[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15327-15328]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06424]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0165]

Port Access Route Study (PARS): In Nantucket Sound

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of study; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is conducting a Port Access Route Study (PARS)
to determine whether it should revise existing regulations to improve
navigation safety in Nantucket Sound due to factors such as increased
vessels traffic, changing vessel traffic patterns, weather conditions,
or navigational difficulty.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received on or before June
20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, or view documents noted to be
available in the docket, and comments made in response to this notice
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov),
docket USCG-2016-0165.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this study by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
    A. Submitting Comments: You may submit your comments and material
online via http://www.regulations.gov. Type ``USCG-2016-0165'' into the
search bar and click search, next to the displayed search results click
``Comment Now'', which will open the comment page for this study. We
will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period.
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
go to http://www.regulations.gov, type ``USCG-2016-0165'' into the
search bar and click search, next to the displayed search results click
``Open Docket Folder'', which will display all comments and documents
associated with this study.
    C. Public Meeting: The Coast Guard may hold public meeting(s) if
there is sufficient public interest. You must submit a request for one
on or before April 12, 2016. You may submit your request for a public
meeting online via http://www.regulations.gov. Please explain why you
believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that a
public meeting would aid in the study, we will hold a meeting at a time
and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
    D. Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17,
2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

II. Definitions

    The following definitions (except ``Regulated Navigation Area'')
are from the International Maritime Organization's (IMO's) publication
``Ships' Routing'' Tenth Edition 2010 and should help you review this
notice:
    Area to be avoided (ATBA) means a routing measure comprising an
area within defined limits in which either navigation is particularly
hazardous or it is exceptionally important to avoid casualties and
which should be avoided by all ships, or certain classes of ships.
    Deep-water route means a route within defined limits, which has
been accurately surveyed for clearance of sea bottom and submerged
obstacles as indicated on the chart.
    Inshore traffic zone means a routing measure comprising a
designated area between the landward boundary of a traffic separation
scheme and the adjacent coast, to be used in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 10(d), as amended, of the International Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS).
    Precautionary area means a routing measure comprising an area
within defined limits where ships must

navigate with particular caution and within which the direction of
traffic flow may be recommended.
    Recommended route means a route of undefined width, for the
convenience of ships in transit, which is often marked by centerline
buoys.
    Recommended track is a route which has been specially examined to
ensure so far as possible that it is free of dangers and along which
vessels are advised to navigate.
    Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) means a water area within a defined
boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area
have been established under 33 CFR part 165.
    Roundabout means a routing measure comprising a separation point or
circular separation zone and a circular traffic lane within defined
limits. Traffic within the roundabout is separated by moving in a
counterclockwise direction around the separation point or zone.
    Separation zone or separation line means a zone or line separating
the traffic lanes in which ships are proceeding in opposite or nearly
opposite directions; or separating a traffic lane from the adjacent sea
area; or separating traffic lanes designated for particular classes of
ship proceeding in the same direction.
    Traffic lane means an area within defined limits in which one-way
traffic is established. Natural obstacles, including those forming
separation zones, may constitute a boundary.
    Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) means a routing measure aimed at
the separation of opposing streams of traffic by appropriate means and
by the establishment of traffic lanes.
    Two-way route means a route within defined limits inside which two-
way traffic is established, aimed at providing safe passage of ships
through waters where navigation is difficult or dangerous.
    Vessel routing system means any system of one or more routes or
routing measures aimed at reducing the risk of casualties; it includes
traffic separation schemes, two-way routes, recommended tracks, areas
to be avoided, no anchoring areas, inshore traffic zones, roundabouts,
precautionary areas, and deep-water routes.

III. Background and Purpose

    A. Section 310 of the 2015 Coast Guard Authorization Act, Public
Law 114-120 signed by the President on February 8, 2016, directs the
Commandant of the Coast Guard to complete and submit to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a Port Access Route Study (PARS) of Nantucket Sound using the
standards and methodology of the Atlantic Coast Port Access Route
Study, to determine whether the Coast Guard should revise existing
regulations to improve navigation safety in Nantucket Sound due to
factors such as increased vessel traffic, changing vessel traffic
patterns, weather conditions, or navigational difficulty. The Atlantic
Coast Port Access Route Study contained in the ``marine planning
guidelines'' of the Study are included in the docket for this notice.
    B. The purpose of this notice is to announce commencement of this
PARS and to solicit public comments. We encourage you to participate in
the study process by submitting comments in response to this notice.
Comments should address impacts to navigation in Nantucket Sound
resulting from factors such as increased vessel traffic, changing
vessel traffic patterns, weather conditions, or navigational
difficulty.

IV. This PARS: Timeline, Study Area, and Process

    The First Coast Guard District will conduct this PARS. The study
will commence upon publication of this notice and may take 10 months to
complete.
    The study area is described as Nantucket Sound, an area bounded by
a line connecting the following geographic positions, including the
entrance and exit routes to the sound but not the individual harbors.
     41[deg]41' N., 070[deg]00' W.;
     41[deg]20' N., 070[deg]00' W.;
     41[deg]16' N., 070[deg]15' W.
     41[deg]28' N., 070[deg]40' W.; and
     41[deg]34' N., 070[deg]40' W.;
    An illustration showing the study area is available in the docket.
    We will publish the results of the PARS in the Federal Register. It
is possible that the study may validate the status quo (no routing
measures) and conclude that no changes are necessary. It is also
possible that the study may recommend one or more changes to address
navigational safety and the efficiency of vessel traffic management.
The recommendations may lead to future rulemakings or appropriate
international agreements.
    This notice is published under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: March 10, 2016.
L. L. Fagan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-06424 Filed 3-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60125-60128]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24254]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87442; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Applicability and
Functionality of Certain Order Types on the Exchange

November 1, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 22, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 its rules to clarify the
applicability and functionality of certain order types on the Exchange.
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 900.3NY(Orders Defined) to
clarify the applicability and functionality of certain order types.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the definitions of Stop
Orders, Stop Limit Orders and All-or None (``AON'') Orders, as set
forth in Rule 900.3NY(d), which describes the Contingency Orders or
Working Orders. The Exchange is not proposing to change or alter any
obligations, rights, policies or practices enumerated within its rules.
Rather, this proposal is designed to reduce any potential investor
confusion as to the functionality and applicability of certain order
types presently available on the Exchange.
Proposed Changes to Order Type Definitions
    Rule 900.3NY (the ``Rule'') contains certain definitions of options
order types available on the Exchange. Paragraph (d) of the Rule
defines Contingency Orders or Working Orders as orders that are
``contingent upon a condition being satisfied or an order with a
conditional or undisplayed price and/or size.'' Contingency Orders and
Working Orders are maintained in the Working Order File of the
Consolidated Book until they are eligible for execution and/or
display.\4\ The Exchange proposes to amend the definitions of Stop
Orders, Stop Limit Orders and AON Orders, which are Contingency Orders/
Working Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 900.3NY(d). See Rule 964NY(b)(2)(E) (regarding
priority of orders in the Working Order File once eligible for
execution and stating that such orders ``do not have any priority or
standing until they are eligible for execution and/or display'') and
Rule 964NY(a) (providing, in relevant part, that the Exchange will
display ``all non-marketable limit orders in the Display Order
Process, unless indicated otherwise'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 900.3NY(d)(1)-(2) Stop Orders and Stop Limit Orders. A Stop
Order is an order that becomes a Market Order when the market for a
particular option contract reaches a specified price.\5\ A Stop Limit
Order is an order that becomes a Limit Order when the market for a
particular option contract reaches a specified price.\6\ Stop Orders
and Stop Limit Orders (collectively, ``Stop Orders'' herein unless
otherwise specified) track the price of an option and are generally
used to limit losses as prices move up, in the case of buy orders, or
down in the case of sell orders. In each case, the ``triggering
event,'' which converts the order type (to a Market Order or Limit
Order, as applicable) occurs once the option trades or is quoted at, or
above for a buy (below for a sell), the specified stop price.\7\ Thus,
Stop Orders to buy (sell) may be triggered as the price of an option
rises (falls). The current rule provides that a Stop Order to buy
(sell) will be rejected if, at the time of arrival, the stop price is
below (above) the bid (offer).\8\ Regarding priority, Stop Orders
(including Stop Limit Orders) are not displayed and have no standing in
any Order Process in the Consolidated Book.\9\ As such, Stop Orders
``are not eligible to execute against incoming orders and will become
eligible to execute via the Display Order Process only after the
incoming order is executed in full or rests in the book or the working
order is sent to the Display Order Process at the end of a triggering
event.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 900.3NY(d)(1).
    \6\ See Rule 900.3NY(d)(2).
    \7\ See Rule 900.3NY(d)(1),(2).
    \8\ See Rule 900.3NY(d)(1),(2).
    \9\ See Rule 900.3NY(d)(1) (setting forth details about both
Stop Orders and Stop Limit Orders, even though paragraph (d)(1)
pertains solely to Stop Orders). See also Rule 964NY(b)(2)(E)
(regarding priority of orders in the Working Order File once
eligible for execution and stating that such orders ``do not have
any priority or standing until they are eligible for execution and/
or display'') and Rule 964NY(a) (providing, in relevant part, that
the Exchange will display ``all non-marketable limit orders in the
Display Order Process, unless indicated otherwise'').
    \10\ See Rule 900.3NY(d)(1) (settings forth details about both
Stop Orders and Stop Limit Orders, even though paragraph (d)(1)
pertains solely to Stop Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the description of Stop Orders to
enhance the clarity of the rule text, including by streamlining some of
the existing text and adding new text, as appropriate, and deleting
existing text to correct an inaccuracy regarding current functionality.
First, the Exchange proposes to streamline the description of the order
types as follows. The Exchange proposes to revise the first sentence
describing each order type (i.e., Rule 900.3NY(d)(1),(2)) to state that
the order type converts to a Market or Limit Order, respectively--or
``is triggered''--when the market for a particular option contract
reaches a specified price.\11\ The Exchange also proposes to modify
Rule 900.3NY(d)(1),(2) to combine into one sentence the description of
both buy and sell Stop Orders without modifying current functionality.
The current rule addresses buy and sell Stop Orders in two sentences
and the Exchange thinks the proposed change would streamline the rule
and make it easier to navigate. Specifically, proposed Rule
900.3NY(d)(1),(2) would provide that a Stop Order (or Stop Limit Order)
``to buy (sell) is triggered'' such that it becomes a Market Order or
Limit Order, respectively, ``when the option contract trades at a price
equal to or greater (less) than the specified `stop' price on the
Exchange or another Market Center or when the Exchange bid (offer) is
quoted at a price equal to or greater (less) than the stop price.''
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Rule 900.3NY(d)(1), (2).
    \12\ See proposed Rule 900.3NY(d)(1), (2). Consistent with this
proposed change to address both buy and sell Stop Orders and Stop
Limit Orders in one sentence, the Exchange proposes to delete as
unnecessary the sentences in the current definitions that describes
the functionality for sell Stop Orders and sell Stop Limit Orders.
See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to address the display and standing of
each type of Stop Order for which information is currently contained
only in paragraph (d)(1) of Rule 900.3NY.\13\ Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to modify the current rules to reflect that each type
of Stop Order ``is not displayed and has no standing in any Order
Process in the Consolidated Book, unless or until it is triggered
(i.e., same-side incoming interest trades or quotes at a price equal to
or better than the stop price).'' \14\ The Exchange also proposes to
add new rule text to clarify that ``[a]fter the triggering event,'' a
Stop Order (per Rule 900.3NY(d)(1)) becomes a new Market Order, and a
Stop Limit Order (per Rule 900.3NY(d)(2)) becomes a new Limit Order,
and each converted order is processed accordingly.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 900.3NY(d)(1) (which provides that ``Stop Orders
(including Stop Limit Orders) shall not have standing in any Order
Process in the Consolidated Book and shall not be displayed'').
    \14\ See proposed Rule 900.3NY(d)(1), (2). The Exchange notes
that this proposed text modifies the existing text in paragraph
(d)(1) and is new text for paragraph (d)(2) of the Rule. See id.
    \15\ See proposed Rule 900.3NY(d)(1), (2). See also Rule
900.3NY(a), (b) (defining Market Order and Limit Order,
respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete as inaccurate the last two
sentences in the description of each type of Stop Order, which provides
for the rejection of such orders to buy (sell) if entered with a stop
price below the bid (or above the offer). This language is not accurate
as the Exchange does not reject Stop Orders so priced, but instead
would execute such orders once triggered. This proposed change would
reflect current functionality and therefore add clarity and consistency
to Exchange rules.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See proposed Rule 900.3NY(d)(1), (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 900.3NY(d)(4) All-Or-None Orders (``AON Orders''). An AON
Order is a Market or Limit Order that is to be executed in its entirety
or not at all.\17\

The Exchange is not proposing to modify the functionality of an AON
Order, but rather proposes to amplify the definition of an AON Order to
clarify its current functionality. Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to make clear that an AON Order that does not execute on arrival will
not be displayed or routed to another Market Center (i.e., AON Orders
may only be executed on the Exchange) and would have no standing in any
Order Process in the Consolidated Book.\18\ Further, the Exchange
proposes to clarify that AON Orders are not eligible to execute against
incoming interest but rather may execute solely against interest
resting in the Consolidated Book when sufficient size is available.\19\
Finally, the Exchange proposes to specify that the System monitors the
Consolidated Book for AON Order execution opportunities.\20\ The
Exchange believes the proposed changes would add transparency to the
operation of this order type, without altering the current
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Rule 900.3NY(d)(4).
    \18\ See proposed Rule 900.3NY(d)(4). See also Rule
964NY(b)(2)(E) (regarding priority orders in the Working Order File
and noting that such orders (i.e., AON Orders) have no priority or
standing until eligible for execution and/or display).
    \19\ See proposed Rule 900.3NY(d)(4).
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \21\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\22\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes that deleting inaccurate
language (regarding Stop Orders) and enhancing the descriptions as to
the functionality of Stop Orders and AON Orders types (i.e., the
Contingency Orders or Working Orders) would add transparency and
clarity to the Exchange's rules, without altering current
functionality. In addition, the Exchange believes that clarifying the
definitions and current operation of Stop Orders and AON Orders removes
impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by
helping to ensure that investors better understand the current
functionality of certain orders types available for trading on the
Exchange.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposal removes impediments
to, and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by ensuring
that members, regulators and the public can more easily navigate the
Exchange's rulebook and better understand certain order types available
for trading on the Exchange.

Technical Changes

    The Exchange notes that the proposed organizational and non-
substantive changes to the rule text would provide clarity and
transparency to Exchange rules and would promote just and equitable
principles of trade and remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather revise or amplify
incomplete or inaccurate rule text or remove language pertaining to
unavailable functionality in the Exchange's rulebook, thereby reducing
confusion and making the Exchange's rules easier to understand and
navigate. The Exchange believes the proposed changes would add
transparency to the operation of certain order types, without altering
the current functionality.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-NYSEAMER-2019-41 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-NYSEAMER-2019-41. 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-NYSEAMER-2019-41 and should be submitted
on or before November 29, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24254 Filed 11-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 210 (Friday, October 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66862-66865]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27594]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0258; FRL-9936-31-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Interstate Transport of Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On June
28, 2010, the State of Idaho made a submittal to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. The EPA is
proposing to approve the submittal as meeting the requirement that each
SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in any
other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 30,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0258, by any of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 9th Floor Mailroom,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin
Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-150. Such deliveries are
only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2015-0258. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit

an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. State Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and
secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to
0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within
three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs
meeting the applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor''
provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on
neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are
four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action
addresses the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions,
at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These sub-elements require that each
SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly
to nonattainment'' or ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable
air quality standard in any other state. We note that the EPA has
addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the eastern portion of the United States in
several past regulatory actions.\1\ We most recently promulgated the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion of the United States.\2\
CSAPR addressed multiple national ambient air quality standards, but
did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \2\ 76 FR 48208.
    \3\ CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and the 1997 and 2006
fine particulate matter NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine
whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind air quality
problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution
did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state
was not considered ``linked'' to identified downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly
contribute to or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those
downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's
emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality
and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions
reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe
it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to
establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of
interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
    In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of
one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether
one percent was appropriate.\4\ The EPA evaluated the comments received
and ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low
threshold because there were important, even if relatively small,
contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors
from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a
higher or lower threshold than one percent, the EPA compiled the
contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. The EPA's
analysis showed that the one-percent threshold captures a high
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states,
while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger
percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent
threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting
downwind receptors would be excluded.\5\ In addition, the EPA
determined that it was important to use a relatively lower one-percent
threshold because there are adverse health impacts associated with
ambient ozone even at low levels.\6\ The EPA also determined that a
lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in modest increases in
the overall percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution
transport captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent
level. The EPA determined that a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to
emission reduction responsibilities in additional states that
individually have a very small impact on those receptors--an indicator
that emission controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air
quality impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that
selecting a threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.''
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010).
    \5\ See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document, Appendix F; Analysis of Contribution Thresholds.
    \6\ CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236-37 (August 8, 2011).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final CSAPR, the EPA determined that one percent was a
reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple
upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low
levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the EPA's
previous use of a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA used a single
``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm.\8\ The projected contribution from
each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled
ozone, and then compared to the one-percent threshold. We concluded
that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold
for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was
consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter

used in CSAPR, and because it took into account, and would be
applicable to, any future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. State Submittal

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require that
revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and
public hearing. The EPA has promulgated specific procedural
requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These
requirements include publication of notices by prominent advertisement
in the relevant geographic area, a public comment period of at least 30
days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.
    On June 28, 2010, Idaho submitted a SIP to address the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the ozone
NAAQS. The Idaho submittal included documentation of a public comment
period from May 11, 2010 through June 10, 2010, and opportunity for
public hearing. We find that the process followed by Idaho in adopting
the submittal complies with the procedural requirements for SIP
revisions under CAA section 110 and the EPA's implementing regulations.
    With respect to the requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
the Idaho submittal referred to applicable rules in the Idaho SIP,
meteorological and technical characteristics of areas with ozone
nonattainment problems in surrounding states, data on nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
Idaho sources, satellite monitoring data, and the impacts of terrain
and prevailing wind direction on the potential for transport of ozone
precursors. The Idaho submittal concluded that given the relatively low
amount of NOX emitted by Idaho sources, the general lack of
substantial concentrations of VOCs in areas surrounding Idaho, the
impacts of significant terrain features on the movement of pollutants,
and technical information on the two areas in states bordering Idaho
that are having ozone attainment and maintenance problems (Upper Green
River Basin, Wyoming and Clark County, Nevada), it is reasonable to
conclude that emissions of ozone precursors from Idaho sources will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
    The Idaho submittal provided further information to support this
conclusion by citing major source permitting regulations approved into
the Idaho SIP that require new sources and modifications to protect the
ambient air quality standards, including the 2008 ozone NAAQS. With
respect to existing sources, the Idaho submittal stated that stationary
source operating rules in the Idaho SIP require an owner or operator to
demonstrate that the source does not cause or contribute to a violation
of any ambient air quality standard.

III. EPA Evaluation

    On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) containing air quality modeling data that applies the CSAPR
approach to contribution projections for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.\10\ The moderate area attainment date for the 2008
ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by
this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient
ozone data. Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for
the purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone
concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated
state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This
modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx
version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base
case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and
maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA
used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx
Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor
Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017
base case NOX and volatile VOC emissions from all sources in
each state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs
were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous
United States and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and
the supporting technical documents have been included in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of Availability of
the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport
Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeling data released in the NODA on July 23, 2015, is the
most up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our
analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. For
purposes of evaluating Idaho's interstate transport SIP submittal with
respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA is proposing that
states whose contributions are less than one percent to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors are considered non-significant.
The modeling indicates that Idaho's largest contribution to any
projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.23 ppb and Idaho's largest
contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.35
ppb.\11\ These values are below the one percent screening threshold of
0.75 ppb, and therefore there are no identified linkages between Idaho
and 2017 downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance sites. Note
that the EPA has not done an assessment to determine the applicability
for the use of the one percent screening threshold for western states
that contribute above the one percent threshold. There may be
additional considerations that may impact regulatory decisions
regarding ``potential'' linkages in the west identified by the
modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 80 FR 46271 at page 46276, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    As discussed in Section II, Idaho concluded based on its own
technical analysis that emissions from the State do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone standard in any other state. The EPA's modeling, discussed in
Section III, confirms this finding. Based on the modeling data and the
information and analysis provided in Idaho's June 28, 2010 submittal,
we are proposing to approve the submittal for purposes of meeting the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone
standard. The EPA's modeling confirms the results of the State's
analysis: Idaho does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard in any other
state.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: October 15, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2015-27594 Filed 10-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P