the direct final rule.  See 78 FR 73472.  The rule became effective on February 4, 2014.  Therefore, EPA is proposing that Maryland's SIP adequately addresses E(ii).

9.  Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii)

	Maryland does not rely on localities for specific SIP implementation.  Therefore, EPA finds Maryland's infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii).

10.  Section 110(a)(2)(F)

      Specific monitoring requirements requiring air emissions monitoring by sources within the State are found in Sections 2-103(b)(1) and 2-301(a)(1) of the Environment Article of the Code, and COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> which addresses compliance monitoring for Title V permits.  Additionally, the following EPA SIP-approved regulations address requirements for monitoring and control of NOx Emissions:  COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B, <IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS>.

      Requirements for periodic reports on the nature, amounts of emissions, and emissions-related data are included in the following regulations which have been approved into Maryland's SIP:  COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>-1, <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS>.  Additionally, COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> is applicable regarding data from sources with Title V permits but has not been approved into the SIP.

      Requirements for reports and public notification are addressed through COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> "Records and Information," and <IP_ADDRESS>B(4) which requires that, "all records and reports...shall be available for public inspection."  Therefore, EPA finds Maryland's infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F).

11.  Section 110(a)(2)(G)

      Section 2-105 of the Environment Article of the Code authorizes MDE to advise the Governor of Maryland to declare an air pollution emergency and, when declared, section 2-301(a)(2) establishes the standards and procedures to be followed.  Sections 2-604 and 2-609(a) of the Environment Article of the Code give authority to MDE when accidental or other releases occur.  Maryland's emergency plans are EPA SIP approved and found in COMAR 26.11.05.  Therefore, EPA finds that Maryland has authority comparable to that in section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.  Accordingly, EPA finds Maryland's infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).

12.  Section 110(a)(2)(H)

	Maryland has demonstrated that it has adequate authority to revise the SIP under section 2-301(a)(1) of the Environment Article of the Code.  This provision provides authority to adopt new regulations and revise existing regulations to meet the NAAQS.  More specifically, section 2-302 of the Environment Article of the Code provides the authority to set emission standards and air quality control areas, as well as ambient air quality standards.

      This submission provides EPA with adequate assurances that Maryland will review and revise its SIP from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions or the availability of improved methods to attain the NAAQS.  EPA also finds these provisions provide adequate assurances that Maryland can revise its SIP when the Administrator finds that the plan is inadequate to attain the NAAQS or otherwise comply with the requirements of the CAA.

      Therefore, EPA finds Maryland's NO2 infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H).

13.  Section 110(a)(2)(J)

	Section 121 (relating to consultation).  All Maryland SIP revisions undergo public notice and hearing, which provides for comment by the public and local political subdivisions, including but not limited to, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, the National Capital Transportation Planning Board, the Wilmington Area Planning Council, and Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Planning Organization.  Public hearings on proposed Maryland regulations are held in accordance with EPA requirements under 40 CFR 51.102.  Public hearings on proposed Maryland regulations are held in accordance with Section 2-303(b) of the Environment Article of the Code which requires that a public hearing be held before adopting air quality regulations.  In addition, Subtitle 1 of Title 10, State Government Article of the Code provides administrative procedure requirements for adopting or modifying regulations and these procedures include public notification and participation requirements.

		Section 127 (relating to public notification).  As mentioned above, Section 2-303(b) of the Environment Article of the Code requires that public hearings be held before Maryland adopts air quality regulations.  In addition, Subtitle 1 of Title 10, State Government Article of the Code sets forth the administrative procedures for Maryland to adopt or modify regulations.  In addition, SIP approved regulations and statutory provisions in which public notification and hearings are addressed are listed in Table 9.

                   Table 9:  Public Notification regulations
                            COMAR Subtitle/Chapter
                                  Description
                                  <IP_ADDRESS>
"Procedures for Obtaining Permits to Construct Certain Significant Sources"
                                  <IP_ADDRESS>
"Procedures for Obtaining Approvals of PSD Sources and NSR Sources, Permits to Construct, Permit to Construct MACT Determinations On a Case-by-Case Basis in Accordance with 40 CFR 63, Subpart B, and Certain 100-Ton Sources"
                                <IP_ADDRESS>[a]
"Permits, Approvals, and Registration  -  Title V Permits, Applicability and General Requirements"
                                 <IP_ADDRESS> a
"Permits, Approvals, and Registration  -  Title V Permits, Public Participation Procedures"
                                 <IP_ADDRESS> a
"Permits, Approvals, and Registration  -  Title V Permits, Review by Affected States of Part 70 Permits"
                                 <IP_ADDRESS> a
"Permits, Approvals, and Registration  -  Title V Permits, Significant Permit Modifications"
                                  <IP_ADDRESS>
"Ambient Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Reference Conditions, and Methods of Measurement," this adopts 40 CFR 58.50, "Index reporting," which reports air quality to the public several times per day
                                  <IP_ADDRESS>
"Air Pollution Episode Criteria"
                Annotated Code of Maryland  -  Article, Section
                                  Description
                        Public Utilities Article, 7-207
"Generating stations or transmission lines  -  General certification procedure"
                        Public Utilities Article, 7-208
"Generating stations or transmission lines  -  Joint construction of station and associated lines"
                      Environment Article, 2-103.2(b)[a]
Provides public access to all air monitoring data via the Internet
[a] These provisions were cited by Maryland for reference purposes only and are not included in the Maryland SIP.

		Part C (relating to visibility protection).  With regard to the visibility protection aspect of 110(a)(2)(J), EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of Title I of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B of the CAA).  In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of Title I of the CAA do not change.  Thus, EPA finds that there are no applicable visibility obligations under part C "triggered" under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.  Maryland has an approved regional haze SIP which addresses  requirements of CAA Sections 169A and 169B as discussed above for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

        For a discussion on how Maryland meets the requirements of part C of Title I of the CAA with respect to PSD, see Section 110(a)(2)(C) and Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)(prong 3) above.

      EPA finds Maryland's infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) relating to consultation, public notification, and visibility protection requirements.

14.  Section 110(a)(2)(K)

For the authority to perform air quality modeling and the submission of relevant data, Maryland cites Sections 2-103 and 2-302 of the Environment Article of the Code.  Maryland also cites SIP approved portions of Sections 7-205, 7-207, 7-207.1, and 7-208 of the Public Utilities Article of the Code and COMAR 20.79.01, 20.79.02, and 20.79.03 which establish requirements for the calculation of increases in air emissions related to modifications of facilities at power plants and require modeling.

In addition, COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, which is in the Maryland SIP, establishes requirements for applications regarding construction and modification of generating stations to demonstrate compliance with environmental restrictions.  This includes providing information to show the impact on air quality including the ability of the generating station to comply with PSD and NSR provisions and the impact on PSD areas.

Maryland also stated that it can provide modeling analysis to EPA to assess the effect of the state's air emissions on the NAAQS, citing past examples such as modeling for 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) SIPs.  Therefore, EPA finds Maryland's infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K).

15.  Section 110(a)(2)(L)

      Maryland has an approved Title V program which contains a fee schedule.  EPA approved Maryland's Title V program on January 15, 2003 (68 FR 1974).  Maryland's August 14, 2013 SIP submission for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS  further explains under element (E) that "Title V permit fees are collected under the authority of  Section 2-403 of the Environment Article, Annotated Code of Maryland and pursuant to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, .17 and .19.  These fees are used to fund programs such as the permitting of new and existing sources of air pollution, compliance and enforcement of sources of air pollution....  This includes program development and NO2 plan implementation."  Therefore, EPA finds Maryland's infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L).

16.  Section 110(a)(2)(M)

      Maryland's submission for section 110(a)(2)(M) was identical to the submission for section 110(a)(2)(J) with regard to the requirements of Section 121 (relating to consultation) and Section 127 (relating to public notification) of the CAA.  EPA discussed those provisions above in the analysis of Maryland's submission for section 110(a)(2)(J) and finds that analysis applicable to the requirements of 110(a)(2)(M).  EPA finds Maryland's infrastructure SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the Maryland SIP.

F.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

      EPA's analysis of Maryland's August 14, 2013 infrastructure submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS therefore concludes that Maryland's submittal meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof.  EPA is not, at this time, proposing to approve, nor recommending approval, of any statutory or regulatory provisions discussed in this document which have not previously been SIP approved.  It is recommended that a notice of proposed rulemaking be prepared approving Maryland's infrastructure submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 154-156]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28278]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87860; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-071]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed
Rule Change To Add Certain Recently Adopted Trading Rules To the List
of Minor Rule Violations in Rule 9217

December 26, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 16, 2019, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``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 Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons and approving the proposal on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to add certain recently adopted trading rules
to the list of minor rule violations in Rule 9217. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to add certain recently adopted trading rules
to the list of minor rule violations in Rule 9217. As discussed below,
the rules the Exchange proposes to add to Rule 9217 are based on the
rules of its affiliate NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') or on rules the
Exchange adopted in connection with its transition to Pillar, which
were based on legacy Exchange rules governing auctions in Exchange-
listed securities. In both cases, substantively similar rules to those
the Exchange proposes to add are minor fine eligible rules.
Background
    On January 29, 2015, the Exchange announced the implementation of
Pillar, an integrated trading technology platform designed to use a
single specification for connecting to the equities and options markets
operated by the Exchange and its affiliates.\3\ The Exchange underwent
a multi-phase transition to Pillar that culminated with Exchange-listed
securities transitioning to Pillar in August 2019. In order to support
the transition of Exchange-listed securities to Pillar, the Exchange
adopted trading and other rules including rules to conduct auctions in
Pillar that were substantively based on the auction rules then in
effect.\4\ As discussed below, violations of some of those legacy rules
are already eligible for minor rule violations under Rules 9216 and
9217.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Trader Update dated January 29, 2015, available here:
www.nyse.com/pillar.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82945 (March 26,
2018), 83 FR 13553 (March 29, 2018) (SR-NYSE-2017-36) (``Release No.
82945''); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85962 (May 29, 2019),
84 FR 26188 (June 5, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2019-05) (``Release No.
85962'').
    \5\ Although the Exchange is adding the Pillar equivalent rules
to the list of rules eligible for a minor rule fine in Rule 9217,
the Exchange is not proposing to delete the legacy rules from Rule
9217 at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    Rule 9217 sets forth the list of rules under which a member
organization or covered person may be subject to a fine under a minor
rule violation plan as described in proposed Rule 9216(b). The Exchange
proposes to add the following rules to the list of rules in Rule 9217
eligible for disposition pursuant to a fine under Rule 9216(b):
     Rule 7.16 (Short Sales)
     Rule 7.35A(d) (Pre-Opening Indications)
     Rule 7.35B (Cancellation of limit-at-the-close (``LOC'')
and market-at-the-close (``MOC'') orders)
     Rule 7.35A (Requirements relating to openings, re-
openings, delayed openings, and trading halts)
    Rule 7.16 (Short Sales) establishes requirements relating to short
sales for trading on the Pillar trading platform. Rule 7.16 is based on
NYSE Arca Rule 7.16-E and incorporates text from Rule 440B relating to
Exchange-listed securities.\6\ NYSE Arca Rule 7.16-E is eligible for
NYSE Arca's Minor Rule Plan.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Release No. 82945, 83 FR at 13565; Release No. 85962, 84
FR at 26221. Rule 440B (Short Sales) is not applicable to trading on
the Pillar trading platform.
    \7\ See NYSE Arca Rule 10.12(i)(1) (NYSE Arca Rule 7.16-E); NYSE
Arca Rule 10.9217(f)(1). NYSE Arca Rule 10.12 is NYSE Arca's legacy
minor rule plan and applies only to matters for which a written
statement was served under Rule 10.12 prior to May 27, 2019;
thereafter, Rules 10.9216(b) and 10.9217 apply. See generally NYSE
Arca Rules 10.0 (preamble) and 10.9001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 7.35A and 7.35B, adopted in 2019, were based on legacy Rule
15 (Pre-Opening Indications and Opening Order Imbalance Information),
Rule 123C (The Closing Procedures), and Rule 123D (Openings and Halts
in Trading). Each of these rules are already eligible for minor fines
under NYSE Rule 9217.
    Specifically, Rule 7.35A (DMM-Facilitated Core Open and Trading
Halt Auctions) sets forth DMM responsibilities for the opening and
reopening of securities, and is based on legacy Rule 123D with minor
modifications.\8\ Rule 123D is on the list of rules in Rule 9217
eligible for disposition pursuant to a fine under Rule 9216(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Release No. 85962, 84 FR at 26202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Rule 7.35A(d) and its subparagraphs are based on Rule
15(a)-(f) relating to pre-opening indications with non-substantive
differences.\9\ Rule 15 is also on the list of rules in Rule 9217
eligible for disposition pursuant to a fine under Rule 9216(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id. at 26204-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7.35B (DMM-facilitated Closing Auctions) sets forth DMM
responsibilities for the closing of securities, and is based in part on
legacy Rules 123C and 123D.\10\ The entry and cancellation procedures
for MOC and LOC Orders set forth in Rule 7.35B are based on legacy Rule
123C,\11\ which is also on the list of rules in Rule 9217 eligible for
disposition pursuant to a fine under Rule 9216(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See id. at 26209-17.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, because 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Summary fines provide a meaningful sanction for minor or technical
violations of rules. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change will strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its
oversight and enforcement responsibilities in cases where full
disciplinary proceedings are unwarranted in view of the minor nature of
the particular violation.
    Specifically, the proposed rule change is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because it will provide
the Exchange the ability to issue a minor rule fine for violations of
its rules where similar conduct is currently eligible for a minor rule
fine where more formal disciplinary action may not be warranted or
appropriate. In addition, the Exchange believes that adding a rule
based on the rules of its affiliate to the Exchange's minor rule plan
would promote fairness and consistency in the marketplace by permitting
the Exchange to issue a minor rule fine for violations of a
substantially similar rule that is eligible for minor rule treatment on
the Exchange's affiliate, thereby harmonizing minor rule plan fines
across affiliated exchanges for the same conduct.
    The Exchange also believes that adding rules based on legacy
Exchange rules that are eligible for a minor rule fine also is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because it
will provide the Exchange the ability to be able to continue issuing
minor rule fines for violations of rules involving the same or similar
conduct.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendments to Rule
9217 are consistent with Section 6(b)(6) of the Act,\14\ which provides
that members and persons associated with members shall be appropriately
disciplined for

violation of the provisions of the rules of the exchange, by expulsion,
suspension, limitation of activities, functions, and operations, fine,
censure, being suspended or barred from being associated with a member,
or any other fitting sanction. As noted, the proposed rule change would
provide the Exchange ability to sanction minor or technical violations
pursuant to the Exchange's rules to deter the same or violative
activity that is already eligible for a minor rule fine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather to update the
Exchange's rules to strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its
oversight and enforcement functions and deter potential violative
conduct.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. 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-NYSE-2019-071 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-NYSE-2019-071. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. 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-NYSE-2019-071 and should be submitted on
or before January 23, 2020.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\15\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ which requires that the
rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments and to perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission
also believes that the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1) and
6(b)(6) of the Act \17\ which require that the rules of an exchange
enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate discipline for,
violations of Commission and Exchange rules. Finally, the Commission
finds that the proposal is consistent with the public interest, the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\18\ which
governs minor rule violation plans. The Commission notes that the
Exchange merely proposes to add to its minor rule violation plan Pillar
rules that are identical to the provisions already included in the
plan. Accordingly, the Commission believes the proposal raises no novel
or significant issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons discussed above, the Commission finds good
cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\19\ for approving the
proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of
publication of the notice of the filing thereof in the Federal
Register. The proposal merely adds Pillar rules, which are
substantively based on legacy rules already in the Exchange's minor
rule violation plan. Accordingly, the Commission believes that a full
notice-and-comment period is not necessary before approving the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\20\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) thereunder,\21\ that the proposed rule change
(SR-NYSE-2019-71) be, and hereby is, approved and declared effective on
an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant
to delegated authority.\22\

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-28278 Filed 12-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 34)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8049-8051]
[DOCID:fr23fe09-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1219]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ironman 70.3 California; Oceanside Harbor,
Oceanside, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a temporary safety zone within the
navigable waters of Oceanside Harbor for the Ironman 70.3 California.
This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide safety for the
swimmers, crew, spectators, vessels and other users of the waterway.
Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before March 25,
2009 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2008-1219 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. For
instructions on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation and
Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
proposed rule, call Petty Officer Kristen Beer, USCG, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-1219), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2008-1219'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert USCG-2008-1219 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. You may also visit
either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the U.S. Coast Guard
Sector San Diego, 2710 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101 between 8
a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We
have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the
Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on

behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review
a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17,
2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    North America Sports is sponsoring the Ironman 70.3 California. The
event will consist of 2,200 participants. The waterside swim course
consists of a 1.2 mile loop in the South Oceanside Harbor. The course
requires a safety zone while the swimmers are on the course, thus
restricting vessel traffic within the Oceanside Harbor for three hours.
There will be 25 to 29 safety vessels provided by the sponsor to
enforce the safety zone.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone from 6:40 a.m.
to 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, April 4, 2009 for the Ironman 70.3
California. This temporary safety zone is necessary for the safety of
the swimmers and staff and will affect the use of the waterway during
the period of the event. The limits of this temporary safety zone are
the waters of Oceanside Harbor encompassed by the following
coordinates:

33[deg]12.54' N, 117[deg]24.12' W;
33[deg]12.52' N, 117[deg]23.75' W;
33[deg]12.49' N, 117[deg]23.66' W;
33[deg]12.37' N, 117[deg]23.54' W;
33[deg]12.32' N, 117[deg]23.55' W;
33[deg]12.43' N, 117[deg]23.69' W;
33[deg]12.46' N, 117[deg]23.79' W;
33[deg]12.41' N, 117[deg]23.96' W;
33[deg]12.44' N, 117[deg]23.98' W;
33[deg]12.45' N, 117[deg]24.12' W;
33[deg]12.54' N, 117[deg]24.12' W.

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone and may be assisted by
other federal, state, or local agencies, including the Coast Guard
Auxiliary. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of
the swimmers, spectators, vessels and other users of the waterway.
Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic
impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory
Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. Commercial vessels will not
be hindered by the safety zone. Recreational vessels will not be
allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during the
specified times.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Oceanside Harbor
from 6:40 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on April 4, 2009.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule would be in effect for less than 3 hours early in the day when
vessel traffic is low. Although the safety zone would apply to the
entire width of the south harbor, traffic would be allowed to pass
through the zone with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol
commander. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a
local notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast notice to
mariners (BNM) alerts via marine channel 16 VHF before the safety zone
is enforced.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Petty Officer Kristen Beer,
USCG, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at (619)
278-7262. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities
that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise

have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination under the Instruction that this
action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human
environment. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add a new temporary safety zone Sec.  165.T11-137 to read as
follows:

Sec.  165.T11-137  Safety Zone; Ironman 70.3 California; Oceanside
Harbor, Oceanside, CA.

    (a) Location. The limits of this temporary safety zone are the
waters of Oceanside Harbor encompassed by drawing a line from point to
point along the following coordinates:

33[deg]12.54' N, 117[deg]24.12' W;
33[deg]12.52' N, 117[deg]23.75' W;
33[deg]12.49' N, 117[deg]23.66' W;
33[deg]12.37' N, 117[deg]23.54' W;
33[deg]12.32' N, 117[deg]23.55' W;
33[deg]12.43' N, 117[deg]23.69' W;
33[deg]12.46' N, 117[deg]23.79' W;
33[deg]12.41' N, 117[deg]23.96' W;
33[deg]12.44' N, 117[deg]23.98' W;
33[deg]12.45' N, 117[deg]24.12' W;
33[deg]12.54' N, 117[deg]24.12' W.

    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 6:40
a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on April 4, 2009. If the event concludes prior to the
scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease
enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations.
    (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port of San
Diego or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander
(PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: January 28, 2009.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9-3761 Filed 2-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P