[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22004-22009]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08604]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69340; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca LLC; Order Approving, on
an Accelerated Basis, Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1, Adopting New Exchange Rule 6.65A To Provide for How the Exchange
Proposes To Treat Orders, Market-Making Quoting Obligations, and Errors
in Response to the Regulation NMS Plan To Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility; and Amending Exchange Rule 6.65 To Codify That the Exchange
Shall Halt Trading in All Options Overlying NMS Stocks When the
Equities Markets Initiate a Market-Wide Trading Halt Due to
Extraordinary Market Volatility

April 8, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 26, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed rule change to provide for how the Exchange proposes to treat
orders, market-making quoting obligations, and errors in response to
the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility and
to codify that the Exchange shall halt trading in all options overlying
NMS stocks when the equities markets initiate a market-wide trading
halt due to extraordinary market volatility. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 4, 2013.\4\
On April 1, 2013, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission received one comment letters on
the proposal.\6\ This order approves the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69032, 78 FR 15080
(March 8, 2013).
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange expanded upon its rationale
for its proposed changes regarding the nullification and adjustment
of options transactions, agreed to provide the Commission with
relevant data to assess the impact of the proposal, and clarified
the length of the pilot period related to such changes. Because the
changes made in Amendment No. 1 do not materially alter the
substance of the proposed rule change or raise any novel regulatory
issues, Amendment No. 1 is not subject to notice and comment.
    \6\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Janet McGinness, Executive Vice President and Corporate
Secretary, General Counsel, NYSE Markets, dated April 5, 2013
(``NYSE Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On May 6, 2010, the U.S. equity markets experienced a severe
disruption that, among other things, resulted in the prices of a large
number of individual securities suddenly declining by significant
amounts in a very short time period before suddenly reversing to prices
consistent with their pre-decline levels.\7\ This severe price
volatility led to a large number of trades being executed at
temporarily depressed prices, including many that were more than 60%
away from pre-decline prices. One response to the events of May 6,
2010, was the development of the single-stock circuit breaker pilot
program, which was implemented through a series of rule filings by the
equity exchanges and by FINRA.\8\ The single-stock circuit breaker was
designed to reduce extraordinary market volatility in NMS stocks by
imposing a five-minute trading pause when a trade was executed at a
price outside of a specified percentage threshold.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The events of May 6 are described more fully in a joint
report by the staffs of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'') and the Commission. See Report of the Staffs of the CFTC
and SEC to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory
Issues, ``Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010,''
dated September 30, 2010, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2010/marketevents-report.pdf.
    \8\ For further discussion on the development of the single-
stock circuit breaker pilot program, see Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012)
(``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62884 (September
10, 2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010) and Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 62883 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56608 (September
16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-033) (describing the ``second stage'' of
the single-stock circuit breaker pilot) and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64735 (June 23, 2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011)
(describing the ``third stage'' of the single-stock circuit breaker
pilot).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To replace the single-stock circuit breaker pilot program, the
equity exchanges filed a National Market System Plan \10\ pursuant to
Section 11A of the Act,\11\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\12\ which featured
a ``limit up-limit down'' mechanism (as amended, the ``Limit Up-Limit
Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NYSE Euronext filed on behalf of New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''), and NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), and the parties to the proposed National Market
System Plan, BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, and National Stock Exchange,
Inc. (collectively with NYSE, NYSE MKT, and NYSE Arca, the
``Participants''). On May 14, 2012, NYSE Amex filed a proposed rule
change on an immediately effective basis to change its name to NYSE
MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
67037 (May 21, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-32).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan sets forth requirements that are designed to prevent
trades in individual NMS stocks from occurring outside of the specified
price bands. The price bands consist of a lower price band and an upper
price band for each NMS stock. When one side of the market for an
individual security is outside the applicable price band, i.e., the
National Best Bid is below the Lower Price Band, or the National Best
Offer is above the Upper Price band, the Processors \13\ are required
to disseminate such National Best Bid or National Best Offer \14\ with
a flag identifying that quote as non-executable. When the other side of
the market reaches the applicable

price band, i.e., the National Best Offer reaches the lower price band,
or the National Best Bid reaches the upper price band, the market for
an individual security enters a 15-second Limit State, and the
Processors are required disseminate such National Best Offer or
National Best Bid with an appropriate flag identifying it as a Limit
State Quotation. Trading in that stock would exit the Limit State if,
within 15 seconds of entering the Limit State, all Limit State
Quotations were executed or canceled in their entirety. If the market
does not exit a Limit State within 15 seconds, then the Primary Listing
Exchange will declare a five-minute trading pause, which is applicable
to all markets trading the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As used in the Plan, the Processor refers to the single
plan processor responsible for the consolidation of information for
an NMS Stock pursuant to Rule 603(b) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act. See id.
    \14\ ``National Best Bid'' and ``National Best Offer'' has the
meaning provided in Rule 600(b)(42) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Primary Listing Exchange may also declare a trading pause when
the stock is in a Straddle State, i.e., the National Best Bid (Offer)
is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band and the NMS Stock is not
in a Limit State. In order to declare a trading pause in this scenario,
the Primary Listing Exchange must determine that trading in that stock
deviates from normal trading characteristics such that declaring a
trading pause would support the Plan's goal to address extraordinary
market volatility.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As set forth in more detail in the Plan, all trading
centers would be required to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the
display of offers below the Lower Price Band and bids above the
Upper Price Band for an NMS Stock. The Processors would be able to
disseminate an offer below the Lower Price Band or bid above the
Upper Price Band that nevertheless may be inadvertently submitted
despite such reasonable policies and procedures, but with an
appropriate flag identifying it as non-executable; such bid or offer
would not be included in National Best Bid or National Best Offer
calculations. In addition, all trading centers would be required to
develop, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent trades at prices outside the price bands, with
the exception of single-priced opening, reopening, and closing
transactions on the Primary Listing Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan as a one-year
pilot, which shall be implemented in two phases.\16\ The first phase of
the Plan shall be implemented beginning April 8, 2013.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra note 8. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68953 (February 20, 2013), 78 FR
13113 (February 26, 2013) (Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Inc., et al.) and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 69062 (March 7, 2013), 78 FR 15757 (March 12, 2013) (Third
Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS
Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., et al.)
    \17\ See ``Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra
note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposal

1. Treatment of Market and Stop Orders

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Exchange Rule 6.65A to provide
for how the Exchange shall treat orders and quotes in options overlying
NMS stocks if the underlying NMS stock is in a Limit State and Straddle
State. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that if the underlying NMS
stock is in a Limit State or Straddle State, the Exchange shall reject
all incoming Market Orders and will not elect Stop Orders.\18\
According to the Exchange, when the underlying enters a Limit or
Straddle State, there may not be a reliable underlying reference price,
there may be a wide bid/ask quotation differential in the option, and
there may be less liquidity in the options markets. For these reasons,
the Exchange stated that permitting these order types to execute when
the underlying NMS stock is in a Limit or Straddle State could lead to
executions at prices that may inferior to the NBBO immediately before
the underlying entered the Limit or Straddle State, and could add to
volatility in the options markets during times of extraordinary market
volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Rule 6.62(d)(1). Stop Orders when elected create a
Market Order to buy or sell the option. In contrast, the Exchange is
not proposing to prohibit the election of Stop Limit Orders. Stop
Limit Orders when elected create a Limit Order to buy or sell the
option at a specific price. See Rule 6.62(d)(2). The Exchange stated
that Stop Limit Orders do not raise the same risks during periods of
extraordinary volatility, because once elected the associated limit
orders would not race through the order book in the manner that an
elected Market Order would.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Specialist and Market Maker Quoting Obligations

    The Exchange also proposes to modify its rules governing quoting
obligations for Lead Market Makers and Market Makers. Specifically, the
Exchange will provide that, when evaluating whether a Lead Market Maker
has met its market-making quoting requirement pursuant to Rule 6.37B(b)
or a Market Maker has met its market-making quoting requirement
pursuant to Rule 6.37B(c) in options overlying NMS stocks, the Exchange
shall consider as a mitigating circumstance the frequency and duration
of occurrences when an underlying NMS stock is in a Limit State or a
Straddle State. For example, if a Market Maker failed to meet its
monthly quoting obligations, and during the review, it was determined
that the quoting that failed to meet the obligation was for options on
NMS stocks with a significant number of Straddle States and Limit
States, then that would be considered a mitigating circumstance that
would entitle that Market Maker to relief.
    The Exchange represented that this change is necessary given the
direct relationship between the price of an option and the price of the
underlying security, which may affect the quoting behavior of Lead
Market Makers and Market Makers. For example, when the underlying is in
a Limit or Straddle State, the ability of a Lead Market Maker or Market
Maker to hedge an options position may be impaired, and they modify
their quoting behavior accordingly. The Exchange also stated that this
aspect of its proposal would facilitate transactions and preserve
market liquidity.

3. Declaration of Trading Halts

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 6.65 to provide that the
Exchange would halt trading in all options whenever the equities
markets halt trading in all NMS stocks due to extraordinary market
volatility, i.e., when a market-wide circuit breaker is triggered.\19\
As part of this proposal, the Exchange will also delete Rule 7.5, which
restates the equities rule regarding market-wide trading halts without
reference to halting trading in options. The Exchange noted that this
provision, which explicitly provides for a trading halt when the
equities market is halted due to the market-wide circuit breaker, is
similar to a rule recently amended by CBOE.\20\ The Exchange also
represented that the remaining provisions in existing Rule 6.65
regarding Trading Halts and Suspensions remain unchanged and provide a
means to halt or suspend trading in options contracts whenever the
Exchange deems such action appropriate in the interests of a fair and
orderly market and to protect investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Market-wide circuit breakers in the equities market are
different than a trading halt during a Trading Pause in the
underlying pursuant to the LULD Plan. Market-wide circuit breakers
for equities are currently covered by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12.
See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12. The Exchange's Rule regarding
trading pauses (also known as ``single stock circuit breakers'') is
found in Rule 6.65(b) for options and NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.11(b) for equities.
    \20\ See CBOE Rule 6.3B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange is proposing to add Commentary .05 to
provide that reopening of trading following a trading halt under this
Rule shall be conducted pursuant to procedures adopted by the Exchange
and communicated by notice to its OTP Holders and OTP Firms. The
Exchange represented that this Commentary is nearly identical to that
found in CBOE

Rule 6.3B and current Commentary .03 to Exchange Rule 7.5.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See CBOE Rule 6.3B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Obvious Error

    In connection with the implementation of the Plan, the Exchange
proposes to adopt new Rule 6.65A(c) to exclude electronic transactions
in stock options that overlay an NMS stock that occur during a Limit
State or Straddle State from the provisions of Rule 6.87(a) for Obvious
Errors or Rule 6.87(d) for Catastrophic Errors. Additionally, the
Exchange proposes to retain the ability to review electronic
transactions that occur during a Limit State or Straddle State by
Exchange motion pursuant to Rule 6.87(b)(3).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Rule 6.87(b)(3) provides that in the interest of
maintaining a fair and orderly market and for the protection of
investors, the Chief Executive Officer of NYSE Arca, Inc. (``CEO'')
or designee thereof, who is an officer of the Exchange (collectively
``Exchange officer''), may, on his or her own motion or upon
request, determine to review any transaction occurring on the
Exchange that is believed to be erroneous. A transaction reviewed
pursuant to this provision may be nullified or adjusted only if it
is determined by the Exchange officer that the transaction is
erroneous as provided in Rules 6.87(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5) or (a)(6).
A transaction would be adjusted or nullified in accordance with the
provision under which it is deemed an erroneous transaction. The
Exchange officer may be assisted by a Trading Official in reviewing
a transaction. In addition, the Exchange officer shall act pursuant
to Rule 6.87(b)(3) as soon as possible after receiving notification
of the transaction, and ordinarily would be expected to act on the
same day as the transaction occurred. In no event shall the Exchange
officer act later than 9:30 a.m. (ET) on the next trading day
following the date of the transaction in question. An OTP Holder
affected by a determination to nullify or adjust a transaction
pursuant to this paragraph (3) may appeal such determination in
accordance with Rule 6.87(c); however, a determination by an
Exchange officer not to review a transaction, or a determination not
to nullify or adjust a transaction for which a review was requested
or conducted, is not appealable. If a transaction is reviewed and a
determination is rendered pursuant to Rules 6.87(a)(3), (a)(4),
(a)(5) or (a)(6), no additional relief may be granted under this
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.87 provides a process by which a transaction may be
nullified or adjusted when the execution price of a transaction
deviates from the option's theoretical price by a certain amount.
Generally, the theoretical price of an option is the National Best Bid
and Offer (``NBBO'') of the option. In certain circumstances, Trading
Officials have the discretion to determine the theoretical price.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Specifically, under Rules 6.87(a)(2) and 6.87(d)(2), the
theoretical price is determined in one of two ways: (i) If the
series is traded on at least one other options exchange, the last
bid price with respect to an erroneous sell transaction and the last
offer price with respect to an erroneous buy transaction, just prior
to the trade, that comprise the NBBO as disseminated by the Options
Price Reporting Authority; or (ii) as determined by a designated
Trading Official, if there are not quotes for comparison purposes,
or if the bid/ask differential of the national best bid and offer
for the affected series just prior to the erroneous transaction was
at least two times the permitted bid/ask differential pursuant to
Rule 6.37(b)(1)(A)-(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes maintaining the current operation of Rules
6.87(a) and 6.87(d) during a Limit State or Straddle State would be
undesirable. According to the Exchange, during periods of extraordinary
volatility, the review period \24\ for transactions under the Obvious
Error and Catastrophic Error provisions would allow market participants
to re-evaluate a transaction that occurred during a Limit State or
Straddle State at a later time, which is potentially unfair to other
market participants and would discourage market participants from
providing liquidity during Limit States or Straddle States. The
Exchange believes that market participants should not be able to
benefit from the time frame to review their transactions in these
situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Pursuant to Rule 6.87(b), market participants may have up
to 20 minutes to notify the Exchange of a transaction that may be an
Obvious Error. Pursuant to Rule 6.87(d), market participants may
have up to 8:30 a.m. ET on the first trading day following a
transaction to review it as a Catastrophic Error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also noted that, barring this proposed rule change,
the provisions of Rule 6.87(a)(2)(B) and 6.87(d)(2)(B) \25\ would
likely apply in many instances during Limit or Straddle States. The
Exchange believes this provision would give rise to much uncertainty
for market participants as there is no bright line definition of what
the theoretical value should be for an option when the underlying NMS
stock has an unexecutable bid or offer or both. The Exchange notes that
the theoretical price in this context would be subjective. Ultimately,
the Exchange believes that adding certainty to the execution of orders
in these situations should encourage market participants to continue to
provide liquidity to the Exchange, thus promoting fair and orderly
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ These provisions give the Exchange Trading Official the
discretion to determine the theoretical price of an option for
purposes of analyzing whether a transaction qualifies for
nullification or adjustment under Rule 6.87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange also noted that application of
current Rules 6.87(a) and 6.87(d) would be unreliable during a Limit
State or Straddle State. The Exchange believes that application of
Rules 6.87(a) and 6.87(d) to electronic transactions occurring during a
Limit or Straddle State would be impracticable given the lack of a
reliable national best bid or offer in the options market during Limit
States and Straddle States and that the resulting actions may not be
appropriate given market conditions. On balance, the Exchange believes
that removing the potential inequity of nullifying or adjusting
executions occurring during Limit States or Straddle States outweighs
any potential benefits from applying Rules 6.87(a) and 6.87(d) during
such unusual market conditions.
    In response to these concerns, the Exchange proposes to adopt Rule
6.65A(c) to provide that electronic transactions are not subject to an
obvious error or catastrophic error review pursuant to Rules 6.87(a)
and 6.87(d) during a Limit State or Straddle State. Proposed Rule
6.65A(c) will also include a qualification that nothing in the proposed
rule change will prevent electronic trades from being reviewed on
Exchange motion pursuant to Rule 6.87(b)(3).\26\ According to the
Exchange, this safeguard will provide the flexibility to act when
necessary and appropriate, while also providing market participants
with certainty that trades they effect with quotes and/or orders having
limit prices will stand irrespective of subsequent moves in the
underlying security. The right to review on Exchange motion electronic
transactions that occur during a Limit State or Straddle State under
this provision, according to the Exchange, would enable the Exchange to
account for unforeseen circumstances that result in obvious or
catastrophic errors for which a nullification or adjustment may be
necessary in order to preserve the interest of maintaining a fair and
orderly market and for the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange stated that it received informal feedback from
a number of market participants, including liquidity providers and
order flow providers, that has generally been supportive of the
Exchange's proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also noted that its existing order protections that
reject limit orders that are priced too far through the NBBO would
continue to apply during Limit and Straddle States. Additionally, the
Exchange notes that while in Limit States and Straddle States, only
limit orders will be accepted, affirming that the participant is
willing to accept an execution up to the limit price. Further,
according to the Exchange, the Exchange system will only trade through
the theoretical bid or offer if the Exchange or the participant (via an
ISO order) has accessed all better priced interest away in accordance
with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets Plan. The
Exchange believes potential trade reviews of executions that occurred
at the participant's limit price in compliance with the aforementioned

Plan could harm liquidity and also create an advantage to either side
of an execution depending on the future movement of the underlying
stock.

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\27\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\28\ which,
among other things, requires a national securities exchange to be so
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated
with its members with the provisions of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange, and 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 regulation, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission has
considered their impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposal to reject market orders and to not
elect Stop Orders when the underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State,
the Exchange stated that permitting these order types to execute during
these times could contribute to market volatility and could have the
potential to lead to poor executions, as spreads in the options markets
might have widened in response to the underlying entering a Limit or
Straddle State. The Commission believes that rejecting market orders
and not electing Stop Orders during these times will provide certainty
to the treatment of Market Orders and Stop Orders during these times.
To the extent that the spreads in the options market may widen as a
result of the underlying entering a Limit or Straddle State, this
proposal may also prevent market and Stop Orders from receiving
executions at unintended prices during these times.
    With respect to deeming the frequency and duration with which the
underlying security is in a Limit or Straddle State a mitigating
circumstance when evaluating the adherence of Specialists and Market
Makers to their respective quoting obligations, the Commission believes
that this proposal represents an appropriate response to the potential
effect on the options markets of the underlying entering a Limit or
Straddle State. During a limit up-limit down state, there may not be a
reliable price for the underlying security to serve as a benchmark for
market makers to price options. In addition, the absence of an
executable bid or offer for the underlying security will make it more
difficult for market makers to hedge the purchase or sale of an option.
Given these significant changes to the normal operating conditions of
market makers, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal in
these limited circumstances is consistent with the Act.
    The Commission notes, however, that the Plan was approved on a
pilot basis and its Participants will monitor how it is functioning in
the equity markets during the pilot period. To this end, the Commission
expects that, upon implementation of the Plan, the Exchange will
continue monitoring this amendment to its rules and determine if any
necessary adjustments are required to ensure that they remain
consistent with the Act.
    The Commission also believes that the proposal to halt trading in
the options market when trading in the equities markets has been halted
as a result of the market-wide circuit breaker being triggered, the
provision addressing re-opening of trading following such a halt, and
the corresponding deletion of Rule 7.5, is consistent with the Act. The
proposal to halt trading as a result of the underlying triggering a
market-wide circuit breaker is reasonably designed to ensure that the
Exchange halts trading in all options whenever the equities markets
initiate a trading halt as a result of the market-wide circuit breaker,
thereby minimizing volatility in the options markets. This provision is
also similar to a corresponding CBOE rule. Rule 7.5 restates the
equities rule regarding market-wide trading halts without reference to
halting trading in options, and the adoption of Rule 6.65(e) should
address how the exchange handles trading in response to the market-wide
circuit breaker being triggered in the equities markets. Finally, the
provision addressing re-opening of trading following such a halt is
substantively similar to CBOE Rule 6.3B, and the commentary contained
in Rule 7.5.
    The Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to suspend
certain aspects of Rule 6.87 during a Limit State or Straddle State is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\29\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\30\ in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just
and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange notes its belief that suspending
certain aspects of Rule 6.87 during a Limit State or Straddle State
will ensure that limit orders that are filled during a Limit or
Straddle State will have certainty of execution in a manner that
promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments
to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free and open market and a
national market system. The Exchange states that it believes the
application of the current rule would be impracticable given what it
perceives will be the lack of a reliable NBBO in the options market
during Limit States and Straddle States, and that the resulting actions
(i.e., nullified trades or adjusted prices) may not be appropriate
given market conditions. In addition, given the Exchange's view that
options prices during Limit States or Straddle States may deviate
substantially from those available shortly following the Limit State or
Straddle State, the Exchange believes that providing market
participants time to re-evaluate a transaction executed during a Limit
or Straddle State will create an unreasonable adverse selection
opportunity that will discourage participants from providing liquidity
during Limit States or Straddle States. Ultimately, the Exchange
believes that adding certainty to the execution of orders in these
situations should encourage market participants to continue to provide
liquidity to the Exchange during Limit States and Straddle States, thus
promoting fair and orderly markets.
    The Exchange, however, has proposed this rule change based on its

expectations about the quality of the options market during Limit
States and Straddle States. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange states,
for example, that it believes that application of the obvious and
catastrophic error rules would be impracticable given the potential for
lack of a reliable NBBO in the options market during Limit States and
Straddle States. Given the Exchange's recognition of the potential for
unreliable NBBOs in the options markets during Limit States and
Straddle States, the Commission is concerned about the extent to which
investors may rely to their detriment on the quality of quotations and
price discovery in the options markets during these periods. This
concern is heightened by the Exchange's proposal to exclude trades that
occur during a Limit State or Straddle State from the obvious error or
catastrophic error review procedures pursuant to Rules 6.87(a) or
6.87(d). The Commission urges investors and market professionals to
exercise caution when considering trading options under these
circumstances. Broker-dealers also should be mindful of their
obligations to customers that may or may not be aware of specific
options market conditions or the underlying stock market conditions
when placing their orders.
    While the Commission remains concerned about the quality of the
options market during the Limit and Straddle States, and the potential
impact on investors of executing in this market without the protections
of the obvious or catastrophic error rules that are being suspended
during the Limit and Straddle States, it believes that certain aspects
of the proposal could help mitigate those concerns.
    First, despite the removal of obvious and catastrophic error
protection during Limit States and Straddle States, the Exchange states
that there are additional measures in place designed to protect
investors. For example, the Exchange states that by rejecting market
orders and stop orders, and cancelling pending market orders and stop
orders, only those orders with a limit price will be executed during a
Limit State or Straddle State. Additionally, the Exchange notes the
existence of SEC Rule 15c3-5 requiring broker-dealers to have controls
and procedures in place that are reasonably designed to prevent the
entry of erroneous orders. Finally, with respect to limit orders that
will be executable during Limit States and Straddle States, the
Exchange states that it applies price checks to limit orders that are
priced sufficiently far through the NBBO. Therefore, on balance, the
Exchange believes that removing the potential inequity of nullifying or
adjusting executions occurring during Limit States or Straddle States
outweighs any potential benefits from applying certain provisions
during such unusual market conditions.
    The Exchange also believes that the aspect of the proposed rule
change that will continue to allow the Exchange to review on its own
motion electronic trades that occur during a Limit State or a Straddle
State is consistent with the Act because it would provide flexibility
for the Exchange to act when necessary and appropriate to nullify or
adjust a transaction and will enable the Exchange to account for
unforeseen circumstances that result in obvious or catastrophic errors
for which a nullification or adjustment may be necessary in order to
preserve the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market and for
the protection of investors. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange
represents that it recognizes that this provision is limited and that
it will administer the provision in a manner that is consistent with
the principles of the Act. In addition, the Exchange represents that it
will create and maintain records relating to the use of the authority
to act on its own motion during a Limit State or Straddle State.
    Finally, the Exchange has proposed that the changes be implemented
on a one year pilot basis. The Commission believes that it is important
to implement the proposal as a pilot. The one year pilot period will
allow the Exchange time to assess the impact of the Plan on the options
marketplace and allow the Commission to further evaluate the effect of
the proposal prior to any proposal or determination to make the changes
permanent. To this end, pursuant to Amendment No. 1, the Exchange has
committed to: (1) Evaluate the options market quality during Limit
States and Straddle States; (2) assess the character of incoming order
flow and transactions during Limit States and Straddle States; and (3)
review any complaints from members and their customers concerning
executions during Limit States and Straddle States. Additionally, the
Exchange has agreed to provide to the Commission with data requested to
evaluate the impact of the elimination of the obvious error rule,
including data relevant to assessing the various analyses noted above.
On April 5, 2013, NYSE Euronext submitted a letter on behalf of the
Exchange, stating that the Exchange will provide specific data to the
Commission and the public and certain analysis to the Commission to
evaluate the impact of Limit States and Straddle States on liquidity
and market quality in the options markets.\31\ This will allow the
Commission, the Exchange, and other interested parties to evaluate the
quality of the options markets during Limit States and Straddle States
and to assess whether the additional protections noted by the Exchange
are sufficient safeguards against the submission of erroneous trades,
and whether the Exchange's proposal appropriately balances the
protection afforded to an erroneous order sender against the potential
hazards associated with providing market participants additional time
to review trades submitted during a Limit State or Straddle State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In particular, the Exchange represented that, at least two
months prior to the end of the one year pilot period of proposed
Rule 6.65A(c), it would provide to the Commission an evaluation of
(i) the statistical and economic impact of Straddle States on
liquidity and market quality in the options market and (ii) whether
the lack of obvious error rules in effect during the Limit States
and Straddle States are problematic. In addition, the Exchange
represented that each month following the adoption of the proposed
rule change it would provide to the Commission and the public a
dataset containing certain data elements for each Limit State and
Straddle State in optionable stocks. The Exchange stated that the
options included in the dataset will be those that meet the
following conditions: (i) The options are more than 20% in the money
(strike price remains greater than 80% of the last stock trade price
for calls and strike price remains greater than 120% of the last
stock trade price for puts when the Limit State or Straddle State is
reached); (ii) the option has at least two trades during the Limit
State or Straddle State; and (iii) the top ten options (as ranked by
overall contract volume on that day) meeting the conditions listed
above. For each of those options affected, each dataset will
include, among other information: stock symbol, option symbol, time
at the start of the Limit State or Straddle State and an indicator
for whether it is a Limit State or Straddle State. For activity on
the Exchange in the relevant options, the Exchange has agreed to
provide executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-ask spread, time-
weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-weighted average
quoted depth at the offer, high execution price, low execution
price, number of trades for which a request for review for error was
received during Limit States and Straddle States, an indicator
variable for whether those options outlined above have a price
change exceeding 30% during the underlying stock's Limit State or
Straddle State compared to the last available option price as
reported by OPRA before the start of the Limit or Straddle state (1
if observe 30% and 0 otherwise), and another indicator variable for
whether the option price within five minutes of the underlying stock
leaving the Limit State or Straddle State (or halt if applicable) is
30% away from the price before the start of the Limit State or
Straddle State. See NYSE Letter, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act \32\ for approving the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis. This proposal is related to the Plan, which will
become operative on April 8, 2013, and aspects of the proposal, such as
rejecting market orders and not electing Stop Orders during the Limit
and Straddle States, are designed to

prevent such orders from receiving poor executions during those
times.\33\ In granting accelerated approval, the proposed rule change,
and any attendant benefits, will take effect upon the Plan's
implementation date. Accordingly, the Commission finds that good cause
exists for approving the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)
    \33\ See supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\34\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2013-10) is approved on
an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08604 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71450-71452]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29767]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0474; FRL-9494-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Determination of Clean Data for the 2006 Fine
Particulate Standard for the Charleston Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making a final determination regarding the Charleston,
West Virginia nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the
``Charleston Area'' or the ``Area'') for the 24-hour 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). EPA is determining that the Charleston Area has clean
data for the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination is
based upon complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data showing that this area has monitored attainment of the
24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2007-2009 data and
data available to date for 2010 in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
database. EPA's determination releases the Charleston Area from the
requirements to submit an attainment demonstration, associated
reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress
plan, contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) related to attainment of the standard for so long as the
Area continues to meet the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on December 19,
2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0474. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure 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 form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Asrah Khadr,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the effect of this action?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is making a final determination that the Charleston Area has
clean data for the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This
determination is based upon complete, quality assured, and certified
ambient air monitoring data showing that this area has monitored
attainment

of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2007-2009 data and data
available to date for 2010 in EPA's AQS database.
    On August 19, 2011 (76 FR 51927), EPA proposed its determination of
clean data for the Charleston Area. A discussion of the rationale
behind this determination and the effect of the determination were
included in the notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA received no comments
on this notice of proposed rulemaking.

II. What is the effect of this action?

    Under the provisions of EPA's PM2.5 implementation rule
(See 40 CFR section 51.1004(c)), the requirements for the Charleston
Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably
available control measures (including reasonably available control
technology), a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures,
and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended for so long as the area continues
to meet the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. If EPA subsequently
determines that this area violates the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of the specific requirements, set
forth at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), would no longer exist and this area would
thereafter have to address the pertinent requirements.
    This action, does not constitute a redesignation of the Charleston
Area to attainment of the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS under
section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Further, this action does
not involve approving maintenance plans for the Area as required under
section 175A of the CAA, nor does it find that the Area has met all
other requirements for redesignation. Even after a determination of
attainment by EPA, the designation status of the Charleston Area is
nonattainment for the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS until such
time as EPA determines that the Area meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment and takes action to redesignate the
Charleston Area.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 17, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
    This clean data determination for the 24-hour 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS for the Charleston Area may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 4, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2526, paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2526  Control strategy: particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (f) Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined, as of November
18, 2011, that based on 2007 to 2009 ambient air quality data, the
Charleston nonattainment area has attained the 24-hour 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1004(c), suspends the requirements for this area to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control
measures, a reasonable further progress plan,

contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of
the standard for as long as this area continues to meet the 24-hour
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2011-29767 Filed 11-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 04/30/2008 04:10 PM

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

FW: Updated lead benefits chapter

Ron and Kathy,

Thanks !!  Amanda is also working to get us across the finish line; I

copy her on this email.

h

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:06 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Fw: Updated lead benefits chapter

Heidi -- attached are new versions of chapters 1 through  7, plus the

executive summary, of the Pb RIA.  Changes in response to your comments

and the interagency comments you compiled are highlighted or colored in

blue or red.

In terms of the assembled interagency comments from yesterday -- we've

made changes in response to as many as we could. Some seem to be

clarification questions that don't necessarily require changes to the

document, and we can talk through those with you tomorrow.

WeI've also attached the Schwartz 1994 article used to estimate the $/IQ

as well as a CDC report for which a commenter indicated that they

couldn't find a particular page.

Note this is also being sent formally through OPEI; in the interest of

time we are transmitting it informally directly to you.

Thanks!

-- Kathy

(See attached file: Schwartz1994.pdf)(See attached file:

PrevLeadPoisoning.pdf)(See attached file: Ch 5 Benefits Analysis

Approach and Results 4-30-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA Exec Summ

Draft 4-29-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA Chapter 1 draft

4-29-08.doc)

(See attached file: Pb RIA Chapter 2 Draft 4-29-08.doc)(See attached

file: Pb RIA Chapter 3 Draft 4-29-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA

Chapter 4 Draft 4-29-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA Chapter 6 Draft

4-29-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA Chapter 7 Draft 4-29-08.doc)

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

[attachment "Schwartz1994.pdf" deleted by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "PrevLeadPoisoning.pdf" deleted by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Ch 5 Benefits Analysis Approach and Results 4-30-08.doc" deleted by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Exec Summ Draft 4-29-08.doc" deleted by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 1 draft 4-29-08.doc" deleted by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 2 Draft 4-29-08.doc" deleted by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 3 Draft 4-29-08.doc" deleted by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 4 Draft 4-29-08.doc" deleted by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 6 Draft 4-29-08.doc" deleted by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 7 Draft 4-29-08.doc" deleted by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US]


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34811-34813]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15481]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0389; FRL-9980-83--Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wyoming; Incorporation by Reference Updates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve eight State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by
the State of Wyoming, four submitted on March 27, 2017, and four
submitted on March 28, 2018. The revisions include updates to
incorporation by reference within several parts of the Wyoming Air
Quality Standards and Regulations that are part of the SIP. Additional
revisions are proposed that: (1) Correct an inconsistency regarding
internal combustion engine nitrogen oxide requirements; (2) amend three
state regulations to maintain consistency with federal regulations; and
(3) update a state internet address.

DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received on or before August
22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0389, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    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., 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 Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Dresser, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-
1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 17, 2016, and December 5, 2017, the Environmental
Quality Council (EQC) of the Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality conducted public hearings pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102 to consider
the adoption of revisions and additions to the Wyoming Air Quality
Standards and Regulations. The EQC approved changes were submitted to
the EPA for approval into Wyoming's State Implementation Plan (SIP) on
March 27, 2017 (2017 Submittal) and March 28, 2018 (2018 Submittal).
The SIP submittals include: (1) Chapter 8 Nonattainment Area
Regulations, Section 10, Incorporation by reference (2017 Submittal);
(2) Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 3, Conformity of
general federal actions to state implementation plans (2018 Submittal),
and Section 10, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal); (3)
Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 4, Prevention of
significant deterioration (2017 Submittal); (4) Chapter 6, Permitting
Requirements, Section 14, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal);
(5) Chapter 3, General Emission Standards, Section 3, Emission
standards for nitrogen oxides (2017 Submittal); (6) Chapter 3, General
Emission Standards, Section 9, Incorporation by reference (2018
Submittal); and (7) Chapter 2, Ambient Standards, Section 6 (2017
Submittal); (8) Chapter 2, Ambient standards for ozone, and Section 12,
Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal).
    The March 28, 2018 state submittals include requests to update the
code of federal regulations (CFR) date of incorporation by reference to
reflect the July 1, 2017 CFR, which supersedes the requested changes in
the March 27, 2017 state submittals that incorporated by reference the
July 1, 2016 CFR (Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section
10, Incorporation by reference; Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements,
Section 14, Incorporation by reference; Chapter 3, General Emission
Standards, Section 9, Incorporation by reference; Chapter 2, Ambient
standards for ozone, Section 12, Incorporation by reference).

II. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    The EPA evaluated the proposed amendments to the Wyoming Air
Quality Standards and Regulations submitted by the State of Wyoming on
March 27, 2017, and March 28, 2018. The EPA notes that the
incorporation by reference updates requested by Wyoming in the March
27, 2017 submittal have been superseded by updates requested in their
March 28, 2018 submittal and are not analyzed here. The subsequent
analysis for each SIP submittal is as follows:
    (1) The State is requesting that the EPA correct a reference in
Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 10, Incorporation by
reference, to adopt by reference the July 1, 2016 CFR. This request has
been superseded by the a more recent submittal which requests updates
to Chapter 8, Section 10, described and analyzed in SIP submittal (2),
as follows.
    (2) The State is requesting that the EPA correct a reference in
Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 3, Conformity of
general federal actions to state implementation plans. Specifically,
the request includes a minor typographical correction to particulate
matter to maintain consistency with federally approved language in 40
CFR 93.158(a)(4); a change from ``PM10'' to ``PM'' in the
State's rule Chapter 8, Section 3(h)(i)(D). The EPA finds that this
update is necessary and appropriate. This action

also proposes to update Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations,
Section 10, Incorporation by reference, to adopt by reference the July
1, 2017 CFR. The State previously submitted SIP revisions for Chapter
8, Section 10 (noted earlier in SIP submittal (1)) on March 27, 2017
that allowed adoption by reference of federal regulations as of July 1,
2016, and have since been superseded by the March 28, 2018 submittal.
The EPA finds that this update is necessary and appropriate to cite the
more recent July 1, 2017 CFR and incorporate by reference.
    (3) This action proposes to update Chapter 6, Permitting
Requirements, Section 4, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, to
remove an outdated Federal Register citation under the definition of
`tpy CO2 equivalent emission (CO2e),' in the
State's Rule Chapter 6, Section 4(a) and the location for obtaining a
copy of the federal regulation. By deleting the reference to the
outdated federal regulation (November 29, 2013), the revised State rule
includes the language found in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(ii)(a). This
provision of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit
rules describes one of the steps to compute the amount of GHGs emitted,
and explains that one multiplies the mass amount of emissions (tpy) for
each of the six greenhouse gases, by the gas's associated global
warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of part 98 of
this chapter--Global Warming Potentials. The State adopted these
amendments in December 2017 and therefore adopted the version of Table
A-1 to subpart A of part 98 that was in effect at that time. The EPA
believes this update is necessary and appropriate to accurately cite
the most recent calculation methodology and GHG's associated global
warming potential.
    (4) As requested in the State's March 28, 2018 submittal, the EPA
is proposing to update Chapter 6, Section 14, Incorporation by
reference to adopt by reference the July 1, 2017 CFR. The State
previously submitted SIP revisions for Chapter 6, Section 14 on March
27, 2017, that allowed adoption by reference of federal regulations as
of July 1, 2016, and have since been superseded by the March 28, 2018
submittal. The EPA finds that the update is necessary and appropriate
to cite the more recent July 1, 2017 CFR and incorporate by reference.
    (5) This action proposes to update Chapter 3, Section 3, Emission
standards for nitrogen oxides, which corrects an inconsistency
regarding internal combustion engines. The EPA finds that the
requirements governing fuel burning equipment (including internal
combustion engines) are covered in Chapter 1, Section 3 of the SIP; so,
the language removed in Chapter 3, Section 3, (a)(viii), is a vestigial
exemption for engines with a heat input less than 200 million Btu per
hour that no longer applies. Therefore, the EPA finds that the change
made to Chapter 3, Section 3, is necessary and appropriately corrects
the noted inconsistency regarding internal combustion engines. Finally,
the State's rulemaking action included an update to the website link
for contact information for the Cheyenne Office of the Wyoming Division
of Air Quality, Chapter 3, Section 9(a) and (b). The EPA finds it is
necessary and appropriate to update the website referenced in the SIP
to ensure it is accurate.
    (6) This action proposes to update Chapter 3, General Emission
Standards, Section 9, Incorporation by reference, to adopt by reference
from the July 1, 2017 CFR. The State previously submitted SIP revisions
for Chapter 3, Section 9 on March 27, 2017, that allowed adoption by
reference of federal regulations as of July 1, 2016, and have since
been superseded by the March 28, 2018 submittal. The EPA finds that the
updates proposed to Chapter 3, Section 9, are necessary and appropriate
to cite the more recent July 1, 2017 CFR and incorporate by reference.
    (7) This action proposes to update Chapter 2, Ambient Standards,
Section 6, Ambient standards for ozone. The State has revised Section 6
to include the latest (2015) ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The EPA finds that this update is necessary and
appropriate to reflect EPA's 2015 revision to the ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR
50.19.
    (8) The State previously submitted SIP revisions for Chapter 2,
Section 12, Incorporation by reference on March 27, 2017, that allowed
adoption by reference of federal regulations as of July 1, 2016. The
EPA finds that this update is necessary and appropriate to update the
incorporation by reference date to July 1, 2017, as requested in
Wyoming's March 28, 2018 letter.

III. The EPA's Proposed Action

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the eight SIP
submittals to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations
submitted by the State of Wyoming on March 27, 2017 and March 28, 2018.
This action proposes updates to: (1) Chapter 8 Nonattainment Area
Regulations, Section 10, Incorporation by reference (2017 Submittal);
(2) Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 3, Conformity of
general federal actions to state implementation plans (2018 Submittal),
and Section 10, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal); (3)
Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 4, Prevention of
significant deterioration, to remove an outdated Federal Register
citation under the definition of `tpy CO2 equivalent
emission (CO2e)' (2017 Submittal); (4) Chapter 6, Permitting
Requirements, Section 14, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal);
(5) Chapter 3, General Emission Standards, Section 3, Emission
standards for nitrogen oxides, which corrects an inconsistency
regarding internal combustion engines (2017 Submittal); (6) Chapter 3,
General Emission Standards, Section 9, Incorporation by reference (2018
Submittal); (7) Chapter 2, Ambient Standards, Section 6, to include the
latest ozone NAAQS (2017 Submittal); and (8) Chapter 2, Ambient
standards for ozone, and Section 12, Incorporation by reference (2018
Submittal).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the amendments described in section III. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).

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 Act 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 proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;

     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; 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 proposed 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 and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: July 13, 2018.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-15481 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51521-51522]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18469]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78442; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Rule 6A To Exclude the Physical Area
Within Fully Enclosed Telephone Booths Located in 18 Broad Street From
the Definition of Trading Floor

July 29, 2016.
    On May 31, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend NYSE Rule 6A (``Trading Floor'') to
exclude an area within fully enclosed telephone booths located in 18
Broad Street from the definition of Trading Floor. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 17,
2016.\3\ No comments have been received on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78057 (June 13,
2016), 81 FR 39722 (June 17, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule

change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission
may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed
rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the notice for this
proposed rule change is August 1, 2016. The Commission is extending
this 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ and for the
reason noted above, designates September 15, 2016 as the date by which
the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-NYSE-2016-31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18469 Filed 8-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13211 ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) provides that agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for certain actions identified as " significant energy actions." Section 4( b) of Executive Order 13211 defines " significant energy actions" as " any action by an agency ( normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of final rulemaking, and notices of final rulemaking: ( 1) ( i) That is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and ( ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or ( 2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a " significant energy action." The final rule is not a " significant energy action" because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The basis for the determination is as follows. The reduction in petroleum product output, which includes reductions in fuel production, is estimated at only 0.001 percent, or about 68 barrels per day based on 2000 U. S. fuel production nationwide. That is a minimal reduction in nationwide petroleum product output. The reduction in coal production is estimated at only 0.014 percent, or about 3.5 million tons per year ( or less than 1,000 tons per day) based on 2000 U. S. coal production nationwide. The combination of the increase in electricity usage estimated with the effect of the increased price of affected output yields an increase in electricity output estimated at only 0.012 percent, or about 0.72 billion kilowatthours per year based on 2000 U. S. electricity production nationwide. All energy price changes estimated show no increase in price more than 0.05 percent nationwide, and a similar result occurs for energy distribution costs. We also expect that there will be no discernable impact on the import of foreign energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected to occur with regards to energy supplies. All of the results presented above account for the pass through of costs to consumers, as well as the cost impact to producers. For more information on the estimated energy effects, please refer to the economic impact analysis for the final rule. The analysis is available in the public docket. It should be noted that these energy impact estimates are in advance of any facility demonstrating eligibility for the health based compliance alternatives. Depending on the number of affected facilities demonstrating eligibility for the health based compliance alternatives, the reduction in petroleum product output, which includes reductions in fuel production, could fall to 65 barrels per day, or only 0.001 percent. The reduction is in coal production could fall to only 0.010 percent, or about 2.5 million tons per year based on 2000 U. S. coal production nationwide. The combination of the increase in electricity usage estimated with the effect of the increased price of affected output could yield an increase in electricity output could fall to only 0.0067 percent, or about 0.40 billion kilowatt hours per year based on 2000 U. S. electricity production nationwide. All energy price changes estimated could now fall to increases of no more than 0.04 percent nationwide, and a similar result occurs for energy distribution costs. There should be no discernable impact on import of foreign energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected to occur with regards to energy supplies. All of the results presented with presumption of the health based compliance alternatives also account for the pass through of costs to consumers as well as the cost impact to producers. Therefore, we conclude that the final rule when implemented is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.