[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3986-3991]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02210]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0699; FRL-9989-48-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Attainment Plan for the Lake County
SO2 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, under
the Clean Air Act (CAA), Ohio's plan for attaining the 1-hour sulfur
dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) in the Lake County SO2 nonattainment area. EPA
proposed to approve Ohio's Lake County plan as a revision to Ohio's
SO2 State Implementation Plan (SIP) on August 21, 2018. EPA
received public comments on the proposed rulemaking and is providing
responses to the comments below.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0699. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, 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
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
353-5954 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Ohio's nonattainment SIP
submittal of April 3, 2015, supplemented on October 13, 2015 and on
March 13, 2017, addressed Ohio's Lake County, Muskingum River, and
Steubenville OH-WV SO2 nonattainment areas. This final
action addresses only the Lake County portion of Ohio's nonattainment
SIP submittal. The Muskingum River and Steubenville portions of Ohio's
submittal will be addressed in future action.
    This Supplementary Information section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Lake County, Ohio, was designated nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191). As
required by the CAA, Ohio developed a plan to provide for attainment of
the SO2 NAAQS in Lake County. Ohio submitted its plan to EPA
on April 3, 2015 and supplemented it on October 13, 2015, and on March
13, 2017. On August 21, 2018 (83 FR 42235), EPA proposed to find that
Ohio appropriately demonstrated that its plan will provide for
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in Lake County by the applicable
attainment date and that the plan meets the other applicable
requirements of the CAA.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The comment period on EPA's August 21, 2018 notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) closed on September 20, 2018. EPA received one
adverse public comment from the Sierra Club and one public comment
which was not relevant to the proposed action. The adverse comment and
EPA's response are described below. In the following discussion, EPA
will refer to the Sierra Club as ``the commenter.'' ``The Painesville
plant'' refers to the Painesville Municipal Electric Plant in Lake
County. The ``April 2014 guidance'' refers to EPA's April 23, 2014
recommended guidance for meeting the statutory requirements in
SO2 nonattainment area SIPs, entitled, ``Guidance for 1-Hour
SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,'' available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
    Comment: The commenter stated that short-term exposure to
SO2 for as little as five minutes has significant health
impacts, and that EPA changed the SO2 NAAQS to a shorter-
term form to address these health impacts. The commenter said that
emission limits with an averaging period longer than one hour are
highly unlikely to be able to protect the 1-hour NAAQS. The commenter
said that EPA cannot rely on a 30-day emission limit for the
Painesville plant to assure compliance with a 1-hour air quality
standard. The commenter believes that EPA should not approve Ohio's
nonattainment plan until Ohio develops a 1-hour emission limit for the
Painesville plant that protects public health.
    EPA Response: The health effects information provided by the
commenter, which was addressed in EPA's promulgation of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, is not in dispute in this rulemaking. This
rulemaking instead addresses whether Ohio's plan is adequate to meet
the NAAQS.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that emission limits
with an averaging period longer than one hour are highly unlikely to be
able to protect the 1-hour NAAQS. EPA believes as a general matter that
properly set longer term average limits are comparably effective in
providing for attainment of the 1-hour SO2 standard as 1-
hour limits. EPA provided a more complete rationale for this belief in
the August 21, 2018 NPRM for the Lake County SO2 SIP,
including a summary of analyses described in EPA's guidance that
support a conclusion that the distribution of emissions that can be
expected in compliance with a properly set longer term average limit is
likely to yield better overall air quality than constant hourly
emissions set at a level that provides for attainment. EPA found that a
longer term average limit which is comparably stringent to a short-term
average limit is likely to yield comparable air quality; and that the
net effect of allowing emissions variability over time but requiring a
lower average emission level is that the resulting worst-case air
quality is likely to be comparable to or better than the worst-case air
quality resulting from the corresponding higher emission limit without
variability.
    It is useful here to distinguish between exceedances and
violations. The term ``exceedance,'' or ``exceedance of the level of
the NAAQS,'' is used to mean a single occasion on which the ambient
SO2 concentration exceeds 75 parts per billion (ppb). The
term ``violation,'' in contrast, means that a sufficient number and
magnitude of exceedances has occurred to violate the NAAQS, i.e., that
the 3-year average of the 99th percentile daily maximum 1-

hour SO2 concentrations is above 75 ppb.
    Any accounting of whether a 30-day average limit provides for
attainment must consider factors that reduce the likelihood of
exceedances of the NAAQS level as well as factors that create risk of
additional exceedances. To facilitate this analysis, EPA used the
concept of a critical emission value (CEV) for the SO2-
emitting facilities which are being addressed in a nonattainment SIP.
The CEV is the continuous 1-hour emission rate which is expected to
provide for the average annual 99th percentile maximum daily 1-hour
concentration to be at or below 75 ppb, which in a typical year means
that fewer than four days have maximum hourly ambient SO2
concentrations exceeding 75 ppb.
    EPA recognizes that a 30-day limit can allow occasions in which
emissions exceed the CEV, and such occasions yield the possibility of
exceedances of the NAAQS level occurring that would not be expected if
emissions were always at the CEV. At the same time, the establishment
of the 30-day limit below the CEV means that emissions must routinely
be lower than they would be required to be with a 1-hour emission limit
at the CEV. On those critical modeled days in which emissions at the
CEV are expected to result in concentrations exceeding 75 ppb,
emissions below the CEV may well result in concentrations below 75 ppb.
    Requiring emissions on average to be below the CEV introduces
significant chances that emissions will be below the CEV on critical
days, so that such a requirement creates significant chances that air
quality would be better than 75 ppb on days that, with emissions at the
CEV, would have exceeded 75 ppb.
    The August 21, 2018 NPRM provides an illustrative example of the
effect that application of a limit with an averaging time longer than 1
hour can have on air quality. This example illustrates both: (1) The
possibility of elevated emissions (emissions above the CEV) causing
exceedances of the NAAQS level not expected with emissions at or below
the CEV and (2) the possibility that the requirement for routinely
lower emissions would result in avoiding exceedances of the NAAQS level
that would be expected with emissions at the CEV. In this example,
moving from a 1-hour limit to a 30-day average limit results in one day
that exceeds 75 ppb that would otherwise be below 75 ppb, one day that
is below 75 ppb that would otherwise be above 75 ppb, and one day that
is below 75 ppb that would otherwise be at 75 ppb. In net, the 99th
percentile of the 30-day average limit scenario is lower than that of
the 1-hour limit scenario, with a design value of 67.5 ppb rather than
75 ppb. Stated more generally, this example illustrates several points:
(1) The variations in emissions that are accounted for with a longer
term average limit can yield higher concentrations on some days and
lower concentrations on other days, as determined by the factors
influencing dispersion on each day, (2) one must account for both
possibilities, and (3) accounting for both effects can yield the
conclusion that a properly set longer term average limit can provide as
good or better air quality than allowing constant emissions at a higher
level.
    The commenter does not address EPA's full rationale for concluding
that properly set 30-day average limits are a suitable basis for
providing for attainment of the 1-hour SO2 standard.
Instead, the commenter merely notes the possibility that air quality
could be worse with a 30-day average limit than with a 1-hour limit
because the longer-term limit appears to allow emissions to exceed the
level of an acceptable 1-hour limit. The commenter makes no
acknowledgement of the possibility that a properly adjusted 30-day
average limit can avoid some exceedances of the NAAQS level that would
be expected to occur with emissions allowed always to be at the CEV.
Consequently, the commenter does not acknowledge or address the
occasions in which the longer-term limit requires better air quality,
which is a key element of EPA's rationale for concluding that the net
effect of limiting longer term average emissions to a downward adjusted
level can be comparably effective in providing for attainment as
limiting 1-hour emissions to the level of the CEV.
    EPA does not agree that in all cases it must disapprove plans which
use longer-term limits, and instead require 1-hour emission limits.
After reviewing Ohio's submittal, EPA finds that the limits established
for the Painesville plant provide a suitable alternative to
establishing 1-hour average emission limits for this source. Ohio's
limits for the Painesville plant were developed in accordance with
EPA's April 2014 guidance, with an appropriate downward adjustment from
the CEV found in Ohio's modeling analysis. EPA is satisfied that the
Painesville plant's 30-day emission limits are therefore comparable in
stringency to the 1-hour CEV. The Painesville plant's boilers are also
subject to a requirement for a reduction in coal sulfur content, a
separate 24-hour cap on their total operating rate, and an additional
restriction to ten percent of their annual capacity in accordance with
the Limited Use definition in the Boiler MACT \1\ rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Information about the boiler MACT is available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/industrial-commercial-and-institutional-boilers-and-process-heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the 2015 closure of the FirstEnergy Generation, LLC,
Eastlake Plant has provided additional SO2 emission
reductions which were not credited in the Lake County modeling
analysis. These reductions help supplement the effectiveness of Ohio's
planned reductions at the Painesville plant to bring Lake County into
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and maintain the standards
in future.
    EPA believes that Ohio's Lake County nonattainment plan as a whole
is sufficient to protect and maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that the limits are ``not comparable
in stringency to the hourly emission rates modeled by Ohio in its
attainment demonstration.''
    EPA Response: The commenter does not dispute EPA's rationale for
concluding that Ohio's 30-day average limits for the Painesville plant
are comparably stringent to 1-hour limits at the level Ohio modeled,
nor does the commenter provide a basis for its assertion that Ohio's
limits are not comparably stringent. EPA's guidance provides a
recommended approach for determining the ratio between 30-day average
levels and 1-hour levels, determined at the 99th percentile level,
which yields an adjustment factor that seeks to quantify the effect of
using the longer averaging time on the stringency of the limit and thus
presumptively expresses the degree of adjustment to be applied to a 1-
hour emission limit to determine a comparably stringent 30-day average
limit.
    EPA concurred with Ohio's decision to apply the national average of
such adjustment factors, as given in Appendix D of EPA's April 2014
guidance. In absence of a rationale for changing its views, EPA
continues to believe that the 30-day average limits adopted by Ohio are
comparably stringent to 1-hour limits at the level Ohio modeled.
    Comment: The commenter said that air quality conditions can be
rendered unsafe by as few as four hours of elevated emissions over the
course of the year, making an emission limit with an averaging period
of longer than one hour unlikely to be able to protect this short-term
standard. The commenter argued that spikes in emissions from the
Painesville plant could cause short-term

elevations in ambient SO2 levels sufficient to violate the
NAAQS while nonetheless averaging out over longer periods such that the
30-day average permit limit is ``complied'' with.
    EPA Response: Again, proper accounting of the air quality
consequences of applying a 30-day average limit cannot be limited to
consideration of the possibility of additional exceedances of 75 ppb on
days with emissions above the CEV; one must additionally consider the
likelihood of effects in the other direction, i.e., that requiring
lower emissions on average (and on most occasions) might result in
avoiding exceedances of the NAAQS level that would occur with emissions
at the CEV. As discussed above, the NPRM provides an example that
illustrates this principle.
    In addition, for several reasons, EPA disagrees with the
commenter's implication that any short-term occasion of elevated
emissions (e.g., emissions above the CEV) creates an unacceptable risk
of additional exceedances of the NAAQS level that would result in
actual violation of the standard. First, the occurrence of an hour with
emissions above the CEV is unlikely on its own to lead to a
concentration above the level of the NAAQS. The CEV is identified as an
emission level which will protect against NAAQS violations, considering
the full range of local meteorological conditions. The analyses which
identify the CEV show that ambient air concentrations would be well
below exceedance levels in much of the modeling domain, and for most
hours. Episodes of elevated emissions cause significantly elevated
concentrations only on a limited number of days per year when
meteorological conditions favor high concentrations. As a result, any
single episode of elevated emissions cannot be assumed to cause an
exceedance of 75 ppb, and in fact the risk of such an event, while
nonzero, is quite low. Furthermore, even if multiple occurrences of
elevated emissions do occur at times with meteorology conducive to high
concentrations, these occasions are likely to involve different wind
directions, resulting in the elevated concentrations occurring at
different locations. Therefore, from the perspective that air quality
is evaluated at individual locations, and a violation occurs only if
any single location observes an excessive net number of exceedances, it
is especially unlikely that isolated occurrences of elevated emissions
(particularly in a scenario with emissions on most occasions being well
below the CEV) would result in violations at any location.
    Second, EPA disagrees with the apparent view that any risk of an
event in which elevated emissions causes otherwise unexpected
exceedances of 75 ppb is an unacceptable risk. While use of a limit
based on a long-term average increases the risk of elevated
concentrations on a small number of days, the establishment of the
limit at a reduced level means that most days will have a reduced risk
of elevated concentrations. Since the pertinent question is whether
Ohio's plan provides for attainment, EPA must address the net effect of
applying a long-term average, not just considering those factors that
increase the likelihood of exceedances of 75 ppb or just considering
those factors that reduce the likelihood of such exceedances.
    Examining the net probabilities of elevated emissions occurring
simultaneously with meteorology conducive to exceedances, and of
reduced emissions occurring on occasions that would have experienced
exceedances of the standard without that emission reduction, suggests
that the net effects cannot be assessed without a complicated analysis.
A more useful framework for considering these questions is to focus,
for any particular location, on those hours where the meteorology is
conducive to having high concentrations at that location. Consider, for
example, the likely magnitude of emissions during the pertinent hours
for a source that is complying with a long-term limit that reflects a
30 percent downward adjustment. During the pertinent hours, the source
is quite unlikely to be emitting more than the CEV (a probability on
the order of 1 percent) and is much more likely to be emitting at or
below 30 percent below the CEV. This perspective better frames the
question of the net effect of having variable emissions occasionally
exceeding the CEV but requiring emissions to average well below the CEV
as compared to allowing emissions always to be at the CEV.
    EPA believes that if emissions at critical times are suitably
unlikely to exceed the CEV and are suitably likely to be well below the
CEV, the net effect is to provide adequately for attainment. As
discussed in the NPRM, EPA has conducted analyses to evaluate the
extent to which longer-term average limits with comparable stringency
to 1-hour limits at the critical emission value can provide for
attainment. EPA finds that a comparably stringent limit provides a
sufficient constraint on the frequency and magnitude of occurrences of
elevated emissions such that this control strategy will reasonably
provide for attainment.
    As stated in appendix B of EPA's April 2014 guidance, the Agency
acknowledges that even with an adjustment to provide comparable
stringency, a source complying with a longer-term average emission
limit could possibly have hourly emissions which occasionally exceed
the critical emission value. In order to assure that SO2
emission sources will maintain the NAAQS while using longer-term
average limits, EPA's guidance recommends that 30-day average
SO2 limits be set at a level below the level that would be
expected to be protective of the SO2 NAAQS as a 1-hour
SO2 limit. A facility in compliance with the 30-day limit
could therefore have occasional spikes of higher concentration, but the
majority of its hourly impacts must be as low as or lower than those of
a source which is limited at the critical emission value level. As was
stated in the NPRM, EPA's statistical analyses of SO2
emissions data showed that a comparably stringent 30-day average limit
is likely to result in fewer exceedances and better air quality than
would occur with 1-hour emissions at the critical emission value.
    Comment: The commenter said that past EPA SO2 policy
(1994) definitively stated that ``EPA will not approve an
SO2 SIP with emission limitations based on 30-day average,
unless the SIP also contains short-term limits established by an
approved dispersion modeling analysis.'' The commenter also cited past
actions, including a 1986 memorandum regarding a specific proposed
facility, in which EPA determined that compliance with a 30-day rolling
average emission limit under NSPS Subpart Da does not adequately
demonstrate compliance with short-term NAAQS and PSD increments,
regardless of sulfur variability.
    EPA Response: In this action, EPA is not changing its position
regarding the 1-hour emissions limitations to which other facilities,
as cited by the commenter, are subject. However, the examples that the
commenter cites predate the release of EPA's April 2014 guidance. They
reflect EPA's policy for implementing the NAAQS before EPA addressed
the question of whether it might be possible to devise an effective
attainment plan using an emission limit with an averaging period longer
than that of the NAAQS, given appropriate adjustments to make the limit
comparably stringent to a short-term emission rate that would ensure
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. EPA developed the April 2014
guidance after a lengthy stakeholder outreach process

regarding implementation strategies for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
As the April 2014 guidance was the first instance in which the Agency
provided direct guidance for considering adjusted long-term average
limits for a short-term standard, EPA does not consider the earlier
documents to countermand the April 2014 guidance on this issue.
    EPA's April 2014 guidance acknowledges that EPA had previously
recommended that averaging times in SIP emission limits should not
exceed the averaging time of the applicable NAAQS. However, the April
2014 guidance expresses EPA's finding that control strategies involving
limits with averaging times of up to 30 days can provide for attainment
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, where the limits have been set at
levels expected to be comparably stringent to shorter-term limits. As
stated in the August 21, 2018 NPRM, EPA considered Ohio's control
strategy for the Painesville plant and found that the limits in Ohio
Administrative Code Chapter 3745-18 (OAC 3745-18) met EPA's guidelines
for acceptable emission limits based on a 30-day averaging time.
    Comment: The commenter stated that a 30-day averaging time is the
same as a 720-hour averaging period rolling on a daily basis, and ``it
seems impossible to derive a 720-hour average limit that would ensure
hourly emissions of SO2 are limited to the extent necessary
to protect the 1-hour average SO2 NAAQS, unless it was shown
through air dispersion modeling that the maximum uncontrolled hourly
emissions from a source would not exceed the NAAQS.''
    EPA Response: The compliance calculations for the limits applicable
to the Painesville plant units would be 720-hour averages when the unit
operates in each of those 720 hours. Hours in which the unit is not
operating are not included in the calculation, to focus the compliance
test on how well the facility's emissions are controlled during
operational hours.
    EPA's April 2014 guidance provides the results of analyses which
demonstrate that limits based on periods of as long as 30 days (720
hours) can, in many cases, be reasonably considered to provide for
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. When a 30-day emission
limit is set sufficiently lower than the 1-hour emission limit which
the modeling analysis indicated would conservatively provide for
attainment, the numerically lower 30-day limit would also be expected
to provide for attainment. In accordance with EPA guidance, Ohio
conducted modeling to determine the CEV, i.e., the emission rate that,
if emitted continuously, would result in attainment. Ohio then
established 30-day average limits that are comparably stringent to the
1-hour limits it otherwise would have established. EPA agrees with Ohio
that these limits can be expected to provide comparable air quality as
the corresponding 1-hour limits would, and EPA considers the 30-day
average limits to satisfy the requirement to provide for attainment.
    EPA does not agree with the commenter that the application of a
longer term average limit requires determining the unit's maximum
uncontrolled emission rate or a maximum 1-hour emission rate that might
occur in compliance with a longer term average emission limit, or that
modeling must be conducted to show that such emission rates do not
cause NAAQS violations. The analysis that the commenter proposes would
not take proper account of the impact of variable emissions within the
longer-term limit. In particular, while such an analysis would assess
potential additional exceedances of the NAAQS level on occasions with
elevated emissions, such an analysis would fail to reflect the improved
air quality on days with lower emissions. Since compliance with a
downward adjusted long term average limit necessarily requires any
occasions of elevated emissions to be accompanied by occasions of lower
than average emissions, the commenter's proposed analysis is inadequate
for assessing the net effects of emissions sometimes being higher but
more often being lower than the CEV.
    Comment: The commenter states that Ohio's approach is inconsistent
with EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models, which in Table 8-1
``requires modeling for short term (<= 24 hours) NAAQS be based on the
allowable emissions over the averaging time of the NAAQS. Yet, the
maximum allowable hourly emission rate is difficult to predict from a
30-day average limit for an emissions unit.''
    EPA Response: EPA's 2014 guidance for SO2 SIPs directly
addresses the comment regarding Table 8-1. Page A-79 of the guidance
states:

    An important caveat regarding Table 8-1 of Appendix W is that
this guidance is oriented toward short term emission limits (e.g.,
1-hour emission limits), as recommended in previous guidance.
Current guidance, providing for use of longer term emission limits,
provides that after the state determines the 1-hour limit that would
be necessary to provide for attainment, any longer-term limit should
be established at a level that is sufficiently lower to provide
comparable stringency. Thus, in cases where a state wishes to apply
a longer term average limit, the attainment analysis would be based
not on the level of the longer-term limit but rather on the level of
the corresponding 1-hour emission limit that was shown in the plan
to be of comparable stringency.

Accordingly, EPA believes that Ohio has provided an appropriate
demonstration that its 30-day average limit, set to be comparably
stringent to a 1-hour limit at the modeled CEV, will provide for
attainment.
    Comment: The commenter said that EPA's April 2014 guidance allows
flexibility for sources that cannot meet the hourly rate of
SO2 emissions necessary to attain the NAAQS. The CAA
requires the implementation of all reasonably available control
measures to provide for attainment. The commenter said that it is
reasonable for a source such as the Painesville plant to guard against
spikes in sulfur content of fuel and/or SO2 emissions
through proper operation of scrubbers, limiting high sulfur coal, and
testing for coal sulfur content. The commenter believes that the
flexibility in EPA's guidance has allowed Ohio to propose 30-day
average limits for the Painesville plant which fail Congress' direction
that EPA shall provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
    EPA Response: EPA believes it is important to recognize that some
sources may have variable emissions, for example due to variations in
fuel sulfur content and operating rate, that can make it extremely
difficult, even with a well-designed control strategy, to ensure in
practice that stringent hourly limits are never exceeded. The
Painesville plant is complying with the Federal Boiler MACT rule by
taking enforceable limits on its operations to meet the definition of a
Limited Use boiler, operating at 10% of its annual heat input capacity.
As such, the plant will only operate intermittently, during periods of
high demand or service interruptions. This type of operation reflects a
decrease in overall emissions from this source.
    The boiler MACT rule does not require that Limited Use boilers
install additional control technology, because add-on SO2
control systems require steady-state operations for good control
efficiency and cannot reduce SO2 emissions effectively for
intermittent short-term operations. The Painesville plant's revised
rules do require a reduction in allowable coal sulfur content, with
coal sampling to confirm sulfur content. Ohio EPA has determined that
the Painesville plant is unable to use very low sulfur (Powder River
Basin) coal because of the high cost of updating its facilities to
handle and use it for its limited operations; because the unique
characteristics of the coal has a detrimental effect on the

facility's particulate matter controls; and because of the increased
risk of fire during storage of the more volatile low-sulfur coal, which
has occurred elsewhere in Ohio with similar coal storage and handling
equipment.
    EPA believes that the flexibility of the 30-day average limit is
reasonable for an intermittently-operating facility such as the
Painesville plant. As stated previously, EPA's analyses demonstrated
that its requirement for a tighter limit to be used with a longer-term
averaging period is likely to yield better air quality than is required
with a comparably stringent 1-hour limit. EPA's April 2014 guidance
states, ``if periods of hourly emissions above the critical emission
value are a rare occurrence at a source, these periods would be
unlikely to have a significant impact on air quality, insofar as they
would be very unlikely to occur repeatedly at the times when the
meteorology is conducive for high ambient concentrations of
SO2.'' The Painesville plant's limit, supplemented by an
additional 24-hour boiler heat input cap and the stringent federally
enforceable limitation on the plant's annual boiler usage, is expected
to provide for attainment of the NAAQS in accordance with the CAA's
requirements.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Ohio's April 3, 2015 plan, as supplemented on
October 13, 2015 and on March 13, 2017, for attaining the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS and for meeting other nonattainment area planning
requirements for the Lake County SO2 nonattainment area. EPA
is amending the codification in 40 CFR 52.1870(e) to include the
approval of Ohio's SO2 attainment plan for Lake County.
    In development of this plan, Ohio amended its rules at OAC 3745-18-
49 (F) (establishing new limits for the Painesville plant), OAC 3745-
18-03 (B)(9), OAC 3745-18-03 (C)(11), and OAC 3745-18-04(D)(10)
(establishing a compliance date and other administrative provisions),
and rescinding OAC 3745-18-49(G) (reflecting the enforceable shutdown
of the Eastlake plant). These revisions became effective on February
16, 2017. EPA approved these revisions into the SIP, as codified at 40
CFR 52.1870(c), on October 11, 2018 (83 FR 51361), as part of action on
a broader range of OAC Chapter 3745-18 revisions. Thus, no additional
action is necessary to incorporate the pertinent limits into the SIP,
and this action is limited to concluding that Ohio has demonstrated
that these previously approved limits provide for attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS in Lake County and that Ohio has met the other
planning requirements for this area.

IV. 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, 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 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 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where 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).
    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).
    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 April 15, 2019. 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 action 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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: January 29, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1870, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``SO2 (2010)'' after the entry for
``PM2.5 (2012)'' under the heading ``Summary of Criteria
Pollutant Attainment Plans'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1870   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                             EPA-Approved Ohio Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable geographical or non-
              Title                       attainment area           State date                 EPA approval                           Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Summary of Criteria Pollutant Attainment Plans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
SO2 (2010)......................  Lake County....................    2/16/2017  2/14/2019, [insert Federal Register        EPA is approving the
                                                                                citation].                                 following plan elements: The
                                                                                emission inventory; the
                                                                                demonstration of attainment;
                                                                                and revised emission limits
                                                                                as meeting RACM
                                                                                requirements.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-02210 Filed 2-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 124)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37649]
[DOCID:fr28jn11-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG 2011-0404]

Safety Zone; Northern California Annual Fireworks Events,
Independence Day Fireworks

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the annual Independence Day
Fireworks (Kings Beach 4th of July Fireworks) safety zone. This action
is necessary to control vessel traffic and to ensure the safety of
event participants and spectators. During the enforcement period,
unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized
by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 will be enforced from 7 a.m.
through 10 p.m. on July 3, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail Lieutenant Junior Grade Liezl Nicholas, U.S. Coast
Guard, Waterways Safety Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail D11-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
for the annual Kings Beach 4th of July Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1191 on
July 3, 2011, from 7 a.m. through 10 p.m. The fireworks launch site is
approximately 800 feet off the shore line of Kings Beach in position
39[deg]13'55.37'' N, 120[deg]01'42.26'' W (NAD83). The safety zone
encompasses the navigable waters within a 1,000 ft radius of the launch
site.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each
person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an
official patrol vessel shall obey the order of direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The
PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of
commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners.
    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: June 16, 2011.
Cynthia L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2011-16106 Filed 6-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3269-3273]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00966]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74063; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Add a Price Protection Mechanism To Prevent the Automatic Execution of
Incoming Market Orders and Marketable Limit Orders Outside a Specified
Parameter and Eliminate Liquidity Replenishment Points and the Gap
Quote Policy

January 15, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on January 8, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 proposes to [sic] (i) amend Rule 1000 to
add a price protection mechanism to prevent the automatic execution of
incoming market orders and marketable limit orders outside a specified
parameter, and (ii) eliminate its Exchange-specific volatility
mechanisms--Liquidity Replenishment Points (``LRPs'') and its Gap Quote
Policy--and to delete any references thereto from the Exchange rules.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000 to add a price protection
mechanism to prevent the automatic execution of incoming market orders
and marketable limit orders outside a specified parameter (referred to
as a ``Trading Collar''). The Exchange also proposes to eliminate its
Exchange-specific volatility mechanisms--LRPs and Gap Quote Policy--and
to delete any references thereto from the Exchange rules. The Exchange
believes that the proposed Trading Collars would assist with the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets by mitigating the risks
associated with orders sweeping through multiple price points,
resulting in executions at prices that are away from the best bid or
offer and potentially erroneous. As discussed further below, the
discontinuation of the Exchange-specific volatility mechanisms were
anticipated changes following implementation of the Regulation NMS Plan
to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the ``Plan'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No 67091 (May 31, 2012),
77 FR 33498, 33510, n. 182 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631) (Order
Approving, on a Pilot Basis, the Plan) (The Commission ``expects,
that upon implementation of the Plan, such exchange-specific
volatility mechanisms would be discontinued by the respective
exchanges.'') See also Securities Exchange Act Release No 71649
(March 5, 2014), 79 FR 13696 (March 11, 2014) (File No. 4-631) (the
Seventh Amendment to the Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Liquidity Replenishment Points and Gapping the Quote
    Rule 1000 provides for the basic operative principles regarding the
immediate, automatic execution of market orders and marketable limit
orders against the Exchange's published quotation.\5\ The Rule also
lists instances in which automatic execution would not be available due
to certain market conditions, including when Exchange-specific
volatility mechanisms, specifically LRPs and gapping the quote, have
been triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Automatic executions may also be against orders on the
Display Book[supreg], Floor broker agency file interest, Floor
broker proprietary file interest, Designated Market Maker (``DMM'')
interest, and interest placed in the Exchange's systems by DMMs
pursuant to a Capital Commitment Schedule in accordance with, and to
the extent provided by, Exchange rules and shall be immediately
reported as Exchange transactions. See Rule 1000(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidity Replenishment Points
    In March 2006, the Exchange implemented the LRP mechanism to
address market volatility on the Exchange.\6\ The Exchange has utilized
LRPs, which are triggered by rapid price movements over a short period
of time, to moderate volatility in a security by temporarily converting
the electronic market for the security into an auction market to afford
new trading interests the opportunity to add liquidity.\7\ The Exchange
believes that LRPs were effective in moderating some of the impact from
the events of May 6, 2010 for Exchange trading customers, as evidenced
by the lack of erroneous trades on the Exchange.\8\ In 2012, in
approving the Plan, the Commission noted the ``potential for
unnecessary complexity that could result if the Plan were adopted, and
exchange-specific volatility mechanisms were retained''; thus, the
Commission stated its ``expect[ation], that upon implementation of the
Plan, such exchange-specific volatility mechanisms would be
discontinued by the respective exchanges.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22,
2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2004-05).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69295 (April 4,
2013), 78 FR 21457 (April 10, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-27).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498, 33510, n. 182 (June 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2013, to coincide with the implementation of the Plan, the
Exchange filed amendments to Rule 1000 that provided for the phasing
out of the functionality associated with LRPs as the Plan was phased in
across all NMS Stocks.\10\ The Plan was fully implemented across all
NMS Stocks on February 24, 2014, and as such, pursuant to Rule
1000(a)(iv)(A), the Exchange has discontinued the use of LRPs for all
NMS Stocks that are subject to the Plan.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra n. 7; See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
69695 (June 4, 2013), 78 FR 34695 [sic] (June 10, 2013) (SR-NYSE-
2013-36).
    \11\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 71649 (March 5,
2014), 79 FR 13696 (March 11, 2014) (File No. 4-631) (the Seventh
Amendment to the Plan). The Exchange notes that rights and warrants
are not subject to the Plan, and therefore continue to be subject to
LRPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gapping the Quote
    When an imbalance in a particular security exists, the manual
process known as ``gapping the quote'' occurs--specifically, the DMM
for the security widens the spread between the bid and

offer and publishes a new gapped quote. Order imbalances may occur when
the Exchange receives a sudden influx of orders for a particular
security on the same side of the market within a short time interval,
or when one or more large-size orders for a security are entered, and
there is insufficient offsetting interest. The Exchange first
implemented its policies and procedures for gapping the quote in 1994
and updated the Gap Quote Policy in 2010.\12\ As stated in the Policy,
a DMM gaps a quote to ``provide public notice of order imbalances for
securities, facilitate price discovery, and minimize short-term price
dislocation, by allowing for the entry of offsetting orders or the
cancellation of orders on the side.''\13\ A DMM may gap a quote after
an LRP has been reached. A gapped quote is not available for automatic
execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Information Memo 94-32 (August 9, 1994), filed as SR-
NYSE-93-48. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34303 (July 1,
1994), 59 FR 35157(July 8, 1994). See also Information Memorandum
10-3 (January 7, 2010), filed as NYSE-2010-05. See Securities and
Exchange Act Release No. 61401 (January 22, 2010), 75 FR 4605
(January 28, 2010) (changing the minimum size and value requirements
for use of gap quotes).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61048 (November 23,
2009), 74 FR 62863 (December 1, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-112).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Trading Collar
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000 to add a price protection
mechanism to prevent the automatic execution or routing of incoming
market orders, including elected stop orders, and marketable limit
orders \14\ outside a specified parameter (referred to as a ``Trading
Collar''). As proposed, an incoming market order or marketable limit
order to buy (sell) would not execute or route to another market center
at a price above (below) the Trading Collar. Trading Collars would be
applicable only when automatic executions are in effect.\15\ As
discussed below, on arrival, a buy/sell order would be automatically
executed up/down to (and including, but not beyond) the Trading Collar
and any remaining interest shall be cancelled. Unless it is a non-
routable order, the order would route to all markets at or better than
the Trading Collar.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A market order is an ``order to buy or sell a stated amount
of a security at the most advantageous price obtainable after the
order is represented in the Trading Crowd or routed to the Display
Book[supreg].'' See Rule 13. A marketable limit order is defined as
``a limit order to buy (sell) priced at or above (below) the
Exchange best offer (bid) at the time such order is routed to the
Display Book[supreg].'' Id. Because a stop order becomes a market
order when elected, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
provide that elected stop orders would be subject to the proposed
Trading Collar.
    \15\ See proposed Rule 1000(c)(ii). Both market orders and
marketable limit orders are ``auto ex orders'' that initiate
automatic executions immediately upon entry into the Exchange
systems. See Rule 13. Trading Collars would not be applicable to Set
Slow Stocks, or to pre-opening, opening, closing or manual
transactions, and are not in effect during a halt, suspension, or
pause in trading. Trading Collars would apply, and be determined,
when discretionary pricing instructions are triggered. Trading
Collars would not be displayed.
    \16\ If, however, an order that routed to an away market returns
to the Exchange unexecuted, the Trading Collar based on the NBBO in
place at the time of execution would be used for that incoming (now
returning) order, not the Trading Collar based on the NBBO in place
at the time of the original arrival of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Rule 1000(c)(i), a Trading Collar would be a
specified percentage away from the National Best Bid or Offer
(``NBBO''), depending on whether it is a buy or sell order, and the
specified percentage would vary depending on the NBBO at the time the
order arrives and/or is executed. For buy orders, the Trading Collar
would be a specified percentage above the National Best Offer
(``NBO''). For sell orders, the Trading Collar would be a specified
percentage below the National Best Bid (``NBB''). The proposed Trading
Collars are set forth in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Percentage
                          NBB/NBO                             away from
                                                             the NBB/NBO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than $0.00, up to and including $25.00............           10
Greater than $25.00, up to and including $50.00...........            5
Greater than $50.00.......................................            3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that these proposed percentages are based on the
current numerical guidelines for determining whether a clearly
erroneous execution has occurred.\17\ The Exchange further notes that
the proposed percentages are the same as the percentages applicable to
similar trading collar functionality on NYSE Arca Equities, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca Equities'').\18\ The Exchange believes that the proposed
specified percentages are appropriate because the Trading Collar is
designed to reduce the risk of, and to potentially prevent, the
automatic execution of orders at prices that may be considered clearly
erroneous. Because the specified percentage may extend multiple decimal
points, the Exchange proposes to truncate Trading Collars to the
nearest minimum price variation (``MPV'') for the security.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Rule 128(c)(1).
    \18\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(a)(2).
    \19\ See Rule 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consider an example where the NBBO is $24.95 x 25.01. In such
scenario, the Trading Collar for buy orders would be $26.26 (i.e.,
$25.01 + 5% = $26.2605, truncated to $26.26) and the Trading Collar for
sell orders would be $22.45 (i.e., $24.95-10% = $22.455, truncated to
$22.45).
    The Exchange proposes that if the NBBO is crossed, the Exchange
would use the Exchange Best Offer (``BO'') instead of the NBO for buy
orders, and the Exchange Best Bid (``BB'') instead of the NBB for sell
orders.
    The Exchange believes it is appropriate to use the BB/BO when the
NBBO is crossed as a crossed NBBO is generally indicative of an
erroneously priced or stale bid and/or offer, and may not be
appropriate reference prices for calculating Trading Collars. The
Exchange believes that this practice will help ensure that market
participants obtain timely executions of their market orders and
marketable limit orders while still being afforded the price protection
benefit of the Trading Collars. As proposed, in the event there is no
NBB or BB, the lower boundary of the Trading Collar would be zero
because there would be no reference price against which to determine
the appropriate Trading Collar. Similarly, in the event there is no NBO
or BO, the upper boundary of the Trading Collar would be set to the
maximum price that the System could handle. Notwithstanding the Trading
Collar, any incoming market orders or marketable limit orders would
still be subject to the Plan and could not execute outside of the Upper
(Lower) Price Band, as defined in Rule 80C.
    Pursuant to proposed Rule 1000(c)(ii), an incoming market order,
including an elected stop order, or marketable limit order would
execute and/or route up or down to (and including) the Trading Collar
and any remaining interest would be cancelled. The Exchange believes
that Trading Collars, working in conjunction with the Plan, could help
limit potential harm from extreme price volatility by preventing
executions that could occur at a price significantly away from the
contra side. As proposed, if the Trading Collar for incoming buy (sell)
interest is lower (higher) than or equals the Upper (Lower) Price Band
\20\, the Exchange would cancel any remaining interest. The Plan,
however, would take priority over the Trading Collars where the Plan
affords more price protection to incoming orders. Specifically, if the
Upper (Lower) Price Band is lower (higher) than the Trading Collar, the
order would execute at the more

restrictive Upper (Lower) Price Band and not beyond and any remaining
interest would be displayed or repriced to the Price Band, consistent
with Rule 80C(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Rule 80C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that if there is no execution opportunity at the
Exchange for an incoming buy (sell) order at a price above (below) the
NBO (NBB), the Exchange would not be obligated to route the order to an
away market protected offer (bid) because the incoming order would not
be trading through such protected quotation. The Exchange therefore
proposes that if there is no execution opportunity at the Exchange for
an incoming buy (sell) order at a price above (below) the NBO (NBB) and
at or below (above) the Trading Collar, a buy (sell) order that is
priced at or above (below) the Trading Collar would be cancelled. The
Exchange further proposes that a similarly-priced, partially-executed
order would also be cancelled.
    For example, assume the NBO is 10.00, based on a quote from an away
market, and therefore the proposed Trading Collar is 11.00. Assume
further that the Exchange's best offer is 11.05 and with these
conditions, the Exchange receives an incoming buy order priced at
11.02. Because there is no execution opportunity for the incoming buy
order above the NBO and at or below the Trading Collar, and because the
order's limit price exceeds the Trading Collar, the incoming buy order
would be cancelled. The buy order would cancel rather than route
because the Exchange would not trade through another market. Similarly,
assuming the same facts, but the Exchange has non-displayed interest to
sell priced at 9.99. An incoming buy order priced at 11.02 would
execute against that 9.99 non-displayed sell interest, and then any
remainder of the buy order would similarly be cancelled because there
is no execution opportunity priced above the NBO of 10.00 or at or
below the Trading Collar of 11.00.
    Finally, pursuant to proposed Rule 1000(c)(iii), during a Short
Sale Price Test \21\, if the NBBO is crossed, short sale orders that
would be re-priced to a Trading Collar would be cancelled. Under Rule
201 of Regulation SHO,\22\ when the NBBO is crossed, a short sale order
in a covered security may be displayed or executed at a price that is
less than or equal to the current national best bid.\23\ Accordingly,
if the NBBO is crossed, a short sale order priced at or below the
Trading Collar could be re-priced to the Trading Collar, which is by
definition a price below the NBB. In the spirit of Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO, which is to prevent the display or execution of short
sale orders at prices equal to or below the NBB, the Exchange believes
that it is appropriate during a crossed market to cancel a short sale
order that would be re-priced to a Trading Collar rather than display
the order at that price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Rule 440B(b).
    \22\ 17 CFR Part 242.201.
    \23\ See SEC Division of Trading and Markets: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule 201 of Regulation Show,
FAQ 6.1, available at: http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/rule201faq.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 70.25(b)(i), regarding
price discretion or ``d-Quotes,'' which states that ``[a] Floor broker
may set a discretionary price range [that] specifies the prices at
which the Floor broker is willing to trade.'' \24\ Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend this Rule to provide that d-Quotes are
subject to the Trading Collar and/or the Price Bands and, thus,
pursuant to the amended rule, Floor Brokers may use discretion to
initiate or participate in a trade with interest capable of trading at
a price within the discretionary price range ``unless the interest
reaches a Trading Collar or Price Band, whichever is reached first.''
\25\ The Exchange believes it is appropriate to similarly afford
Trading Collar price protection to d-Quotes to prevent the execution of
orders with discretionary price instructions at prices outside the
prevailing market price from causing significant price dislocation in
the market.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Because the rule erroneously omits the word ``that'' from
this sentence, the Exchange proposes to correct this omission as
part of this rule filing.
    \25\ See proposed Rule 70.25(b)(i).
    \26\ The Trading Collar applies to d-Quotes in the same manner
as other order types. See supra n. 15 (Trading Collars apply when
discretionary pricing instructions are triggered, but do not apply
to openings, re-openings, or closing trades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Elimination of LRPs and Gap Quote Policy
    As noted above, by rule, the Exchange has already discontinued the
use of LRPs for any security subject to the Plan. However, LRPs
continue to be available for rights and warrants, which are not subject
to the Plan. The Exchange believes that with the introduction of
Trading Collars it will have in place appropriate price protections for
rights and warrants and the Exchange will no longer need LRPs for those
securities. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to complete the
Exchange's discontinuation of LRPs in their entirety by deleting
references to LRPs in the following Rules: 60, 79A, 104, 128, and 1000.
    For similar reasons, the Exchange believes it appropriate to
discontinue the Gap Quote Policy. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate its Gap Quote Policy in its entirety and to delete references
thereto in the following Rules: 60, 79A, 104, and 1000.
    Relatedly, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 1000(e)
(Executions at and Outside the Exchange Best Bid or Offer) to add
references to Trading Collars and/or Price Bands, in certain cases to
replace deleted references to LRPs. The Exchange believes these
proposed changes will add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's
rules.
Other Proposed Amendments
    In connection with the addition of the Trading Collar, the Exchange
also proposes to amend the definition of market order, in Rule 13, to
state that if a market order to sell has exhausted all eligible buy
interest, any unfilled balance of the market order to sell will be
cancelled. The Exchange believes that this is appropriate because it
assures that a market order to sell will not be held at a price that it
is not executable, i.e., $0.00.
    Finally, unrelated to issues raised in present filing, the Exchange
is also proposing technical, non-substantive edits to delete from the
Exchange rules the outdated/obsolete references to securities operating
in ``Non-Firm Mode,'' including in Rule 60(c)(ii)(A) and Rule
1000(a)(i), or the block template, referred to in Rule 60(ii)(B), which
is the ``manual reporting of a block-sized transaction.'' The Exchange
also proposes to delete the reference to ``S-quotes'' in Rule 60(d),
1000(a) and 1000(e)(iii)(A), as DMM interest is no longer solely
referred to in this manner and the Exchange believes the proposed
amendment will remove this outmoded and narrow reference. The Exchange
also proposes to amend the last sentence of Rule 60(d), regarding
``[a]utoquoting of highest bid/lowest offer,'' to account for the
impact of the Trading Collars.\27\ The Exchange proposes to amend Rule
1000(b) to update an incorrect reference to the resumption of
autoquoting as set forth in Rule 60(d)--not Rule 60(e) as this rule
presently states.\28\ Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete an
erroneous reference in Rule 1000(e)(iv)

to paragraph (d)(iii), as there is no such paragraph in the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As proposed, the final sentence of Rule 60(d) would state
the following: ``When the Exchange's highest bid or lowest offer has
been executed or cancelled in its entirety, the Exchange will
autoquote a new bid or offer reflecting the total size of
displayable orders at the next highest (in the case of a bid) or
lowest (in the case of an offer) price.''
    \28\ See proposed Rule 1000(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change by Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \29\ that an Exchange have rules that
are designed to promote the just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an initial matter, the Exchange notes that the proposed Trading
Collar, which is designed to designed to promote the just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, is similar to
the price protection features offered on other markets, including NYSE
Arca Equities.\30\ As noted above, the specified percentages relating
to the Trading Collar are based on the current numerical guidelines for
determining whether a clearly erroneous execution has occurred and are
the same as the approved specified percentages applicable to similar
trading collar functionality on NYSE Arca Equities.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(a)(2). See also BATS
Exchange, Inc. (``BATS) Rule 11.9(a)(2); BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.
(``BATS-Y'') Rule 11.9(a)(2); EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'') Rule
11.8(a)(7); EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') Rule 11.8(a)(7); Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') Rule 4751(f)(13).
    \31\ See supra nn. 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed Trading Collar
assists with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to
mitigate the risks associated with orders sweeping through multiple
price points, thereby resulting in executions that are potentially
erroneous, which, in turn, protects investors from potentially
receiving executions away from the prevailing prices at any given time.
Specifically, the Exchange believes the Trading Collars will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market
because the Trading Collars will operate in tandem with the Plan and
will only execute/route incoming market orders or marketable limit
orders priced within the Trading Collars or within the Upper (Lower)
Band set forth in the Plan, if the latter is more conservative. The
Exchange believes this mechanism will mitigate the risk of potentially
erroneous executions, which protects investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange also believes its use of the BB/BO when the NBBO is
crossed assists with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets as a
crossed NBBO is generally indicative of an erroneously priced bid and/
or offer, and should not be considered reliable for the purposes of
determining the specified percentages for a Trading Collar. The
Exchange believes that this practice will help ensure that market
participants obtain timely executions of their market orders and
marketable limit orders while still being afforded the price protection
benefit of Trading Collar functionality, which protects investors and
the public interest.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes that affording Trading Collar
price protection to d-Quotes would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market as the Trading Collar would
prevent the execution of d-Quotes that are priced far away from the
prevailing market price from causing significant price dislocation in
the market, which, in turn, benefits investors and is in the public
interest.
    The Exchange believes that the technical, non-substantive proposed
amendments and/or deletions related to the Trading Collar in rules
other than Rule 1000, as described above, 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.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes add
transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules and will enhance the
understanding of market participants by reducing potential confusion
that the obsolete references would otherwise create.
    Finally, the Exchange previously committed to discontinue the
Exchange-specific volatility mechanisms; thus, the elimination of LRPs
and the Exchange's Gap Quote Policy are expected changes.\32\ Moreover,
the implementation of the Plan, together with the proposed Trading
Collars eliminates the necessity for these Exchange-specific volatility
mechanisms, as the Exchange will have in place appropriate price
protections for all securities traded on the Exchange, including for
rights and warrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra nn. 4, 7-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
adding of Trading Collar protection will provide market participants
with additional protection from anomalous executions. Thus, the
Exchange does not believe the proposal creates any significant impact
on competition.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \33\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\34\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \35\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \37\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\38\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange
asserts that the rule change proposed herein

would meet the Commission's previously stated expectation that the
Exchange discontinue its LRPs.\39\ Furthermore, the Exchange states its
belief that meeting this expectation as soon as the technology becomes
available, which the Exchange represents would be before the end of the
operative-delay period, is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because it would implement the discontinuation
of its LRPs as expeditiously as possible. Finally, the Exchange asserts
that the proposed rule change would also add market collars that are
similar to existing mechanisms on other markets and would reduce the
potential of a clearly erroneous execution occurring on the Exchange.
The Exchange, therefore, concludes that waiver of the operative delay
so that it can implement market collars as soon as the technology is
available is not only consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest, but would also benefit investors and the public
interest. Because the proposed rule change would eliminate the
Exchange's LRPs, consistent with the adoption of the Plan, and because
the proposed rule change is designed to prevent clearly erroneous order
executions, the Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay
is consistent with investor protection and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay
and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \38\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \39\ See supra n. 4.
    \40\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S SR-NYSE-2015-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-01, and should be
submitted on or before February 12, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00966 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 49324]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20287]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3417-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-3417-EM), dated August 27, 2019,
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 11, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective September 6, 2019.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-20287 Filed 9-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P