[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59778-59779]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20988]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2206-092]

Duke Energy Progress, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Temporary variance of lake level elevation.
    b. Project No.: 2206-092.
    c. Date Filed: May 12, 2020 and supplemented September 3, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Yadkin-Pee Dee River in
Anson, Montgomery, Richmond, and Stanly counties, North Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Tami Styer, 526 South Church Street/
EC12Y, Charlotte, NC 28202,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Korede Olagbegi,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 15 days from the issuance of this notice. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to
intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may send a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-2206-092. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not
considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Request: The applicant requests a temporary
variance to maintain the water elevation at the Blewett Falls Lake
below the current license limits in order to allow for spillway
modifications to take place at the Blewett Falls Dam. The current
license generally allows the water level to fluctuate up to 6 feet
below full pond, between an elevation of 172.1 and 178.1 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29). When the flashboards on the
spillway need to be replaced, an additional drawdown of 2 feet, to an
elevation of 170.1 feet NGVD 29 is allowed. To complete the work on the
spillway, the applicant is proposing to lower the Blewett Falls lake
level up to an additional 1 foot below this maximum allowance, or 9
feet below full pond, to an elevation of 168.1 feet NGVD 29. The
applicant proposes to maintain this lowered water elevation for a
period beginning in October 2020 and lasting for 24 months, and states
that maintaining the elevation at this level is needed to provide its
contractor safe access to the spillway crest for the duration of the
work associated with the spillway. During this time, the applicant
states that the boat ramp at the Pee Dee Access area will remain
usable, but the boat ramp at the Grassy Island Access area will be
closed.
    l. Locations of the Applications: The Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of
this document via the internet through the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. At this
time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Motions To Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit
comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to
intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'', or ``PROTEST'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. A copy of all other filings in reference to this
application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: September 17, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20988 Filed 9-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2213-2215]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01150]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2669-085]

Bear Swamp Power Company, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric license application
has been filed with the Commission and is available for public
inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2669-085.
    c. Date filed: March 30, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Bear Swamp Power Company, LLC (Bear Swamp).
    e. Name of Project: Bear Swamp Project.
    f. Location: On the Deerfield River, in Berkshire and Franklin
Counties, Massachusetts. There are no federal or tribal lands within
the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Steven P. Murphy, Director of Licensing,
Brookfield Renewable Energy Group, 33 West 1st Street South, Fulton, NY
13069; Telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Amy Chang,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from
the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2669-085.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. The existing Bear Swamp Project consists of a pumped storage
development, the Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Development, and a
conventional hydropower development, the Fife Brook Development, with a
combined authorized capacity of 676 megawatts (MW). The project
generates an average of 483,863 megawatt-hours (MWh) annually, and uses
an average of 618,293 MWh annually to operate the pumped storage
development.

Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Development

    The existing Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Development consists of: (1)
A 118-acre upper reservoir with a gross storage capacity of 8,300 acre-
feet at the normal full water surface elevation of approximately 1,600
feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD), which is
contained by existing topography and four dikes: (a) An approximately
1,300-foot-long, 155-foot-high curved, earth and rock-fill dike (North
Dike); (b) an approximately 350-foot-long, 23-foot-high earth and rock-
fill dike extending from the eastside of the North Dike (North Dike
Extension); (c) an approximately 2,880-foot-long, 140-foot-high earth
and rock-fill dike (South Dike); and (d) an approximately 750-foot-
long, 50-foot-high earth and rock-fill dike (East Dike); (2) a 420-
foot-long emergency spillway excavated into bedrock to the east of the
North Dike Extension; (3) an 88-foot-long, 1.5- to 4-foot-wide, 4-foot-
high submerged weir with three 5-foot-wide, 3-foot-high concrete
stoplog gates; (4) a 40-foot-diameter concrete inlet/outlet structure
located at the bottom of the upper reservoir to the west of the North
Dike; (5) an approximately 1,430.5-foot-long tunnel system that conveys
water from the upper reservoir to two 11-foot-diameter, steel-lined
penstock sections; (6) a 227-foot-long, 79-foot-wide, 182-foot-high
underground powerhouse containing two reversible Francis pump turbine-
generator units with a total authorized capacity of 666 MW; (7) a lower
reservoir inlet/outlet structure with four 15-foot-wide, 20-foot-high
bays, each equipped with 16-foot-wide, 20.6-foot-high steel slide
gates; (8) four 15-foot-wide, 26.7-foot-tall steel trashracks with 6-
inch bar spacing; (9) two 13.8-kilovolt (kV) pump motor-generator lead
electrical lines, one approximately 890 feet long (east lead), and one
approximately 900 feet long (west lead); (10) two 13.8/230-kV step-up
transformers; (11) two 230-kV above-ground transmission lines, one
approximately 4,075 feet long (south line) and one approximately 3,960
feet long (north line), which terminate at a non-project switchyard
owned by National Grid; and (12) appurtenant facilities.

Fife Brook Development

    The existing Fife Brook Development consists of: (1) An 890-foot-
long, 130-foot-high earthen rock-fill dam; (2) a 152-acre impoundment
with a gross storage capacity of 6,900 acre-feet at a normal maximum
water surface elevation of 870 feet NGVD, which also serves as the
lower reservoir for the Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Development; (3) two
36-foot-wide, 40-foot-high steel Tainter spillway gates that are
integral with the dam; (4) a concrete intake structure that is integral
with the dam and includes an 11.2-foot-wide, 24-foot-tall trashrack
with 3-inch bar spacing and a 15-foot-wide, 18-foot-high headgate; (5)
a 10-foot-diameter, 200-foot-long steel penstock; (6) an approximately
79.25-foot-long, 44-foot-wide, 94-foot-tall concrete powerhouse
containing a 10-MW Francis turbine-generator unit; (7) a 21-foot-long
steel-lined draft tube; (8) an approximately 325-foot-long, 30-inch-
diameter minimum flow release pipe that is gated at its intake and
bifurcates into an approximately 55-foot-long, 20-inch-diameter pipe
and an approximately 55-foot-long, 24-inch-diameter pipe; (9) a
partially buried (860-foot-long section) and partially above-ground
(7,060-foot-long section) 13.8-kV transmission line that connects the
turbine-generator unit to the regional grid at a non-project substation
owned by Great River Hydro, LLC; and (10) appurtenant facilities.
    The Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Development uses a storage capacity
of 4,600 acre-feet to produce approximately 3,028 MWh of generation
over approximately 5.3 hours. The Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Development
normally generates and pumps back some or all of the useable storage
capacity over a 24-hour period.
    The Fife Brook impoundment is the lower reservoir of the Bear Swamp
Pumped Storage Development, and has an allowable drawdown of 40 feet to
provide a useable storage capacity of 4,600 acre-feet to the upper
reservoir of the Bear Swamp Pumped Storage Development for daily
peaking operations. Releases from Fife Brook dam generally match the
inflow from the Station No. 5 Development of Great River Hydro LLC's
Deerfield River Project (FERC No. 2323), which discharges directly into
the Fife Brook impoundment.
    The existing license requires Bear Swamp to release a continuous
minimum flow of 125 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the Fife Brook
dam. The existing license also requires Bear Swamp to provide 106
scheduled annual releases of 700 cfs for whitewater recreation
downstream of the Fife Brook dam from April 1 through October 31. Bear
Swamp proposes to continue the current licensed mode of operation,
including the minimum flow and whitewater recreation releases. Bear
Swamp proposes to increase the volume of the whitewater flow releases
from 700 cfs to 800 cfs.
    Bear Swamp proposes to continue to operate and maintain the
existing licensed project recreation facilities. Bear Swamp also
proposes several new measures to enhance recreational resources: (1)
Improve the overflow parking area at the Fife Brook Fishing and Boating
Access Area; (2) construct a new portage trail that begins downstream
from the Showtime whitewater feature and extends upstream to the
existing vehicle turnaround at the Dunbar Brook Picnic Area; (3)
provide additional seasonal restroom facilities at the Zoar Picnic
Area; (4) install a handrail on the stairs at the Fife Brook Fishing
and Boating Access Area; (5) construct a stall-type changing facility
at the Zoar Picnic Area; and (6) install additional signage to educate
recreationists on safety and the Deerfield River flow regime. Finally,
Bear Swamp proposes to continue to include 201 acres of river corridor
lands downstream from the Fife Brook Development in the project
boundary for the protection of wildlife and riverine habitat.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. Copies are also available for inspection and
reproduction at the Rowe Town Library, 318 Zoar Road, Rowe,
Massachusetts 01367; and the North Adams Public Library, 74 Church
Street, North Adams, Massachusetts 01247.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining
the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all
protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party
to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must
be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular
application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;''
(2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project
number of the application to

which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following
revised schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of interventions, protests,           April 2019.
 comments, recommendations, preliminary
 terms and conditions, and preliminary
 fishway prescriptions.
Commission issues Draft Environmental        October 2019.
 Assessment.
Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment.  November 2019.
Modified terms and conditions..............  January 2020.
Commission issues Final Environmental        April 2020.
 Assessment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    p. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: January 30, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-01150 Filed 2-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Attachment 2 Potential for Efficiency Improvements At Existing Coal Fired Power Plants The average efficiency of the US fleet of coal fired power plants was 33% in 2000, which equates to a heat rate ( fuel energy needed to generate one kilowatt hour of power) of 10,240 Btu/ kwh. Possible measures to improve this efficiency have been investigated in recent years due to interest in fuel savings, as well as in the greenhouse gas emissions reduction ( i. e., CO2) which would accompany such a performance improvement. For example, see Integrating Consultancy  Efficiency Standards for Power Generation, Australian Greenhouse Office, Jan. 2000; Review of Potential Efficiency Improvements at Coal Fired Power Plants, Perrin Quarles Associates, Inc., for Clean Air Markets Division, USEPA, April 2001; Increasing Electricity Availability From Coal Fired Generation in the Near Term, The National Coal Council, May 2001. The Department of Energy is currently studying such measures. Preliminary results from the DOE effort have highlighted several promising options, as indicated in the table below.

Table 2.1 Technology % Efficiency Improvement Concept Turbine reblading 5 10% Replace existing turbine blade sections and seals with more efficient computer based designs.

Energy management 1 5% Replace current power plant control system with real time performance monitoring and adjustment of chemical feed rates, air flow, steam temperatures, outage maintenance against a theoretical model.

Intelligent soot blowing 1 2% Replace current soot blowing system with " smart" systems, which can reduce steam use for soot blowing by 30%.

Distributed Control System controls 0.5 2% Automate manual adjustment of air registers, burner tilt, fan power, etc., using an optimal computer " smart" system.

Generator exciter replacement 1 2% Replace current mechanical exciter with a more efficient solid state system.

Condenser enhancement 1% Replace condenser with a larger unit to reduce back pressure and make steam turbine more efficient.

Overall improvments 8 17% ( Numbers are not additive due to some overlapping improvements, and possible double counting.) In general, these improvements all improve the efficiency of steam conversion to electricity, or reduce parasitic power consumption within the power plant. Such improvements in efficiency produce more power for the same amount of energy consumed, and therefore do not increase emissions, in and of themselves. However, two larger scale issues must also be considered.

First, if the increase in efficiency also improves the unit's economics, then the unit might be dispatched ( used) more, while other units are used less. It is likely that voluntary efficiency improvements would improve unit economics. To further evaluate this situation, emission changes at a midwestern power pool for were evaluated for a range of hypothetical efficiency improvements in coal fired units. Four hypothetical NGCC generating units were " added" to the system to reflect a future scenario in which a broader mix of coal and gas fired units would probably exist. The analysis found that only a very large change in efficiency ( 13.5%, or greater) would be likely to change the relative dispatching of coal units with generically different units, such as natural gas fired or nuclear units, and that even at such high levels of efficiency improvement, the net effect was a reduction in emissions of 3 4%. ( 10/ 19/ 2001 email from V. Koritarov, ANL, to D. Carter, USDOE) It would be reasonable to expect some shifting in dispatching between other coal units, if all the units were not comparably improved. Such a change could result in an increase in emissions if higher emitting units were the subject of efficiency improvements. However, given emission caps for sulfur dioxide, caps in certain states for nitrogen oxides, and a tendency by power plant operators to achieve optimal performance ( both efficiency and emissions) at their " flagship" units, it seems much more likely that units receiving the greatest efficiency upgrades would be the cleaner units. Under these circumstances, efficiency improvements of the type cited above would reduce emissions. In other words, if one expects a 10% overall improvement in efficiency at coal units, efficiency improvements of 12% might occur at the lowest emission units, and improvements of 8% at the highest emitting units. This behavior would lead to significant emission reductions in periods of " off peak" generation, which includes the major portion of the year. However, this type of behavior is difficult to model and was not simulated in the model runs by ANL or EIA.

The second larger scale issue is that of demand growth. The growth in electricity demand over the next decade is projected to be greater than expected growth in electricity production due to efficiency improvements at coal fired power plants. Another way of looking at this is that almost all additional generation which comes from efficiency improvements would be power not needed from new generators. Because the efficiency improvements are at existing coal units, whereas new generation over the next decade will be dominated by much lower emitting natural gas combined cycle units, one might suppose that the efficiency improvement would result in increased emissions overall. However, this is not the case. As long as the increased power production does not require additional coal consumption ( which is the case for these efficiency improvements), then the resulting net emissions will be lower than the total emissions for " unimproved" coal plants and " super clean" natural gas plants.

Most, but not all of the efficiency improving technologies cited in Table 2.1 reflect replacement components. This is important to note because some NSR policies might apply differently to replacement parts versus new components added to a plant for the sole purpose of improving efficiency.

Given the expanding suite of efficiency improving technologies, and growing interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through efficiency improvements, it is reasonable to project overall efficiency improvements, in the absence of NSR constraints, as large as10 15%. Such a range is much larger than conventional wisdom, which is perhaps shaped by expectations under the current NSR policy, and the absence of efficiency incentives related to climate change concerns. To cover a broad range of possible improvements, a range of 5% to 15% was examined using the NEMS modeling system. APPENDIX B EVALUATION OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE MODEL SCENARIO FOR POWER PLANTS ( ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY) 1 This finding is described in detail in EPA's June 13, 2002 New Source Review Report to the President. EVALUATION OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE MODEL SCENARIO FOR POWER PLANTS Purpose: This analysis uses model scenarios to evaluate the impact that the changes to the routine maintenance provisions of NSR are likely have on emissions from the power generation sector.

Methodology: In order to evaluate the impact of the routine maintenance provisions, EPA considered a scenario under which NSR regulations remained in place and a range of scenarios that could occur if NSR did not exist. The first scenario is intended to represent the existing program, which the EPA has found impedes or results in cancellation of projects that maintain and improve reliability, availability, and efficiency at existing power plants. 1 The second range of scenarios represents companies receive flexibility under the NSR program that removes many of these impediments . As part of this analysis, EPA reviewed three key variables: change in SO2 emissions, change in NOx emissions and change in cost.

It is worth noting that EPA recently promulgated final rules governing the use of plantwide applicability limits ( PALs), and Clean Units. Some sources with in the electric utility generation industry may take advantage of these changes. However, any such decision will be based on case specific information related to their past operating levels, current levels of control and company's specific strategies for complying with NSR. Therefore, we can not make estimates on how many sources may take advantage of PALs and Clean Units. To the extent they are used within the industry, they will dampen the effects shown in this analysis ( i. e., estimated decreases and increases will not be as large.

This analysis was performed using the Integrated Planning Model ( IPM). IPM is a linear programming model that EPA uses to analyze the effect of various environmental policies on the power sector. It provides forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch and emission control strategies for meeting energy demand and environmental, transmission, dispatch and reliability constraints. EPA has used it to analyze many environmental policies including the Phase II Acid Rain Nitrogen Oxide regulations and the Nitrogen Oxide SIP Call. Analysis can be performed varying multiple constraints such as availability of various types of power plants ( e. g. coal fired, nuclear, gas fired combined cycle units), heat rates of various types of power plants, environmental constraints ( e. g. caps on emissions, emission rate limitations). More detail regarding IPM can be found in the document titled " Documentation of EPA Modeling Application ( V. 2.1) Using the Integrated Planning Model, which can be found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ airmarkets/ epa ipm/ index. html.

Assumptions: The first scenario, referred to as the NSR base case, approximates utility behavior under the current program, where the EPA has found that companies perform limited maintenance on coal plants because of concerns about NSR. In this scenario, it was assumed that the performance of coal units would deteriorate, resulting in higher heat rates and lower capacities. EPA did not assume that reduced maintenance resulted in a change in maximum potential unit availability. This is because over the last 20 years, availability of coal fired plants has increased even as the plants have aged. This is due in large part to improved maintenance practices. For instance tests to inspect boiler tubes have been continually improving ( see " Preventing Boiler Tube Failures with EMAT's", S. P. Clark et al, " EPRI International Conference on Boiler Tube Failures and HRSG Tube Failures and Inspects", November 6 8, 2001). These improved preventive maintenance practices allow companies to replace components during regularly scheduled outages before they fail rather than causing unscheduled outages after they fail. Although we did not assume availability decreases, we did assume that continued future availability increases would diminish, and any remaining increases would essentially be negated by deterioration caused by limited maintenance.

The second range of scenarios, referred to as increased maintenance cases # 1  # 5 , looks at a range of scenario for what might happen in the utility sector if companies were provided with increased flexibility under NSR to perform maintenance. This would result in lower heat rates, higher capacities and/ or higher unit availabilities for these units. Finally EPA looked at one case ( standard base case) in which heat rate, capacity and unit availability did not change. Table 1: Key modeling assumptions in routine maintenance analysis Winter Availability Summer Availability Heat Rate Change Capacity Change NSR Basecase 81.6% 89.8% + 0.1% per year  0.1% per year Increased Maintenance Case # 1 85.0% 92.0%  0.1% per year + 0.1% per year Increased Maintenance Case # 2 81.6% 89.8%  0.1% per year + 0.1% per year Increased Maintenance Case # 3 85.0% 92.0%  1.6% in year 2005 and beyond + 1.6% in year 2005 and beyond Increased Maintenance Case # 4 85.0% 92.0%  3.2% in year 2005 and beyond + 3.2% in year 2005 and beyond Increased Maintenance # 5 81.6% 89.8%  1.6% in year 2005 and beyond + 1.6% in year 2005 and beyond Standard Base Case 81.6% 89.8% No change No change It is important to note several limitations to this analysis. First this analysis only considered emission regulations that are currently in effect ( e. g. the NOx SIP Call and the Title IV Acid Rain Provisions). Future environmental regulations such as emission reduction requirements necessary to meet the fine particulate matter standards or emission reductions under multi pollutant regulations could significantly change this analysis. Second, the analysis assumed the operating and maintenance costs of coal fired units was the same for units performing limited maintenance and for units performing increased maintenance.. Since the most significant cost associated with running an existing power plant is the cost of fuel, this impact is probably fairly small.

Results:

Changes in SO2 Emissions, NOx emissions and cost are summarized in Tables 2, 3 and 4 below.

Table 2: Changes in SO2 emissions in scenarios considered in routine maintenance analysis.

2005 SO2 Emissions ( tons) 2010 SO2 Emissions ( tons) 2015 SO2 Emissions ( tons) 2020 SO2 Emissions ( tons)

NSR Base case 10,168,230 9,713,684 9,101,622 9,103,275 Increased Maintenance Case # 1 10,135,120 9,739,029 9,104,121 9,102,688 Increased Maintenance Case # 2 10,186,660 9,701,112 9,099,363 9,099,271 Increased Maintenance Case # 3 10,075,060 9,773,242 9,104,836 9,103,779 Increased Maintenance Case # 4 10,009,250 9,813,664 9,105,429 9,104,396 Increased Maintenance # 5 10,079,510 9,764,971 9,099,923 9,100,361 Standard Base Case 10,168,520 9,712,499 9,100,264 9,100,680 As shown in Table 2, there is very little change in SO2 emissions over the entire time period studied under the two scenarios. This is because SO2 emissions are already capped nationally under the Title IV Acid Rain Provisions. Therefore if a unit decreases its emissions to make room under its PAL, it could instead sell excess allowances to another unit. However because emissions can also be shifted temporally by banking emission allowances to be used in a future year there can be significant changes in emissions for a specific year. While temporal distribution of emissions did not change much over time in the NSR cases considered, there was more temporal distribution of emissions in the increased maintenance scenarios considered.

Table 3: Changes in NOx emissions in scenarios considered under routine maintenance scenarios.

2005 NOx Emissions ( tons) 2010 NOx Emissions ( tons) 2015 NOx Emissions ( tons) 2020 NOx Emissions ( tons)

NSR Base case 4,279,362 4,285,400 4,338,461 4,375,486 Increased Maintenance Case # 1 4,340,166 4,362,948 4,442,881 4,471,499 Increased Maintenance Case # 2 4,276,550 4,283,081 4,327,979 4,362,859 Increased Maintenance Case # 3 4,307,796 4,350,737 4,423,141 4,472,706 Increased Maintenance Case # 4 4,276,172 4,334,671 4,412,340 4,460,041 Increased Maintenance # 5 4,259,170 4,271,294 4,324,992 4,363,930 Standard Base Case 4,277,407 4,285,423 4,332,209 4,360,044 Increasing capacity ( under the increased maintenance cases) leads to increases in NOx emissions. When comparing increased maintenance cases # 1 and # 2 ( which had the same increases in efficiency, but different changes in maximum availability, NOx emissions increase by an average of almost 92,000 tons per year over the time period analyzed.

It appears that changing heat rates and capacities has the opposite effect on emissions.. NOx emissions actually decrease when flexibility under NSR allows power generation companies to improve efficiency by performing increased maintenance if maximum availability of these units does not change at the same time. For instance if one compares two scenarios with the same maximum capacities: NSR Base case , increased maintenance case # 2 and the standard base case, average emissions are about 7000 tons per year higher over the time period analyzed in NSR Base case where heat rates are higher and capacities are lower. Looking at increased maintenance cases # 3 and # 4 shows the same trend. In these two cases maximum availability remains constant, but heat rates are lower and capacities are higher in increased maintenance case # 4. These lower heat rates and higher capacities lead to emissions that are on average nearly 18000 tons per year less in increased maintenance case # 4 than in increased maintenance case # 5.

Another point to note is that EPA also looked at the speed in which the improvements to the units were made. For example by 2020, the heat rate decrease and the capacity increase was the same in both increased maintenance case # 2 and increased maintenance case # 5 were the same. However in case # 5, those changes happened in one step in 2005, in case # 2, the changes happened gradually. When the changes occurred all at emissions were lower in the early years. In the later years, when the total magnitude of the changes was more similar in both cases, the NOx emissions were also more similar.

This analysis suggests that the effect that changing the requirements of NSR with regards to routine maintenance will have on emissions is dependent upon the effect that it will have on maximum unit availabilities. If the routine maintenance changes increase efficiency and plant capacity without increasing maximum unit availability, this analysis suggests that the changes could decrease emissions. The amount of that emission decrease would depend both on how much heat rate decreased and capacity increased and how quickly these changes occurred. The greater the heat rate decrease and capacity increase and the more quickly the changes occurred, the greater the emission reductions. If on the other hand, the new provisions increase maximum unit availabilities this analysis suggests that the changes could increase emissions.

Changes in cost are summarized in Table 4 below. Note that this analysis does not consider changes in maintenance costs, it only assumes changes in fuel costs and changes in capital costs associated with new generating units and new emission control equipment. Therefore it probably understates the cost of the increased maintenance scenarios and understates the cost of the NSR Base case.

Table 4: Total cost of scenarios considered ( in 1999 dollars)

2005 Total Cost ( million 1999 dollars) 2010 Total Cost ( million 1999 dollars) 2015 Total Cost ( million 1999 dollars) 2020 Cost ( million 1999 dollars)

NSR Base case 76,187 80,934 88,921 95,819 Increased Maintenance Case # 1 75,432 79,819 87,306 92,817 Increased Maintenance Case # 2 76,088 80,290 87,861 93,781 Increased Maintenance Case # 3 74,422 79,309 86,715 92,788 Increased Maintenance Case # 4 73,740 78,250 85,898 91,932 Increased Maintenance # 5 75,164 79,782 87,600 93,784 Standard Base Case 76,149 80,572 88,404 94,588 For more detailed results, see the attached IPM run summaries. The runs are listed in Table 5 below.

Table 5: IPM Runs used in this analysis Scenario IPM Run #

NSR Base case NSR 13 Increased Maintenance Case # 1 NSR 8 Increased Maintenance Case # 2 NSR 11 Increased Maintenance Case # 3 NSR 14 Increased Maintenance Case # 4 NSR 15 Increased Maintenance # 5 NSR 16 Standard Base Case IPM2000s100d


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 114 (Friday, June 13, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33867-33868]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13856]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 761

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0396; FRL-9912-25-OSWER]
RIN 2050-AG79

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Manufacturing (Import)
Exemption for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of Direct final rule and Notice of Informal Hearing.

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

SUMMARY: On April 2, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA or the agency) took direct final action on a petition submitted by
the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to allow DLA to import foreign-
manufactured polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from Japan effective on
July 1, 2014, unless EPA received adverse written comments or a request
to hold an informal hearing. Because EPA received an adverse comment,
as well as a request for an informal hearing, we are withdrawing the
direct final rule titled, ``Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for the Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA).'' This notice also announces the time and location of that
hearing.

DATES: Effective June 13, 2014, EPA withdraws the direct final rule

published at 79 FR 18471 on April 2, 2014. The informal hearing will
take place on Tuesday, July 8, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. All those
wishing to provide oral comments at the hearing must send a written
request to EPA. Requests must be received on or before July 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at the EPA building at 2777 South
Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202. The hearing will be on the
4th floor in conference room North 4850/70.
    Requests to Participate: A request to provide oral comments at the
informal hearing must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 1, 2014 by one of the following methods:
     Email: Requests may be sent by electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: Requests may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention:
William Noggle; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0396.
     Mail: Requests may be sent to William Noggle, U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Mail Code 5304P,
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0396. Note that mail sent to
EPA is subject to significant delays due to security screening, so
please plan for additional delivery time.
     Hand Delivery: Requests may be hand delivered to William
Noggle, U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Two
Potomac Yard, 2733 South Crystal Drive, 5th Floor, N5612, Arlington, VA
22202. Such deliveries are only accepted during the business hours from
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Please call William Noggle at<PHONE_NUMBER> prior to delivery.
    Instructions: Please see http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/dlapcb.htm for the type of information that must be included in
the request to provide oral comments at the informal hearing, who may
participate, as well as the procedures that EPA will follow in
conducting the informal hearing. Please note that oral comments will be
heard from those persons who have requested to participate in the
hearing. Members of the public can attend without prior notification to
the Hearing Clerk, but they will not be part of the hearing schedule to
give presentations and/ or oral comments. However, attendees not on the
hearing schedule may be permitted to speak if time allows. Also note
that the advance participation requests will assist in planning for the
hearing. Additionally, the time for individual presentations may be
limited, depending on the number of requests received.
    Individuals requiring special accommodation at this hearing,
including wheelchair access or hearing impaired accommodations, should
contact the Hearing Clerk by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
telephone,<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least five (5) business days prior to the
hearing so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-
0270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Noggle, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Mail Code 5304P; at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 23, 2013, EPA received a petition
from the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), a component of the United
States Department of Defense (DoD), to import foreign-manufactured PCBs
that DoD currently owns in Japan for disposal in the United States. In
response to that petition, on April 2, 2014, EPA issued a direct final
rule (79 FR 18471) and parallel proposed rule (79 FR 18497), to grant
the request and provided a 30-day public comment period. During the
comment period, EPA received an adverse comment as well as a request to
hold an informal hearing.
    Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule: Because EPA received adverse
comment, as well as a request to hold an informal hearing, we are
withdrawing the direct final rule. We stated in the direct final rule
that if we received adverse comment on the proposed rule by May 2,
2014, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would publish
a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. We subsequently received
adverse comment on that direct final rule, which will be considered as
part of the parallel proposed rule.
    Notice of Informal Hearing: EPA is granting a request from a member
of the public to hold an informal hearing to receive oral comments on
the proposed regulation. The procedures for rulemaking under section 6
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are found at 40 CFR part
750. Specific procedures for manufacturing (import) exemptions are
identified in 40 CFR part 750, subpart B, and the procedures for
participation in and the conduct of informal hearings are found at 40
CFR 750.18-750.20. Please see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/dlapcb.htm for the specific procedures for the
informal hearing and the most current information on the hearing
timeline.
    Please note that all dates for the hearing process are subject to
change. Individuals interested in this hearing and rulemaking should
check the Web site for the most current information.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Polychlorinated
biphenyls.

    Dated: June 6, 2014.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    Accordingly, EPA withdraws the amendment to 40 CFR 761.80(j),
published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2014 (79 FR 18471), as of
June 13, 2014.
[FR Doc. 2014-13856 Filed 6-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Supplemental Material Document Title:  CATEX (Categorical Exclusion Determination), EC (Environmental Checklist), and Comments or Additional Information 47 Pages


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16725-16730]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07980]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85654; File No. SR-PHLX-2019-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Pricing Schedule

April 16, 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 April 10, 2019, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
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 amend the Pricing Schedule at Section 1,
B, ``Customer Rebate Program,'' Section 3, ``Rebates and Fees for
Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY'' and Section 6, E, ``Market
Access and Routing Subsidy (``MARS'').'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that the Exchange initially filed the
proposed Pricing Schedule amendment on April 1, 2019 (SR-PHLX-2019-
10). On April 10, 2019, the Exchange withdrew that filing and
submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Pricing Schedule at (i) Section
1, B, ``Customer Rebate Program,'' to decrease certain Customer
Rebates; (ii) Section 3, ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing
Liquidity in SPY'' to decrease a Simple Order Customer Fee for Removing
Liquidity and decrease all rebate tiers; an [sic] (iii) Section 6, E,
``Market Access and Routing Subsidy (``MARS'')'' to add a new rebate
tier. Each change will be described below in more detail.
Customer Rebate
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Pricing Schedule at Section 1,
B, ``Customer Rebate Program'' to lower certain rebates. Today, the
Exchange pays rebates to members who transacted a certain amount of
Customer volume. Specifically, Phlx totals Customer volume in Multiply
Listed Options (including SPY) that is electronically-delivered and
executed, except volume associated with electronic QCC Orders, as
defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o). Rebates are paid on Customer Rebate
Tiers according to the below: \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Members and member organizations under Common Ownership may
aggregate their Customer volume for purposes of calculating the
Customer Rebate Tiers and receiving rebates. Affiliated Entities may
aggregate their Customer volume for purposes of calculating the
Customer Rebate Tiers and receiving rebates.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Percentage thresholds
                           of national customer
                           volume in multiply-
 Customer rebate tiers    listed equity and ETF     Category A      Category B      Category C      Category D
                             options classes,
                          excluding SPY options
                                (monthly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1.................  0.00%-0.60%............           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00
Tier 2.................  Above 0.60%-1.10%......          * 0.10          * 0.10         *# 0.16         *# 0.21
Tier 3.................  Above 1.10%-1.60%......            0.15          * 0.12         *# 0.18         *# 0.22
Tier 4.................  Above 1.60%-2.50%......            0.20            0.16          # 0.22          # 0.26
Tier 5.................  Above 2.50%............            0.21            0.17          # 0.22          # 0.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange pays a Category A Rebate to members who execute
electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot Options
and Customer Simple Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in Options 7,
Section 4 symbols.\5\ The Exchange pays a Category B Rebate on Customer
PIXL Orders in Options 7, Section 4 symbols that execute against non-
Initiating Order interest. In the instance where member organizations
qualify for Tier 4 or higher in the Customer Rebate Program, Customer
PIXL Orders that execute against a PIXL Initiating Order is paid a
rebate of $0.14 per contract. Rebates on Customer PIXL Orders are
capped at 4,000 contracts per order for Simple PIXL Orders. The
Exchange pays a Category C Rebate to members who execute
electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Penny Pilot Options
in Options 7, Section 4 symbols. Rebates are paid on Customer PIXL
Complex Orders in Options 7, Section 4 symbols that execute against
non-Initiating Order interest. Customer Complex PIXL Orders that
execute against a Complex PIXL Initiating Order are not paid a rebate
under any circumstance. The Category C Rebate is not paid when an
electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order, including a Customer
Complex PIXL Order, executes against another electronically-delivered
Customer Complex Order. Finally, the Exchange pays a Category D Rebate
to members who execute electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders
in Non-Penny Pilot Options in Options 7, Section 4 symbols. Rebates are
paid on Customer PIXL Complex Orders in Options 7, Section 4 symbols
that execute against non-Initiating Order interest. Customer Complex
PIXL Orders that execute against a Complex PIXL Initiating Order are
not paid a rebate under any circumstance. The Category D Rebate are not
paid when an electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order, including
a Customer Complex PIXL Order, executes against another electronically-
delivered Customer Complex Order. Rebates are not paid on NDX or NDXP
contracts in any Category, however NDX and NDXP contracts will count
toward the volume requirement to qualify for a Customer Rebate Tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Options 7, Section 4 describes pricing for Multiply Listed
Options Fees (Includes options overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and
indexes which are Multiply Listed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Exchange pays a $0.05 per contract Category C and D
rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2, 3, 4 and 5 rebates to
members or member organizations or member or member organization
affiliated under Common Ownership provided the member or member
organization qualified for any MARS Payments in Options 7, Section

6, E. The Exchange proposes to decrease the Category C and D rebates
applicable Tier 2, 3, 4 and 5 rebates to members or member
organizations or member or member organization affiliated under Common
Ownership provided the member or member organization qualified for any
MARS Payments in Options 7, Section 6, E. The Exchange proposes to
decrease the Category C Rebate from $0.05 to $0.04 per contract. The
Exchange proposes to decrease the Category D Rebate from $0.05 to $0.02
per contract. While these rebates are decreasing, the Exchange believes
that the Customer Rebates will continue to incentivize member
organizations to execute against Customer orders.
Rebates and Fees for SPY
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Pricing Schedule at Section 3,
``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY'' to
decrease the Simple Order Customer Fee for Removing Liquidity and
decrease all rebate tiers. Today, the Exchange assesses a Customer Fee
for Removing Liquidity in SPY of $0.45 per contract. All other market
participants, Specialists,\6\ Market Makers,\7\ Firms,\8\ Broker-
Dealers \9\ and Professionals,\10\ are assessed a Fee for Removing
Liquidity in SPY of $0.48 per contract. The Exchange proposes to lower
the Customer Fee for Removing Liquidity in SPY from $0.45 to $0.42 per
contract. The Exchange's proposal to lower the Customer Fee for
Removing Liquidity in SPY from $0.45 to $0.42 per contract will
encourage a greater amount of Customer orders, even if submitted by
other market participants, to remove volume from the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Specialist'' applies to transactions for the
account of a Specialist (as defined in Exchange Rule 1020(a)). A
Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an options
specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a). An options Specialist includes
a Remote Specialist which is defined as an options specialist in one
or more classes that does not have a physical presence on an
Exchange floor and is approved by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 501.
    \7\ The term ``ROT, SQT and RSQT'' applies to transactions for
the accounts of Registered Option Traders (``ROTs''), Streaming
Quote Traders (``SQTs''), and Remote Streaming Quote Traders
(``RSQTs''). For purposes of the Pricing Schedule, the term ``Market
Maker'' will be utilized to describe fees and rebates applicable to
ROTs, SQTs and RSQTs. RSQTs may also be referred to as Remote Market
Markers (``RMMs''). The term ROT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)
as a regular member of the Exchange located on the trading floor who
has received permission from the Exchange to trade in options for
his own account. A ROT includes SQTs and RSQTs as well as on and
off-floor ROTS. The term SQT is defined in Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in
options to which such SQT is assigned. The term RSQT is defined in
Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is a member
affiliated with an RSQTO with no physical trading floor presence who
has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically in options to which such RSQT has
been assigned. A Remote Streaming Quote Trader Organization or
``RSQTO,'' which may also be referred to as a Remote Market Making
Organization (``RMO''), is a member organization in good standing
that satisfies the RSQTO readiness requirements in Rule 507(a).
    \8\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at OCC.
    \9\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \10\ The term ``Professional'' applies to transactions for the
accounts of Professionals, as defined in Exchange Rule 1000(b)(14)
means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in
securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, a Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity is paid to
Specialists and Market Makers who add the requisite amount of
electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order
contracts per day in a month in SPY.\11\ Today the Exchange pays the
following rebates:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that the Customer Rebates offered in
Section 1, B do not apply to electronic executions in SPY.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Rebate for
           Tiers                 Average daily volume         adding
                                       ``ADV''               liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................  1 to 2,499.................           $0.15
2..........................  2,500 to 4,999.............            0.18
3..........................  5,000 to 19,999............            0.21
4..........................  20,000 to 34,999...........            0.27
5..........................  35,000 to 49,999...........            0.30
6..........................  greater than 49,999........            0.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to lower each rebate tier by $0.03 per
contract so the proposed rebates would be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Rebate for
           Tiers                 Average daily volume         adding
                                       ``ADV''               liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................  1 to 2,499.................           $0.12
2..........................  2,500 to 4,999.............            0.15
3..........................  5,000 to 19,999............            0.18
4..........................  20,000 to 34,999...........            0.24
5..........................  35,000 to 49,999...........            0.27
6..........................  greater than 49,999........            0.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange is lowering the amount of rebates \12\ it would
pay to Specialists and Market Makers who add the requisite amount of
electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order
contracts per day in a month in SPY, the Exchange believes the proposed
rebates will continue to incentivize Market Makers to add liquidity on
Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange would lower Tier 1 (1 to 2,499) from $0.15 to
$0.12 per contract; Tier 2 (2,500 to 4,999) would be lowered from
$0.18 to $0.15 per contract; Tier 3 (5,000 to 19,999) would be
lowered from $0.21 to $0.18 per contract; Tier 4 (20,000 to 34,999)
would be lowered from $0.27 to $0.24 per contract; Tier 5 (35,000 to
49,999) would be lowered from $0.30 to $0.27 per contract; and Tier
6 (greater than 49,999) would be lowered from $0.35 to $0.32 per
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARS
    Today, MARS, [sic] pays a subsidy to Phlx members that provide
certain order routing functionalities to other Phlx members and/or use
such

functionalities themselves. Generally, under MARS, Phlx pays
participating Phlx members to subsidize their costs of providing
routing services to route orders to Phlx. To qualify for MARS, a Phlx
member's order routing functionality is required to meet certain
criteria.\13\ Any Phlx member may apply for MARS, provided the
requirements are met, including a robust and reliable System. The
member is solely responsible for implementing and operating its System.
The Exchange is not proposing to amend eligibility standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Specifically, a Phlx member's routing system (``hereinafter
System'') is required to: (1) Enable the electronic routing of
orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges, including Phlx; (2)
provide current consolidated market data from the U.S. options
exchanges; and (3) be capable of interfacing with Phlx's API to
access current Phlx match engine functionality. Further, the
member's System needs to cause Phlx to be the one of the top five
default destination exchanges for individually executed marketable
orders if Phlx is at the national best bid or offer (``NBBO''),
regardless of size or time, but allow any user to manually override
Phlx as a default destination on an order-by-order basis.
Notwithstanding the above, with respect to Complex Orders a Phlx
member's routing system is not required to enable the electronic
routing of orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges or provide
current consolidated market data from the U.S. options exchanges.
Any Phlx member is permitted to avail itself of this arrangement,
provided that its order routing functionality incorporates the
features described above and satisfies Phlx that it appears to be
robust and reliable. The member remains solely responsible for
implementing and operating its system. The Exchange does not require
Complex Orders to enable the electronic routing of orders to all of
the U.S. options exchanges or provide current consolidated market
data from the U.S. options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, a MARS Payment would be made to Phlx members that have
System Eligibility and have routed the requisite number of Eligible
Contracts daily in a month, which were executed on Phlx. For the
purpose of qualifying for the MARS Payment, Eligible Contracts include
Firm, Broker-Dealer, Joint Back Office or ``JBO'' \14\ or Professional
equity option orders that are electronically delivered and executed.
Eligible Contracts do not include floor-based orders, qualified
contingent cross or ``QCC'' orders,\15\ price improvement or ``PIXL''
orders,\16\ Mini-Option orders \17\ or Singly-Listed Options \18\
orders. The Eligible Contracts requirements are not being amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The term ``Joint Back Office'' or ``JBO'' applies to any
transaction that is identified by a member or member organization
for clearing in the Firm range at OCC and is identified with an
origin code as a JBO. A JBO will be priced the same as a Broker-
Dealer. A JBO participant is a member, member organization or non-
member organization that maintains a JBO arrangement with a clearing
broker-dealer (``JBO Broker'') subject to the requirements of
Regulation T Section 220.7 of the Federal Reserve System as further
discussed at Exchange Rule 703.
    \15\ A QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy or sell at
least 1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified
contingent trade, as that term is defined in Rule 1080(o)(3),
coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of
contracts. The QCC Order must be executed at a price at or between
the NBBO and be rejected if a Customer order is resting on the
Exchange book at the same price. A QCC Order shall only be submitted
electronically from off the floor to the Exchange's match engine.
See Rule 1080(o).
    \16\ PIXL is the Exchange's price improvement mechanism known as
Price Improvement XL or (PIXL\SM\). See Rule 1087.
    \17\ Mini Options are further specified in Phlx Rule 1012,
Commentary .13.
    \18\ Singly Listed Options are options overlying currencies,
equities, ETFs, ETNs treasury securities and indexes not listed on
another exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, Phlx members that have System Eligibility and have executed
the requisite number of Eligible Contracts in a month are paid the
following per contract rebates: \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The specified MARS Payment are paid on all executed
Eligible Contracts which are routed to Phlx through a participating
Phlx member's System and meet the requisite Eligible Contracts ADV.
No payment are [sic] made with respect to orders that are routed to
Phlx, but not executed. A Phlx member is not entitled to receive any
other revenue for the use of its System specifically with respect to
orders routed to Phlx with the exception of the Marketing Fee.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   MARS payment
         Tiers            Average daily  -------------------------------
                        volume (``ADV'')      Non-SPY           SPY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................  1,000...........           $0.01           $0.01
2.....................  30,000..........            0.10            0.10
3.....................  40,000..........            0.12            0.12
4.....................  52,500..........            0.14            0.12
5.....................  65,000..........            0.18            0.12
6.....................  75,000..........            0.20            0.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Tier 2 rebate for members that
have System Eligibility and have executed the requisite number of
Eligible Contracts in a month. The new Tier 2 rebate would require
average daily volume (``ADV'') of 20,000 contracts and pay a Non-SPY
and SPY MARS Payment of $0.05. The Exchange proposes to renumber each
subsequent tier.\20\ The Exchange believes that with this proposal MARS
will continue to attract higher volumes of electronic equity and ETF
options volume to the Exchange from non-Phlx market participants as
well as Phlx members with the proposed amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Current Tier 2 would be renumbered as Tier 3, current Tier
3 would be renumbered as Tier 4, current Tier 4 would be renumbered
as Tier 5, current Tier 5 would be renumbered as Tier 6, and current
Tier 6 would be renumbered as Tier 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\21\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Rebate Program
    The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Category C Rebate from
$0.05 to $0.04 and decrease the Category D Rebate from $0.05 to $0.02
per contract is reasonable because the Exchange will continue to pay a
rebate to incentivize members to execute Customer Complex Orders in
Penny Pilot Options, as well as Customer Complex Orders in Non-Penny
Pilot Options, despite the lower rebate.
    The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Category C Rebate from
$0.05 to $0.04 and decrease the Category D Rebate from $0.05 to $0.02
per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange will uniformly pay Category C and D rebates to all qualifying
market participants. Any market participant may qualify for a Customer
Rebate.
Rebates and Fees for SPY
    The Exchange's proposal to lower the Customer Fee for Removing
Liquidity in SPY from $0.45 to $0.42 per contract is

reasonable because it will encourage a greater amount of Customer
orders, even if submitted by other market participants, to remove
volume from the Exchange. Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Specialists and Market Makers.
    The Exchange's proposal to lower the Customer Fee for Removing
Liquidity in SPY from $0.45 to $0.42 per contract is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because Customer orders will continue to be
assessed the lowest Fees for Removing Liquidity in SPY Simple Orders.
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to lower the amount of rebates paid to
Specialists and Market Makers who add the requisite amount of
electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order
contracts per day in a month in SPY by $0.03 per contract for each tier
\23\ is reasonable because although the Exchange is lowering the amount
of rebates it would pay to Specialists and Market Makers who add the
requisite amount of electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker
Simple Order contracts per day in a month in SPY, the Exchange believes
the proposed rebates will continue to incentivize Market Makers to add
liquidity on Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Exchange would lower Tier 1 (1 to 2,499) from $0.15 to
$0.12 per contract; Tier 2 (2,500 to 4,999) would be lowered from
$0.18 to $0.15 per contract; Tier 3 (5,000 to 19,999) would be
lowered from $0.21 to $0.18 per contract; Tier 4 (20,000 to 34,999)
would be lowered from $0.27 to $0.24 per contract; Tier 5 (35,000 to
49,999) would be lowered from $0.30 to $0.27 per contract; and Tier
6 (greater than 49,999) would be lowered from $0.35 to $0.32 per
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to lower the amount of rebates paid to
Specialists and Market Makers who add the requisite amount of
electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order
contracts per day in a month in SPY by $0.03 per contract for each tier
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is
uniformly reducing each tier of the 6 tier rebate it pays to
Specialists and Market Makers who add the requisite amount of
electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order
contracts per day in a month in SPY. Every Specialist and Market Maker
will be equally impacted. Also, the Exchange notes that every
Specialist and Market Maker may earn a rebate on each contract as the
tier schedule starts with 1 contract.
MARS
    The Exchange believes that adopting a new Tier 2 with an ADV of
20,000 contracts which pays a MARS Payment of $0.05 for Non-Penny and
Penny is reasonable because all Phlx members may qualify for another
tier that allows contracts below 30,000 (Tier 2) but higher than 1,000
contracts (Tier 1) and in return receive the higher rebate of $0.05 as
compared to the $0.01 rebate for Tier 1. The proposed tier should
attract higher volumes of electronic equity and ETF options volume to
the Exchange, which will benefit all Phlx members by offering greater
price discovery, increased transparency, and an increased opportunity
to trade on the Exchange. The expanded MARS Payments should enhance the
competitiveness of the Exchange, particularly with respect to those
exchanges that offer their own front-end order entry system or one they
subsidize in some manner. The adoption of a new Tier 2 will incentivize
Phlx members to achieve an even higher rebate, provided the Phlx member
is eligible for MARS. Further, the tier structure will allow Phlx
members to price their services at a level that will enable them to
attract order flow from market participants who would otherwise utilize
an existing front-end order entry mechanism offered by the Exchange's
competitors instead of incurring the cost in time and money to develop
their own internal systems to be able to deliver orders directly to the
Exchange's System.
    The Exchange believes that adopting a new Tier 2 with an ADV of
20,000 contracts which pays a MARS Payment of $0.05 for Non-Penny and
Penny is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
will uniformly pay all Phlx members the rebates specified in the
proposed MARS Payment tiers provided the Phlx member has executed the
requisite number of Eligible Contracts. Moreover, the Exchange believes
that the proposed MARS Payments offered by the Exchange are equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because any qualifying Phlx member that
offers market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilize
such functionality themselves may earn the MARS Payment for all
Eligible Contracts.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
Customer Rebate Program
    The Exchange's proposal to decrease the Category C Rebate from
$0.05 to $0.04 and decrease the Category D Rebate from $0.05 to $0.02
per contract does not impose an undue burden on competition because the
Exchange will uniformly pay Category C and D rebates to all qualifying
market participants. Any market participant may qualify for a Customer
Rebate.
Rebates and Fees for SPY
    The Exchange's proposal to lower the Customer Fee for Removing
Liquidity in SPY from $0.45 to $0.42 per contract does not create an
undue burden on competition because Customers will continue to be
assessed the lowest Fees for Removing Liquidity in SPY Simple Orders.
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to lower the amount of rebates paid to
Specialists and Market Makers who add the requisite amount of
electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order
contracts per day in a month in SPY by $0.03 per contract for each tier
does not impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange is
uniformly reducing each tier of the 6 tier rebate it pays to
Specialists and Market Makers who add the requisite amount of
electronically

executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order contracts per day in
a month in SPY. Every Specialist and Market Maker will be equally
impacted. Also, the Exchange notes that every Specialist and Market
Maker may earn a rebate on each contract as the tier schedule starts
with 1 contract.
MARS
    The Exchange believes that adopting a new Tier 2 with an ADV of
20,000 contracts which pays a MARS Payment of $0.05 for Non-Penny and
Penny does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition
because the Exchange will uniformly pay all Phlx members the rebates
specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers provided the Phlx member
has executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the proposed MARS Payments offered by the
Exchange are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any
qualifying Phlx member that offers market access and connectivity to
the Exchange and/or utilizes such functionality themselves may earn the
MARS Payment for all Eligible Contracts.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-PHLX-2019-15 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-PHLX-2019-15. 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-PHLX-2019-15 and should be submitted on
or before May 13, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07980 Filed 4-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P