and (iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any
emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this
chapter, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for
public inspection''
    \59\ Appendix V part 51 states in section 2.2 that complete SIPs
contain: ``(g) Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations,
work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements,
where necessary, to ensure emission levels''; and ``(h) Compliance/
enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined
in practice.''
    \60\ On July 6, 2011, EPA sent an email to the State with
detailed comments (that are summarized above) on the State's
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Chapter
6.4, Section V of the SIP. The July 6, 2011 email from Laurel
Dygowski, EPA Region 8, to Tina Anderson, State of Wyoming, is
included in the Supporting and Related Materials section of the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to disapprove the State's monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Chapter 6.4 of the SIP.
EPA is proposing regulatory language as part of our FIP that specifies
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for all BART and
reasonable progress sources. For purposes of consistency, EPA is
proposing to adopt language that is the same as we have adopted for
other states in Region 8.

E. Federal Implementation Plan for the Long-Term Strategy

    We are proposing regulatory language as part of our FIP that
specifies NOX emission limits and compliance schedules for
the following sources: PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1-4, PacifiCorp
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 1 and Unit 2,
PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2,
and 3. We are also proposing monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for all BART SIP and FIP sources and for Dave Johnston
Units 1 and 2. We are proposing this regulatory language to fill the
gap in the LTS that would be left by our proposed partial disapproval
of the LTS.

F. Federal Implementation Plan for Coordination of RAVI and Regional
Haze Long-Term Strategy

    In response to EPA's RAVI rules, Wyoming adopted WAQSR Chapter 9,
Section 2. EPA approved WAQSR Chapter 9, Section 2 as part of the SIP
on July 28, 2004 (69 FR 44965). As discussed above, the State is
required to coordinate the review of its RAVI and regional haze LTS and
conduct the

reviews together. WAQSR Chapter 9, Section 2(f) requires the State to
review its RAVI LTS every three years, which does not coordinate with
the five-year review for the State's regional haze LTS. Thus, we are
proposing to disapprove the State's SIP because it does not meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c). We are proposing a FIP in which EPA
commits to coordinating the State's RAVI LTS review with the regional
haze LTS review. Thus, EPA is committing to provide a review of the
State's RAVI LTS every five years in coordination with the State's
regional haze LTS review. EPA is proposing that our review of the
State's RAVI LTS will follow those items as indicated by 40 CFR
51.306(c).

IX. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove a
regional haze SIP revision submitted by the State of Wyoming on January
12, 2011. Specifically, we are proposing to disapprove the following:
     The State's NOX BART determinations for
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4, PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 1
and Unit 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River
Units 1, 2, and 3.
     The State's NOX reasonable progress
determination for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
     Wyoming's RPGs.
     The State's monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in
Chapter 6.4 of the SIP.
     Portions of the State's LTS that rely on or reflect other
aspects of the regional haze SIP we are proposing to disapprove.
     The provisions necessary to meet the requirements for the
coordination of the review of the RAVI and the regional haze LTS.
    We are proposing to approve the remaining aspects of the State's
January 12, 2011, SIP submittal. We are also seeking comment on an
alternative proposal related to the State's NOX BART
determination for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2.
    We are proposing the promulgation of a FIP to address the
deficiencies in the Wyoming regional haze SIP that we have identified
in this proposal. The proposed FIP includes the following elements:
     NOX BART determinations and limits for
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4, PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 1
and Unit 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River
Units 1, 2, and 3.
     NOX reasonable progress determination and
limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
     RPGs consistent with the SIP limits proposed for approval
and the proposed FIP limits.
     Monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements
applicable to all BART and reasonable progress sources for which there
is a SIP or FIP emissions limit.
     LTS elements pertaining to emission limits and compliance
schedules for the proposed BART and reasonable progress FIP limits.
     Provisions to ensure the coordination of the RAVI and
regional haze LTS.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As discussed in section C below, the
proposed FIP applies to only five facilities. It is therefore not a
rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the proposed FIP applies
to just five facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.
See 5 CFR 1320(c).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Regional
Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for purposes of the regional haze
program consists of imposing federal controls to meet the BART
requirement for NOX emissions on specific units at five
sources in Wyoming, and imposing controls to meet the reasonable
progress requirement for NOX emissions at one additional
source in Wyoming. The net result of this FIP action is that EPA is
proposing direct emission controls on selected units at only five
sources. The sources in question are each large electric generating
plants that are not owned by small entities, and therefore are not
small entities. The proposed partial approval of the SIP, if finalized,
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. See Mid-
Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA
rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section

205 of UMRA do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows EPA to adopt an alternative
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule
does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures that
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any one year. In
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant federal
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely addresses the State not fully meeting its obligation to prohibit
emissions from interfering with other states measures to protect
visibility established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it implements specific standards established by Congress
in statutes. However, to the extent this proposed rule will limit
emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM, the rule will have
a beneficial effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this proposed action, if finalized, will
not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority or low-income population. This proposed rule limits emissions
of NOX from five facilities in Wyoming.

The partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves state
law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not
apply because this action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 23, 2013.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

0
2. Add section 52.2636 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2636  Federal implementation plan for regional haze.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The proposed regulatory language only reflects our proposed
action. If EPA's final action differs from our proposed action, the
regulatory language will be amended, as necessary, to reflect the
Agency's final decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to each owner and operator
of the following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for which EPA
proposes to approve the State's BART determination:
    FMC Westvaco Trona Plant Units NS-1A and NS-1B (PM and
NOX);
    TATA Chemicals Partners (previously General Chemical) Boilers C and
D (PM and NOX);
    Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station Units 1, 2,
and 3 (PM);
    PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 3 (PM);
    PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 4 (PM);
    PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4
(NOX and PM);
    PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant Unit 3 (PM and NOX);
    PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 (PM); and
    PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 1 (PM).
    This section also applies to each owner and operator of the
following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for which EPA
proposes to disapprove the State's BART determination and issue a
NOX BART Federal Implementation Plan:
    Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station Units 1, 2,
and 3;
    PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 3;
    PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 4;
    PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2; and
    PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 1.
    This section also applies to each owner and operator of the
following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for which EPA
proposes to disapprove the State's reasonable progress determinations
and issue a reasonable progress determination NOX Federal
Implementation Plan: PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Units 1 and
2.
    (b) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning
given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the
Clean Air Act. For purposes of this section:
    (1) BART means Best Available Retrofit Technology.
    (2) BART unit means any unit subject to a Regional Haze emission
limit in Table 1 and Table 2 of this section.
    (3) CAM means Compliance Assurance Monitoring as required by 40 CFR
part 64.
    (4) Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the
equipment required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and
provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes
(using an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a
permanent record of NOX emissions, diluent, or stack gas
volumetric flow rate.
    (5) FIP means Federal Implementation Plan.
    (6) Lb/hr means pounds per hour.
    (7) Lb/MMBtu means pounds per million British thermal units of heat
input to the fuel-burning unit.
    (8) NOX means nitrogen oxides.
    (9) Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time
in the BART or RP unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be combusted
for the entire 24-hour period.
    (10) The owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates,
controls, or supervises a unit identified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
    (11) PM means filterable total particulate matter.
    (12) RP unit means any Reasonable Progress unit subject to a
Regional Haze emission limit in Table 3 of this section.
    (13) Unit means any of the units identified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
    (c) Emissions limitations.
    (1) The owners/operators of emissions units subject to this section
shall not emit, or cause to be emitted, PM or NOX in excess
of the following limitations:

    Table 1--Emission Limits for BART Units for Which EPA Proposes To
                 Approve the State's BART Determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            PM Emission    NOX Emission
                                              limits          limits
          Source name/BART unit          -------------------------------
                                             lb/MMBtu        lb/MMBtu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit NS-1A.....            0.05            0.35
FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit NS-1B.....            0.05            0.35
TATA Chemicals Partners (General                    0.09            0.28
 Chemical) Green River Trona Plant/
 Boiler C...............................
TATA Chemicals Partners (General                    0.09            0.28
 Chemical) Green River Trona Plant/
 Boiler D...............................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie            0.03             N/A
 River Station/Unit 1...................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie            0.03             N/A
 River Station/Unit 2...................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie            0.03             N/A
 River Station/Unit 3...................
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/              0.015             N/A
 Unit 3.................................
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/              0.015             N/A
 Unit 4.................................

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit             0.03            0.07
 1......................................
Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit             0.03            0.07
 2......................................
Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit             0.03            0.07
 3......................................
Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit             0.03            0.07
 4......................................
Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 1..            0.04             N/A
Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 2..            0.04             N/A
Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 3..           0.015            0.07
Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit 1....           0.015             N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2--Emission Limits for BART Units for Which EPA Proposes To
      Disapprove the State's BART Determination and Implement a FIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NOX Emission
                  Source name/BART unit                     limit (lb/
                                                              MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/             0.07
 Unit 1.................................................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/             0.07
 Unit 2.................................................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/             0.07
 Unit 3.................................................
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 3.............            0.07
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 4.............            0.12
PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 1..................            0.07
PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 2..................            0.07
Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit 1....................            0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 3--Emission Limits for RP Units for Which EPA Proposes To
       Disapprove the State's RP Determination and Implement a FIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NOX Emission
                   Source name/RP unit                      limit (lb/
                                                              MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 1.............            0.22
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 2.............            0.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) These emission limitations shall apply at all times, including
startups, shutdowns, emergencies, and malfunctions.
    (d) Compliance date.
    (1) The owners and operators of PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Unit 3 and
Unit 4 shall comply with the emission limitations and other
requirements of this section by December 31, 2015, for Unit 3 and
December 31, 2016, for Unit 4.
    (2) The owners and operators of the other BART and RP sources
subject to this section shall comply with the emissions limitations and
other requirements of this section within five years of the effective
date of this rule.
    (e) Compliance determinations for NOX.
    (1) For all BART and RP units other than Trona Plant units:
    (i) CEMS. At all times after the compliance date specified in
paragraph (d) of this section, the owner/operator of each unit shall
maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the
requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure
NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each
unit. The CEMS shall be used to determine compliance with the emission
limitations in paragraph (c) of this section for each unit.
    (ii) Method.
    (A) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit, the owner/
operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average NOX
concentration in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr at the CEMS in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 75. At the end of each operating day, the
owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 30-day rolling average
emission rate in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr from the arithmetic average of all
valid hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current operating day
and the previous 29 successive operating days.
    (B) An hourly average NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu or
lb/hr is valid only if the minimum number of data points, as specified
in 40 CFR part 75, is acquired by both the pollutant concentration
monitor (NOX) and the diluent monitor (O2 or
CO2).
    (C) Compliance with tons-per-year emission limits shall be
calculated on a rolling 12-month basis. At the end of each calendar
month, the owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 12-month
rolling average emission rate from the arithmetic average of all valid
hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current month and the
previous 11 months and the report the result in tons.
    (D) Data reported to meet the requirements of this section shall
not include data substituted using the missing data substitution
procedures of subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall the data have been
bias adjusted according to the procedures of 40 CFR part 75.
    (2) For all Trona Plant BART units:
    (i) CEMS. At all times after the compliance date specified in
paragraph

(d) of this section, the owner/operator of each unit shall maintain,
calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements
found at 40 CFR part 60, to accurately measure NOX, diluent,
and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each unit, including the CEMS
quality assurance requirements in appendix F of 40 CFR part 60. The
CEMS shall be used to determine compliance with the emission
limitations in paragraph (c) of this section for each unit.
    (ii) Method.
    (A) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit, the owner/
operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average NOX
concentration in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr at the CEMS in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60. At the end of each operating day, the
owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 30-day rolling average
emission rate in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr from the arithmetic average of all
valid hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current operating day
and the previous 29 successive operating days.
    (B) An hourly average NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu or
lb/hr is valid only if the minimum number of data points, as specified
in 40 CFR part 60, is acquired by both the pollutant concentration
monitor (NOX) and the diluent monitor (O2 or
CO2).
    (C) Compliance with tons-per-year emission limits shall be
calculated on a rolling 12-month basis. At the end of each calendar
month, the owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 12-month
rolling average emission rate from the arithmetic average of all valid
hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current month and the
previous 11 months and report results in tons.
    (f) Compliance determinations for particulate matter.
    Compliance with the particulate matter emission limit for each BART
and RP unit shall be determined from annual performance stack tests.
Within 60 days of the compliance deadline specified in section (d), and
on at least an annual basis thereafter, the owner/operator of each unit
shall conduct a stack test on each unit to measure particulate
emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, or 17, as appropriate, in 40 CFR
part 60, Appendix A. A test shall consist of three runs, with each run
at least 120 minutes in duration and each run collecting a minimum
sample of 60 dry standard cubic feet. Results shall be reported in lb/
MMBtu and lb/hr. In addition to annual stack tests, the owner/operator
shall monitor particulate emissions for compliance with the BART
emission limits in accordance with the applicable Compliance Assurance
Monitoring (CAM) plan developed and approved by the State in accordance
with 40 CFR part 64.
    (g) Recordkeeping. The owner/operator shall maintain the following
records for at least five years:
    (1) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
    (2) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for
emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records
required by 40 CFR part 75. Or, for Trona Plant units, records of
quality assurance and quality control activities for emissions
measuring systems including, but not limited to appendix F of 40 CFR
part 60.
    (3) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, and CEMS.
    (4) Any other CEMS records required by 40 CFR part 75. Or, for
Trona Plant units, any other CEMs records required by 40 CFR part 60.
    (5) Records of all particulate stack test results.
    (6) All data collected pursuant to the CAM plan.
    (h) Reporting. All reports under this section shall be submitted to
the Director, Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental
Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code
8ENF-AT, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
    (1) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly excess
emissions reports for NOX BART and RP units no later than
the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter. Excess
emissions means emissions that exceed the emissions limits specified in
paragraph (c) of this section. The reports shall include the magnitude,
date(s), and duration of each period of excess emissions, specific
identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the unit, the nature and cause
of any malfunction (if known), and the corrective action taken or
preventative measures adopted. The owner/operator shall also submit
reports of any exceedances of tons-per-year emission limits.
    (2) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly CEMS
performance reports, to include dates and duration of each period
during which the CEMS was inoperative (except for zero and span
adjustments and calibration checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was
inoperative and steps taken to prevent recurrence, and any CEMS repairs
or adjustments. The owner/operator of each unit shall also submit
results of any CEMS performance tests required by 40 CFR part 75. Or,
for Trona Plant units, the owner/operator of each unit shall also
submit results of any CEMs performance test required appendix F of 40
CFR part 60 (Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits,
and Cylinder Gas Audits).
    (3) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not been
inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, such
information shall be stated in the quarterly reports required by
sections (h)(1) and (2) above.
    (4) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit results of any
particulate matter stack tests conducted for demonstrating compliance
with the particulate matter BART limits in section (c) above, within 60
calendar days after completion of the test.
    (5) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit semi-annual
reports of any excursions under the approved CAM plan in accordance
with the schedule specified in the source's title V permit.
    (i) Notifications.
    (1) The owner/operator shall submit notification of commencement of
construction of any equipment which is being constructed to comply with
the NOX emission limits in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) The owner/operator shall submit semi-annual progress reports on
construction of any such equipment.
    (3) The owner/operator shall submit notification of initial startup
of any such equipment.
    (j) Equipment operation. At all times, the owner/operator shall
maintain each unit, including associated air pollution control
equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions.
    (k) Credible Evidence. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or
information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance
with requirements of this section if the appropriate performance or
compliance test procedures or method had been performed.
0
3. Add section 52.2637 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2637  Federal implementation plan for reasonable attributable
visibility impairment long-term strategy.

    As required by 40 CFR 41.306(c), EPA will ensure that the review of
the State's reasonably attributable visibility

impairment long-term strategy is coordinated with the regional haze
long-term strategy under 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA's review will be in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c).

[FR Doc. 2013-13611 Filed 6-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26496-26498]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11804]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85985; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-046]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Amending
Rule 21.7 Concerning Openings Following Trading Halts

May 31, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 22, 2019, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX Options'')
proposes to amend Rule 21.7. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 proposed rule change harmonizes how the opening auction process
will be used following all trading halts. Currently, the Exchange opens
trading following a Regulatory Halt (as defined below) in a different
manner than it opens trading following a non-Regulatory Halt.
Specifically, current Rule 21.7(a) provides that the Exchange will
accept market and limit orders and quotes for inclusion in the opening
process (the ``Opening Process'') immediately upon trading being halted
in an option series due to the primary listing market for the
applicable underlying security declaring a regulatory trading halt,
suspension, or pause with respect to such security (a ``Regulatory
Halt''), with respect to equity options. For equity options, where a
User has entered instructions not to cancel its open orders upon a halt
pursuant to Rule 20.3(b), such orders will be queued for participation
in the Opening Process for a Regulatory Halt or will be cancelled for a
halt that is not a Regulatory Halt. Where trading is halted pursuant to
Rule 20.3, but it is not due to a Regulatory Halt, there will be no
Order Entry Period and trading shall be resumed upon the determination
by the Exchange that the conditions which led to the halt are no longer
present or that the interests of a fair and orderly market are best
served by a resumption of trading.
    The Exchange has determined to eliminate the distinction between
how the opening auction process applies following a Regulatory Halt and
a non-Regulatory Halt. The proposed rule change provides that the
opening auction process following any trading halt will apply in the
manner it currently applies following a Regulatory Halt. In other
words, following a non-Regulatory Halt, there will be an Order Entry
Period that begins immediately when the Exchange halts trading in a
class. Additionally, in the event of a non-Regulatory Halt, the System
will queue a User's orders and quotes resting on the book at the time
of the trading halt for participation in the Opening Process following
the trading halt, unless the User entered instructions to cancels its
resting orders and quotes. This will provide Users with the ability to
decide how its resting orders and quotes should be handled in the event
of a non-Regulatory Halt, as they are currently able to do in the event
of a Regulatory Halt. The Exchange also believes elimination of this
distinction will eliminate potential investor confusion regarding how
the System will handle orders and quotes in the event of a trading
halt.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed rule change also makes conforming changes
throughout Rule 21.7, and other nonsubstantive changes to Rule 21.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. In particular, the proposed rule change will
protect investors by eliminating potential confusion regarding how the
Exchange will open series following trading halts, and by providing
Users with flexibility regarding how the System will handle their
orders and quotes following a non-Regulatory Halt (as they currently
have following a Regulatory Halt).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 rule change
will not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All
Users will have the same flexibility regarding how the System will
handle their orders and quotes following non-Regulatory Halts, which is
the same flexibility currently available to Users following Regulatory
Halts. If a User wants its orders and quotes to be handled following a
non-Regulatory Halt in the manner they are today, that User can
instruct the Exchange to do so. The proposed rule change will not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change only impacts how the Exchange will open series following a
non-Regulatory Halt. The proposed change is not intended to be a
competitive change, but rather to provide Users with flexibility with
respect to the handling of their orders and quotes following a non-
Regulatory Halt.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

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

    If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change 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-CboeBZX-2019-046 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-CboeBZX-2019-046. 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-CboeBZX-2019-046 and should be submitted
on or before June 27, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11804 Filed 6-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 96 (Tuesday, May 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28717-28719]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12063]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74956; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Modifying the NYSE
Amex Options Fee Schedule Related to Fees and Credits Associated With
the Customer Best Execution Auction

May 13, 2015.
    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 May 1, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the 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 proposes to modify the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') related to fees and credits associated with the
Customer Best Execution Auction (``CUBE Auction'' or ``Auction''). The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective May 1, 2015.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site 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 purpose of this filing is to amend Section I.G. of the Fee
Schedule \3\ to modify existing CUBE fees and credits and to add a new
rebate for CUBE participants who qualify for Tiers 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the
Amex Customer Engagement (``ACE'') Program.\4\ The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective May 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.G., available at, https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \4\ See id., Section I.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the fees associated with RFR
Responses participating in the Auction by $0.05--from $0.55 to $0.60
for Non-Customers in Penny Pilot issues; and from $0.90 to $0.95 for
Non-Customers in non-Penny Pilot issues. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to decrease the Initiating Participant Credit by $0.05 for
Penny Pilot issues--from $0.40 to $0.35; and $0.10 for non-Penny Pilot
issues--from $0.80 to $0.70. The Exchange also proposes to introduce a
rebate for certain Initiating Participants that qualify for the ACE
Program. Specifically, as proposed, those ATP Holders who qualify for
Tiers 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the ACE Program would receive a $0.12 per
contract rebate for up to 5,000 Customer contracts per CUBE Order
executed in a CUBE Auction (the ``ACE Initiating Participant Rebate''
or ``Rebate''). The proposed Rebate is payable in addition to any other
fees or credits accrued from the CUBE Auction (e.g., in addition to the
Initiating Participant Credit for both Penny and non-Penny Pilot
issues). Thus, as proposed, the maximum potential CUBE credit for Penny
Pilot issues is $0.47 ($0.12 Rebate + $0.35 Initiating Participant
Credit) and for non-Penny Pilot issues is $0.82 ($0.12 Rebate + $0.70
Initiating Participant Credit). The ACE Initiating Participant Rebate
is available regardless of whether the CUBE Order trades with the
Contra Order or RFR Response(s), whereas the current Initiating
Participant Credits are payable only for each CUBE Order contract that
does not trade with the Contra Order.
    The proposed amendments to CUBE Auction pricing are designed to
incentivize market participants that have committed a certain amount of
volume to the Exchange to provide even more liquidity through CUBE
Auctions. This additional volume and liquidity would benefit all
Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade as well
as enhancing price discovery and price improvement.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\6\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to CUBE Auction
fees are reasonable, equitable and not

unfairly discriminatory. First, the proposal to increase the fees
associated with RFR Responses that participate in the CUBE applies
equally to all non-Customer ATP Holders that choose to participate in
the CUBE, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not
unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the proposed RFR Response fees
are within the range of fees charged to non-Customers on other
exchanges for executions within similar electronic crossing mechanisms.
For example, the BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'') charges
Professional Customers and Broker Dealers who respond to an auction
with Improvement Orders $0.72 per contract in Penny issues and $1.12
per contract in non-Penny issues, while charging BOX Market Makers who
respond either $0.55 in Penny issues or $0.95 in non-Penny issues.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See BOX fee schedule, available at, http://boxexchange.com/assets/BOX_Fee_Schedule.pdf. The BOX fee schedule has several parts
that must be taken collectively to arrive at the all-in cost of
responding to an auction. For example, a Broker Dealer who responds
to an auction with an Improvement Order will pay $0.72 per contract
in Penny issues. The $0.72 fee represents the Improvement Order fee
of $0.37 from Section I of the fee schedule, plus the $0.35 fee to
add liquidity in Penny issues quoted with an MPV of $0.01 from
Section II of the schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to reduce the current
Initiating Participant Credits are reasonable, equitable and non-
discriminatory because they apply equally to all ATP Holders that
choose to participate in the CUBE, and access to the Exchange is
offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. Finally, the
proposed CUBE Auction credits for Penny and non-Penny issues to be paid
to Initiating Participants for each CUBE Order contract that does not
trade with the Contra Order are within the range of rebates paid on
other exchanges for executions within similar electronic crossing
mechanisms. For example, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'') pays a Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'') Break-up Rebate
of $0.35 per contract in Select Symbols (i.e., Penny Pilot issues) and
$0.80 per contract in Non-Select Symbols (i.e., non-Penny Pilot issues)
for contracts submitted to a PIM that do not trade with their contra
order.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ISE fee schedule, available at, http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the proposed changes to CUBE Auction credits are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically,
the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate is based on the amount of
business transacted on the Exchange and is designed to attract more
volume and liquidity to the Exchange generally, and to CUBE Auctions
specifically, which will benefit all market participants (including
those that do not participate in the ACE Program) through increased
opportunities to trade at potentially improved prices as well as
enhancing price discovery. Furthermore, the proposed Rebate is
reasonably designed and not unfairly discriminatory because it [sic]
available regardless of the parties that trade with the CUBE Order
(i.e., whether the CUBE Order trades with the Contra Order or
otherwise).
    In addition, the proposal to offer an additional incentive to
participate in the CUBE Auction to those ATP Holders that have achieved
certain monthly volume thresholds is also not new or novel. For
example, the MIAX Options Exchange (``MIAX'') offers an additional per
contract rebate on certain agency orders executed in its electronic
auction mechanism (``PRIME''), which provides for a maximum credit of
$0.12 per contract, based on a member achieving certain monthly volume
thresholds.\9\ In addition, the proposal to cap the Rebate at 5,000
Customer contracts per CUBE Order is likewise consistent with the
practice of other exchanges. For example, the Chicago Board of Options
Exchange (``CBOE'') caps the number of contracts submitted to its price
improvement auction that are eligible for additional volume rebates at
1,000 contracts.\10\ The Exchange notes that although the proposed
Rebate applies solely to Customer orders, it is nonetheless equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it would enhance the incentives
to ATP Holders to transact Customer orders on the Exchange and an
increase in Customer order flow would bring greater volume and
liquidity to the Exchange. Increased volume to the Exchange benefits
all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and
tighter spreads, even to those market participants that do not
participate in the ACE Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See MIAX fee schedule, Priority Customer Rebate Program,
available at, http://www.miaxoptions.com/content/fees (providing a
$0.10 per contract rebate for all Priority Customer orders executed
in the PRIME Auction and providing that any Member or applicable
affiliate that qualifies for MIAX's Priority Customer Rebate Program
volume tiers 3, 4, or 5 will be credited an additional $0.02 per
contract for each Priority Customer order executed in the PRIME
Auction as a PRIME Agency Order over a threshold of 1,500,000
contracts in a month, subject to certain enumerated exceptions).
    \10\ See CBOE fee schedule, Volume Incentive Program (``VIP''),
available at, http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf (providing that VIP credits on orders executed
electronically in Automated Improvement Mechanism will be capped at
1,000 contracts per order for simple executions and 1,000 contracts
per leg for complex executions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed changes are
consistent with the Act because they may attract greater volume and
liquidity to the Exchange, which would improve its overall
competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market
participants.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ 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 Exchange believes the proposed amendments
to CUBE Auction pricing are pro-competitive as the fees are to
incentivize increases in volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which
would benefit all of Exchange participants through increased
opportunities to trade as well as enhancing price discovery. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed ACE Initiating Participant
Rebate would enhance the competiveness of the Exchange relative to
other exchanges that offer similar rebates tied to volume
incentives.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \12\ See supra n. 9, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \13\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4\14\

thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed
by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \15\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-NYSEMKT-2015-38 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-NYSEMKT-2015-38. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-NYSEMKT-2015-
38, and should be submitted on or before June 9, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12063 Filed 5-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P