[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 148 (Thursday, August 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51383-51386]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16507]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98022; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-054]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 11.9(f) To Allow Match Trade Prevention Between Users That Access
the Exchange With Both a Direct Connection and Sponsored Access

July 28, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 26, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as
a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX'') proposes to
amend Exchange Rule 11.9(f) (``Match Trade Prevention (``MTP'')
Modifiers'') to permit individual firms with Users that access the
Exchange through a direct connection and also access the Exchange
through Sponsored Access to enable Match Trade Prevention at the firm
level. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's
website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.9(f) (``Match Trade
Prevention (``MTP'') Modifiers'') to add the term ``Multiple Access
identifier'' to the definition of ``Unique Identifier'' while also
codifying how a User may utilize the Multiple Access identifier. Adding
a Multiple Access identifier to MTP functionality on the Exchange would
allow Users that electronically access the Exchange via their own
Membership and Exchange connection(s), as well as Sponsored
Participants \5\ that access the Exchange via a Sponsored Access \6\
arrangement, to enable MTP at the firm level, in addition to the
current MTP functionality based on market participant identifier
(``MPID''), Exchange Member identifier, trading group identifier,
Exchange Sponsored Participant identifier, or affiliate identifier (any
such existing identifier, a ``Unique Identifier'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(x). The term ``Sponsored Participant''
shall mean a person which has entered into a sponsorship arrangement
with a Sponsoring Member pursuant to Rule 11.3.
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 11.3(a). ``Sponsored Access'' shall mean
``an arrangement whereby a Member permits its customer to enter
orders into the System that bypass the Member's trading system and
are routed directly to the Exchange, including routing through a
service bureau or other third-party technology provider.''
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange's MTP functionality prevents certain contra
side orders entered by a User \8\ from executing, provided that each
order has been marked with the same Unique Identifier.\9\ MTP
functionality is currently available only to individual or affiliated
Users on the Exchange and cannot be enabled by Users who choose to
access the Exchange through both a direct connection as well as through
a Sponsored Access arrangement because such Users do not have the same
Unique Identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc). ``User'' is defined as ``any
Member or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access
to the System pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' The ``System'' is ``the
electronic communications and trading facility designated by the
Board through which securities orders of Users are consolidated for
ranking, execution and, when applicable, routing away.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(aa). The term ``Member'' means any registered
broker or dealer that has been admitted to membership in the
Exchange. See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
    \9\ Supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, there are currently five Unique Identifiers that a
User may choose from when submitting an order subject to MTP: (i) MPID;
\10\ (ii) Exchange Member identifier; (iii) trading group identifier;
(iv) Exchange Sponsored Participant identifier, and (v) affiliate
identifier.\11\ MTP functionality is optional for Users and is not
automatically implemented by the Exchange. Both the buy and the sell
order must include the same Unique Identifier in order to prevent an
execution from occurring and to effect a cancel instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An MPID is a four-character unique identifier that is
approved by the Exchange and assigned to a Member for use on the
Exchange to identify the Member firm on the orders sent to the
Exchange and resulting executions.
    \11\ Supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, a User who enables MTP functionality using the MPID
Unique Identifier will prevent contra side executions between the same
MPID from occurring. A User who enables MTP using the Exchange Member
Unique Identifier would prevent contra side executions between any MPID
associated with that User and not just a single MPID. The trading group
Unique Identifier permits Users to prevent matched trades amongst
traders or desks within a certain firm but allows orders from outside
such group or desk to interact with other firm orders. Users who enable
MTP functionality using the Exchange Sponsored Participant Unique
Identifier will prevent matched trades between contra side orders with
an identical Sponsored Participant identifier. The affiliate identifier
is a Unique Identifier that permits MTP to be enabled by firms with a
control relationship. The affiliate identifier is only available to
Users where: (i) greater

than 50% ownership is identified in a User's Form BD; and (ii) the
Users execute an affidavit stating that a control relationship exists
between the two Users. The Exchange is not proposing any change in
functionality for the current Unique Identifiers described above.
    The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 11.9(f) and enhance its
existing MTP functionality by introducing a sixth Unique Identifier,
Multiple Access identifier, which will allow a User to prevent orders
entered via its direct connection from interacting with the User's
orders entered via Sponsored Access. Currently, MTP is only available
to individual and affiliated Users. However, there are certain
situations (discussed infra) in which an individual firm may access the
Exchange through different methods (i.e., through a direct connection
and through Sponsored Access) and therefore desires to enable MTP in
order to prevent orders submitted through its direct connection from
interacting with those orders submitted through Sponsored Access.
    The Multiple Access identifier is similar to the affiliate
identifier that is already in place, as it will enable firms that
currently enter orders on the Exchange under two different Unique
Identifiers to assign the same Unique Identifier to orders entered via
its direct connection and to orders entered via Sponsored Access. This
will permit the firm to enable MTP and prevent contra side orders from
executing. While the affiliate identifier requires Users to prove that
an affiliate relationship exists between the two Users,\12\ the
proposed Multiple Access identifier will only require a User to
demonstrate: (i) it maintains a Membership on the Exchange through
which it directly submits orders to the System; and (ii) it also
operates as a Sponsored Participant and submits orders to the System
through Sponsored Access. The proposed addition of the Multiple Access
identifier does not present any new or novel MTP functionality, but
rather would extend existing MTP functionality to firms that already
access the Exchange through multiple formats and therefore have
different Unique Identifiers appended to their orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(f). See also 17 CFR 230.405. An
affiliate of, or person affiliated with, a specified person, is a
person that directly, or indirectly through one or more
intermediaries, controls or is controlled by, or is under common
control with, the person specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of example, there are situations where an individual firm
would choose to submit orders to the Exchange through different
mechanisms. For instance, a firm may employ different trading
strategies across different trading desks and choose to send orders for
one strategy to the Exchange through a direct connection while the
other strategy is sent through Sponsored Access. The proposed
functionality would serve as an additional tool that Users may enable
in order to assist with compliance with the various securities laws
relating to potentially manipulative trading activity such as wash
sales \13\ and self-trades.\14\ Additionally, the proposed
functionality would provide firms an additional solution to manage
order flow by preventing undesirable executions where the firm submits
orders in multiple formats (i.e., direct connection or Sponsored
Access). As is the case with the existing risk tools, Users, and not
the Exchange, have full responsibility for ensuring that their orders
comply with applicable securities rules, laws, and regulations.
Furthermore, as is the case with the existing risk settings, the
Exchange does not believe that the use of the proposed MTP
functionality can replace User-managed risk management solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A ``wash sale'' is generally defined as a trade involving
no change in beneficial ownership that is intended to produce the
false appearance of trading and is strictly prohibited under both
the federal securities laws and FINRA rules. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C
78i(a)(1); FINRA Rule 6140(b) (``Other Trading Practices'').
    \14\ Self-trades are ``transactions in a security resulting from
the unintentional interaction of orders originating from the same
firm that involve no change in beneficial ownership of the
security.'' FINRA requires members to have policies and procedures
in place that are reasonably designed to review trading activity
for, and prevent, a pattern or practice of self-trades resulting
from orders originating from a single algorithm or trading desk, or
related algorithms or trading desks. See FINRA Rule 5210,
Supplementary Material .02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to allow firms that submit orders to the
Exchange through both a direct connection and through Sponsored Access
to utilize MTP by utilizing the Multiple Access identifier.\15\
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to allow individual firms who
choose to access the System through both a direct connection and
through Sponsored Access to use MTP functionality in order to prevent
executions from occurring between those separate Users that are
associated with the direct connection and Sponsored Access. When a firm
requests MTP using the Multiple Access identifier and the Exchange
confirms that the individual firm is both a Member that accesses the
Exchange through a direct connection and maintains a Sponsored
Participant relationship on the Exchange, the Exchange will assign an
identical Multiple Access identifier to each User. This Multiple Access
identifier will be used to prevent executions between contra side
orders entered by the Users assigned the same Multiple Access
identifier. The purpose of this proposed change is to extend MTP
functionality to separate Users originating from the same individual
firm in order to prevent transactions between the firm's orders
submitted directly to the System and through Sponsored Access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange will require firms requesting to use the
Multiple Access identifier to complete an affidavit stating: (i) it
is currently a Member of the Exchange that submits orders directly
to the System, and (ii) it also submits orders to the System through
a Sponsored Access arrangement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To demonstrate how MTP will operate with the proposed Multiple
Access identifier, the Exchange has included examples of potential
scenarios in which MTP may be used by individual Users utilizing the
Multiple Access identifier. For all examples below, User A represents
Firm 1 accessing the System through a direct connection. User B also
represents Firm 1 but where Firm 1 is accessing the System as a
Sponsored Participant through a Sponsoring Member.\16\ User A and User
B will use a Multiple Access identifier of ``A'' when requesting MTP at
the Multiple Access level, as both Users submit Firm 1's orders to the
System. User C is not related to Users A and B and uses a Multiple
Access identifier of ``C''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(y). A ``Sponsoring Member'' shall
mean a broker-dealer that has been issued a membership by the
Exchange who has been designated by a Sponsored Participant to
execute, clear and settle transactions resulting from the System.
The Sponsoring Member shall be either (i) a clearing firm with
membership in a clearing agency registered with the Commission that
maintains facilities through which transactions may be cleared or
(ii) a correspondent firm with a clearing arrangement with any such
clearing firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiple Access Level MTP
    Scenario 1: User A submits a buy order. User B submits a sell
order. User C also submits a sell order. User A has enabled MTP at the
Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access identifier of A. User B
has enabled MTP at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access
identifier of A. User C has not enabled MTP. User A's buy order is
prevented from executing with User B's sell order as each User has
enabled MTP at the Multiple Access level using an Multiple Access
identifier of A. User A's buy order will be permitted to execute with
User C's sell order because User C has not enabled MTP.
    Scenario 2: User A submits a buy order. User B submits a sell
order. User C also submits a sell order. User A has enabled MTP at the
Multiple Access level using an Multiple Access identifier

of A. User B has not enabled MTP. User C has enabled MTP at the
Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access identifier of C. User A's
order will be eligible to trade with both User B and User C. User A's
order is eligible to trade with User B because User B did not enable
MTP. In order for MTP to prevent the matching of contra side orders,
both the buy and sell order must contain an MTP modifier. User A's
order is also eligible to trade with User C because even though User A
and User C have both enabled MTP at the Multiple Access level, User A
and User C have been assigned different Multiple Access identifiers.
    Scenario 3: User A submits a buy order and a sell order. User B
submits a buy order. User A has enabled MTP at the Multiple Access
level using a Multiple Access identifier of A. User B has enabled MTP
at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access identifier of A.
User A's buy order is not eligible to execute with User A's sell order
because User A has enabled MTP at the Multiple Access level using a
Multiple Access identifier of A. User A's sell order is not eligible to
execute with User B's buy order because both User A and User B have
enabled MTP at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access
identifier of A.
    Scenario 4: User A submits a buy order and a sell order. User B
submits a sell order. User C submits a sell order. User A has enabled
MTP at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access identifier of
A. User B has enabled MTP at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple
Access identifier of A. User C has enabled MTP at the Multiple Access
level using a Multiple Access identifier of C. User A's buy order is
not eligible to execute with User A's sell order because User A has
enabled MTP at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access
identifier of A. User A's buy order is not eligible to execute with
User B's sell order because both User A and User B have enabled MTP at
the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access identifier of A. User
A's buy order is eligible to execute with User C's sell order because
while User A and User C have enabled MTP at the Multiple Access level,
User A and User C have been assigned different Multiple Access
identifiers.
    The Exchange plans to implement the proposed rule change during the
third quarter of 2023 and will announce the implementation date via
Trade Desk Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the
Act.\17\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the section 6(b)(5) \18\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the section 6(b)(5) \19\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed Multiple
Access level MTP functionality promotes just and equitable principles
of trade by allowing individual firms to better manage order flow and
prevent undesirable trading activity such as wash sales'' \20\ or self-
trades \21\ that may occur as a result of the velocity of trading in
today's high-speed marketplace. The proposed Multiple Access identifier
and description of eligibility to utilize the proposed Multiple Access
identifier does not introduce any new or novel functionality, as the
proposed amendment does not seek to change the underlying MTP
functionality, but merely extends the current MTP functionality to
another trading relationship. For instance, a User may operate trading
desk 1 that accesses the Exchange via the User's direction connection,
as well as trading desk 2 that access the Exchange as a Sponsored
Participant. While these desks may operate different trading
strategies, a User may desire to prevent these desks from trading
versus each other in the marketplace because the orders are originating
from the same entity. Here, Users may desire MTP functionality on a
Multiple Access level that will help them achieve compliance \22\ with
regulatory rules regarding wash sales and self-trades in a very similar
manner to the way that the current MTP functionality applies on the
existing Unique Identifier level. In this regard, the proposed Multiple
Access level MTP functionality will permit individual firms associated
with different Users for purposes of submitting orders to the Exchange
in a different manner to prevent the execution of transactions by and
between the Users. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is fair and equitable and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination as use of the proposed MTP functionality is optional,
and its use is not a prerequisite for trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Supra note 13.
    \21\ Supra note 14.
    \22\ The Exchange reminds Users that while they may utilize MTP
to help prevent potential transactions such as wash sales or self-
trades, Users, not the Exchange, are ultimately responsible for
ensuring that their orders comply with applicable rules, laws, and
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. MTP is an optional
functionality offered by the Exchange and Users are free to decide
whether to use MTP in their decision-making process when submitting
orders to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Multiple Access identifier
does not impose any intramarket competition as it seeks to enhance an
existing functionality available to all Users. The Exchange is not
proposing to introduce any new or novel functionality, but rather is
proposing to provide an extension of its existing MTP functionality to
individual firms who choose to access the System through both a direct
connection and through Sponsored Access. Additionally, the proposed
rule specifies which Users are eligible to use the Multiple Access
identifier and will be available to any User who satisfies such
criteria. MTP will continue to be an optional functionality offered by
the Exchange and the addition of Multiple Access level MTP will not
change how the current Unique Identifiers and MTP functionality
operate.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Multiple Access identifier
does not impose any undue burden on intermarket competition. MTP is an
optional functionality offered by the Exchange and Users are not
required to use MTP functionality when submitting orders to the
Exchange. Further, the Exchange is not required to offer MTP and is
choosing to do so as a benefit for

Users who wish to enable MTP functionality. Moreover, the proposed
change is not being submitted for competitive reasons, but rather to
provide Users enhanced order processing functionality that may prevent
undesirable executions by affiliated Users such as wash sales or self-
trades.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \24\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \25\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\26\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investor and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative upon filing. The Exchange states that
waiver of the 30-day operative delay will allow the Exchange to
immediately offer its Users that access the Exchange's System through a
direct connection and through Sponsored Access the ability to better
manage order flow and prevent undesirable executions, such as wash
sales and self-trades, in the same manner as Users who currently enable
MTP at the MPID, Exchange Member identifier, trading group identifier,
Exchange Sponsored Participant, or affiliate identifier levels. Because
the proposed rule change does not raise any novel regulatory issues,
the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \27\ 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-054 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-054. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-054 and should
be submitted on or before August 24, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16507 Filed 8-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9966-9968]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05065]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8571]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region IV

Alabama:
    Adamsville, City of,              010267  February 23, 1976,  March 21, 2019........  March 21, 2019.
     Jefferson County.                         Emerg; October
                                               10, 1980, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Albertville, City of,             010366  October 13, 1976,   ......do *............   Do.
     Marshall County.                          Emerg; September
                                               4, 1985, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Altoona, Town of, Blount          010078  July 15, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     and Etowah Counties.                      Emerg; March 14,
                                               1980, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Birmingham, City of,              010116  March 30, 1973,     ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson and Shelby                      Emerg; March 16,
     Counties.                                 1981, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Blount County,                    010230  July 22, 1987,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; June 17,
                                               1991, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Blountsville, Town of,            010371  December 3, 2008,   ......do..............   Do.
     Blount County.                            Emerg; August 3,
                                               2009, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Boaz, City of, Etowah and         010276  July 15, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Marshall Counties.                        Emerg; September
                                               4, 1985, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Brookside, Town of,               010118  May 29, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                         Emerg; February
                                               18, 1981, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Cardiff, Town of,                 010119  N/A, Emerg; May     ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                         23, 2003, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Center Point, City of,            010445  N/A, Emerg; June    ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                         5, 2003, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Clay, City of, Jefferson          010446  N/A, Emerg; August  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   18, 2003, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Cleveland, Town of, Blount        010228  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   September 9,
                                               2010, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Etowah County,                    010077  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     February 27,
                                               1990, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Fultondale, City of,              010121  June 25, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                         Emerg; May 5,
                                               1981, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Gardendale, City of,              010269  February 3, 1976,   ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                         Emerg; November
                                               21, 1980, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Graysville, City of,              010266  February 24, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                         Emerg; November
                                               21, 1980, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Highland Lake, Town of,           010019  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     Blount County.                            February 17,
                                               2010, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Jefferson County,                 010217  May 1, 1974,        ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; February
                                               17, 1982, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Kimberly, City of,                010265  January 16, 1976,   ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                         Emerg; June 18,
                                               1981, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Morris, Town of, Jefferson        010264  March 11, 1980,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; June 3,
                                               1986, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Mountain Brook, City of,          010128  July 2, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                         Emerg; January 2,
                                               1981, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Mulga, Town of, Jefferson         010129  October 3, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               19, 1980, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Pinson, City of, Jefferson        010447  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   November 10,
                                               2004, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Pleasant Grove, City of,          010268  January 6, 1976,    ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                         Emerg; December
                                               19, 1980, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Rosa, Town of, Blount             010044  N/A, Emerg; March   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   8, 2013, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Sardis City, Town of,             010361  April 7, 1978,      ......do..............   Do.
     Etowah County.                            Emerg; January 1,
                                               1987, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Snead, Town of, Blount            010227  May 8, 2008,        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; August 3,
                                               2009, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Susan Moore, Town of,             010122  July 10, 2009,      ......do..............   Do.
     Blount County.                            Emerg; August 3,
                                               2009, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Sylvan Springs, Town of,          010420  N/A, Emerg; April   ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                         2, 2013, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Trussville, City of,              010133  June 26, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson and Saint Clair                 Emerg; November
     Counties.                                 18, 1981, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.

    Walnut Grove, Town of,            010252  June 25, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Etowah County.                            Emerg; March 16,
                                               1981, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Warrior, City of,                 010263  May 12, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                         Emerg; January 2,
                                               1981, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    West Jefferson, Town of,          010402  N/A, Emerg; July    ......do..............   Do.
     Jefferson County.                         18, 2016, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.

           Region VI
Arkansas:
    Atkins, City of, Pope             050304  August 7, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 6,
                                               1982, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Conway, City of, Faulkner         050078  October 29, 1974,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; March 18,
                                               1980, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Faulkner County,                  050431  September 24,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     1990, Emerg;
                                               September 27,
                                               1991, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Lonoke County,                    050448  N/A, Emerg; March   ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     14, 1994, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Menifee, Town of, Conway          050266  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   February 28,
                                               2012, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Morrilton, City of, Conway        050044  June 6, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; March 15,
                                               1982, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Oppelo, City of, Conway           050597  July 26, 1993,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 4,
                                               2011, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Plumerville, City of,             050364  September 15,       ......do..............   Do.
     Conway County.                            1983, Emerg;
                                               January 17, 1986,
                                               Reg; March 21,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Ward, City of, Lonoke             050372  September 8, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               5, 1978, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Wooster, City of, Faulkner        050302  February 11, 1976,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               27, 1991, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
Texas:
    Burleson, City of, Johnson        485459  December 17, 1971,  ......do..............   Do.
     and Tarrant Counties.                     Emerg; November
                                               2, 1973, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    Dallas County,                    480165  September 4, 1970,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; July 19,
                                               1982, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Edgecliff Village, Town           480592  June 5, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     of, Tarrant County.                       Emerg; August 19,
                                               1986, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
    Southlake, City of, Denton        480612  September 30,       ......do..............   Do.
     and Tarrant Counties.                     1974, Emerg; July
                                               5, 1982, Reg;
                                               March 21, 2019,
                                               Susp.
    White Settlement, City of,        480617  May 13, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Tarrant County.                           Emerg; July 17,
                                               1986, Reg; March
                                               21, 2019, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: March 11, 2019.
Eric Letvin,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration--FEMA Resilience, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-05065 Filed 3-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17327-17331]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07232]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0586; FRL-9924-64-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
California; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the California Regional Haze (RH) State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
documenting that the State's existing plan is making adequate progress
to achieve visibility goals by 2018. The revision consists of the
California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report that addresses the
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to
describe progress in achieving visibility goals in Federally designated
Class I areas in California and nearby states. EPA is taking final
action to approve California's determination that the existing RH SIP
is adequate to meet these visibility goals and requires no substantive
revision at this time.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective May 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0586 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Please note
that while many of the documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports, or otherwise voluminous materials), and some may not be
available at either location (e.g., confidential business information).
To inspect the hard copy materials that are publicly available, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9,
Planning Office, Air Division, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb may be reached at telephone number
(415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Summary of Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview of Proposed Action

    EPA proposed on September 29, 2014, to approve the California
Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report (``Progress Report'' or
``Report'') as a revision to the California RH SIP.\1\ CARB submitted
the Progress Report to EPA on June 16, 2014, to address the RHR
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i). As described in our
proposal, CARB demonstrated that the emission control measures in the
existing California RH SIP are sufficient to enable California, as well
as other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from sources
in California, to meet all established visibility goals (known as
reasonable progress goals or RPGs) for 2018. Based on our evaluation of
the Report, we proposed to approve CARB's determination that the
California RH SIP requires no substantive revision at this time. We
also proposed to find that CARB fulfilled the requirements in
51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with
an opportunity to consult on the RH SIP revision, describe how CARB
addressed the FLMs' comments, and provide procedures for continuing the
consultation. Please refer to our proposed rule for background
information on the RHR, the California RH SIP, and the specific
requirements for Progress Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 79 FR 58302-58309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided for a public comment period that,
upon request, was extended to 60 days ending on November 28, 2014.\2\
We received one set of comments from the National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA).\3\ NPCA's comments and our responses are summarized
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 79 FR 64160.
    \3\ Letter from Nathan Miller (NPCA) to Thomas Webb (EPA) dated
November 29, 2014.

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

 A. General Comments

    Comment: In a number of its comments, NPCA requested that EPA
provide information or analysis that is not included in CARB's Progress
Report. In several instances, NPCA requested that EPA include such
information by revising the CARB's Progress Report itself. For example,
NPCA requested that EPA revise the Report to include emissions from
natural sources, impacts of pollutant species, estimates of emission
trends from sources outside the State, and reduced RPGs that reflect
progress to date,
    Response: EPA's role is to review progress reports as they are
submitted by the states and to either approve or disapprove them based
on a comparison of their content to the requirements of the Regional
Haze Rule. EPA is not able to revise a state's progress report, and we
are not obligated to develop a progress report ourselves if we approve
the state's progress report. In the case of California's Progress
Report, EPA's proposed approval is based on our determination that CARB
has adequately addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h)
through the information provided in its Report. CARB provided an
opportunity for public comment before submitting its Report to EPA,
which would have been the opportune time to address the contents.
Otherwise, the State is under no obligation to provide information
beyond what is required by Rule. While additional information or
different types of analysis would potentially add value, we must
evaluate the State's Progress Report based on its contents in relation
to the statutory and regulatory requirements. As explained in our
responses to specific comments below, the commenter has not identified
any such requirements which the Progress Report fails to meet, nor has
the commenter identified any shortcomings in the data or analysis upon
which the Report relies. Accordingly, EPA has no obligation to
supplement the Progress Report's contents or to disapprove the Report.
    Comment: NPCA encouraged EPA and California to begin identifying
potential sources of emission reductions for the 2018 SIP revision,
including any gaps in monitoring and emission inventories. Two types of
sources mentioned are those that were not subject to Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) due to low effects on visibility and non-
BART point sources.
    Response: We agree that additional source analysis is needed in the
next phase of the program.

B. Emission Reductions Achieved

    Comment: NPCA argued that while the Progress Report accounts for
emission reductions, it does not distinguish between emission
reductions achieved as a result of the California RH SIP versus
reductions achieved as a result of other enforceable measures and
voluntary programs. NPCA requested that EPA require the State to revise
the Report to quantify the emission reductions achieved specifically by
the RH SIP.
    Response: We disagree that the CARB has not properly reported on
the emission reductions achieved by implementing the measures in the
California RH SIP, as required under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). Nothing in
this provision of the Rule requires a detailed, causal analysis linking
specific emission reductions to specific regional haze SIP measures.
The RHR is explicitly designed to facilitate the coordination of
emissions management strategies for regional haze with those needed to
implement national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).\4\ In fact,
the RHR prohibits states from adopting RPGs that represent less
visibility improvement than is expected to result from the
implementation of other CAA requirements during the planning period.\5\
Given this requirement, California and other states include in their RH
SIPs a number of Federal and State regulations that were in effect or
were expected to come into effect during the period covered by the
Progress Report that were anticipated to result in reductions of
visibility impairing pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 64 FR 33713, 35719-35720 (July 1, 1999).
    \5\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The California RH SIP is based on a number of air quality programs
that represent some of the most stringent air pollution controls in the
country. These measures include those to achieve ozone, fine
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide NAAQS. Emission reductions also
are achieved by installing and operating BART controls on the Valero
refinery as required by the RHR. Other measures, for example, are
related to innovative programs to reduce mobile source emissions or
conserve energy. In essence, the State's plan to improve visibility in
its Class I areas is inextricably linked to emission reductions from a
variety of programs. Given the plan's reliance on a range of control
measures, CARB's Progress Report appropriately summarizes all the
emission reductions that the RH SIP encompasses.
    Comment: NPCA particularly encouraged EPA to include emission
reductions from California's only BART source, the Valero refinery in
Benicia, California.
    Response: CARB states in its Progress Report \6\ that BART controls
were installed and operating at the main stack of the Valero refinery
as of February 2011. These controls include an amine scrubber to reduce
sulfur dioxide (SO2), a pre-scrubber to remove
SO2 and particulate matter of ten microns or less
(PM10), and selective catalytic reduction and low-nitrogen
oxide (NOX) burners to remove NOX. CARB states
that these improvements have resulted in reductions equivalent to 5,731
tons per year (tpy) of SOX, 237 tpy of NOX, and
22 tpy of PM10. These emission reductions, included in the
State's plan and in its Progress Report, primarily benefit visibility
at the Point Reyes National Seashore. Thus, the State has provided the
information that NPCA requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report, CARB,
May 22, 2014, pages 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: NPCA also encouraged EPA to include a direct comparison of
the emission projections used by the WRAP in its model relied upon by
California to establish its RPGs versus the most recent emission
inventory, to explain any discrepancies and projected changes to 2018.
    Response: The RHR does not require a direct comparison of the
emission projections used to establish the RPGs in 2018 for the
California RH SIP, with the most recent emission inventory used in the
Progress Report to summarize emission reductions achieved. To
understand better the difficulty of relying on emission inventories to
evaluate visibility conditions at individual Class I areas, please
refer to the WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support
Document.\7\ The Rule does require a state to use updated emission
inventories and other data for the comprehensive revision to the RH SIP
due in 2018 that establishes new RPGs for 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support
Document, Emissions Inventories, page 3-11 to 3-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 C. Changes in Visibility Conditions

    Comment: NPCA requested that EPA revise the Progress Report to
include ``natural conditions and the uniform rate of progress (URP)
milestones'' since these are ``the goals by which visibility progress
is measured.'' NPCA included a table focusing on visibility improvement
on worst days, the salient component of which is comparing the

five-year period from 2008-2012 to the URP milestone in 2018.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NPCA letter to EPA dated November 29, 2014, page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The RHR in 51.308(g)(3) requires a state to assess
visibility for most impaired and least impaired days based on five-year
averages at each Class I area for current conditions, current compared
to baseline conditions, and over the past five years. As stated in the
title of 40 CFR 51.308(g), these are ``[r]equirements for periodic
reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress goals.''
While the URP to natural conditions, and the resulting URP milestone
for 2018, is an important frame of reference, a state is required to
report progress toward its RPG for 2018, not the URP milestone. CARB
used the five-year period from 2007-2011 as the basis of comparison to
the RPGs,\9\ which was the most current data available at the time of
the analysis. CARB also included data on visibility conditions at each
Class I area in 2012 in the appendices \10\ to indicate further
progress, even though this year is outside the time frame of the
State's review. We do not agree that the Progress Report needs
revision, because CARB has adequately addressed this particular
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Progress Report, Statewide 2018 Reasonable Progress
Goals Summary, Table 3, page 12.
    \10\ See Progress Report, Deciview Record (2000-2012), Appendix
C, Tables C-1, C-2, and C-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: NPCA requested that EPA include the five-year rolling
averages of species extinction in graphical and tabular form for each
Class I area to illustrate more clearly the impact associated with each
pollutant species. Further, NPCA suggested that EPA clearly include
estimates of emission trends from relevant sources outside the State
that impact California's Class I areas.
    Response: The data on species extinction, while potentially
informative, is not required by the Rule. As to emission trends of
sources outside of California, this information is required in the
progress reports from states in which those Class I areas are located.
It is worth noting that CARB is required to address any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that
have impeded progress at its Class I areas under 51.308(g)(5), which is
addressed further below.

 D. Changes in Emissions

    Comment: NPCA stated that the emissions inventory in the Report
does not include natural sources, which are particularly important due
to the role of wildfire in visibility impairment. NPCA requested that
EPA include emissions from natural sources in the State's emissions
inventory, including projected future values. NPCA further stated that
it is unclear whether the emission inventory includes several other
growing sources of anthropogenic emissions, including emissions from
increased oil and gas production (e.g., from fracking and
transportation of crude oil through California by rail). NPCA also
noted that the Report did not discuss emissions of ammonia, a precursor
to ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, which impair visibility.
    Response: CARB provides statewide emission inventories by source
category and pollutant in five-year increments from 2000 to 2020 in the
Emission Inventory 2013 Almanac (Appendix B of the Progress Report)
that is used as the basis for reporting on emission inventories and
trends, including the period from 2005 to 2010. In the context of
reducing man-made impairment of visibility, EPA does not expect states
to include wildfires in addressing this requirement. While developing
an inventory of past wildfire emissions is possible, using this
information to project future emissions is highly problematic given the
variation in time and place as well as the inherent unpredictability of
wildfire events. That said, CARB includes in its Progress Report \11\
three case studies that provide a detailed analysis of the impact of
documented wildfire events on specific Class I areas. While not
appropriate for a trend analysis, this type of information is critical
to understanding the effect of wildfires on visibility, especially in
Class I areas where wildfires have limited progress toward achieving
the RPGs for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Progress Report, Technical Analyses of Factors Impeding
Progress, Appendix D, pages 1-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB did include emissions from oil and gas production. Two source
categories are listed for each of the four pollutants (NOX,
SOX, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and particulate
matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5)) in the Emission
Inventory 2013 Almanac.\12\ The first category, ``Oil and Gas
Production (Combustion),'' is largely emissions from oil field
equipment, which are mostly point sources. The second category, ``Oil
and Gas Production,'' consists of evaporative emissions from sources
like tanks and leaking valves, which are usually area sources. Another
category, listed as ``Off-Road Equipment,'' includes emissions from
drilling rigs. CARB's interactive emission inventory that was used for
the Progress Report is available online at http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/fcemssumcat2013.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Progress Report, Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is difficult to determine whether the limited, minor increases
in the Oil and Gas inventory are attributable to any increase in
production. We consider any potential growth in this sector a
prospective issue for the State to address in its next RH SIP revision
due in 2018. Nonetheless, according to the Emission Inventory 2013
Almanac (Appendix B), the following trends are discernable:
     Oil and Gas Production (Combustion): For this category of
oil and gas stationary sources, NOX emissions constitute the
largest annual total (3,723 tpy in 2010) of the four pollutants listed
in the State's inventory. However, these emissions are projected to
decline from 2000 to 2020. SOX emissions from this category
increased from 2005 to 2010 (475 to 767 tpy), but overall are projected
to decline from 2000 to 2020. VOC emissions are relatively flat (949
tpy in 2005 and 2010). PM2.5, while also relatively flat
from 2000 to a projected 2020, increased slightly from 2005 to 2010
(657 to 767 tpy).
     Oil and Gas Production: For this category of oil and gas
area sources, VOCs constitute the largest annual total (13,615 tpy in
2010), but are projected to decline from 2000 to 2020. For the five-
year period from 2005 to 2010, emissions of VOCs decreased about 11
percent from 15,367 to 13,615 tpy. These oil and gas area sources also
emit NOX emissions, but at a lower level. Emissions of
NOX are expected to decline from 2000 to 2020, including
from 986 tpy in 2005 to 803 tpy in 2010. SOX emissions are
consistently flat from 2000 to 2020 at about 36 tpy. PM2.5
emissions were 36 tpy in 2005 and are reportedly zero for 2010 and the
inventory years thereafter.
    Regarding ammonia, the RHR does not require the inclusion of
ammonia in the emission inventory. In EPA's General Principles for
developing the progress reports, we explained that ``[b]ecause nearly
all of the initial regional haze SIPs . . . considered only
SO2, NOX, and PM as visibility impairing
pollutants, the first five-year reports are usually not required to
identify or quantify emission reductions for other pollutants, such as
ammonia or VOC.'' \13\ Although not required, information exists
regarding whether emissions of ammonia are an issue in California. For
example, research by

CARB \14\ indicates that, due to the relative abundance of ammonia,
reducing ammonia emissions are not as effective at reducing ammonium
nitrate and ammonium sulfate as directly reducing NOX and
SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze Progress
Reports, USEPA, April 2013, page 7.
    \14\ Proposed Revision to the PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin Valley, Weight of Evidence
Analysis, Appendix B, CARB, January 11, 2013, at http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sjvpm25/24hrsjvpm25.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 E. Anthropogenic Emissions Impeding Progress

    Comment: NPCA acknowledged that California discusses the impacts of
wildfire, off-shore shipping, and Asian dust, which have impeded
progress in some of California's Class I areas. NPCA suggested that EPA
do more research in these areas to develop nationally consistent
methods to account for emissions from these types of sources. For
example, the distinction between prescribed fires and wildfires is
confusing in regard to what is natural versus anthropogenic and what is
controllable versus uncontrollable given the interconnection between
these two categories of fire. Similarly, NPCA encouraged EPA to address
emissions from federally regulated sources and to consult with other
countries on international sources of haze. NPCA restated its concern
regarding the potential for increased emissions related to oil and gas
development and production, as well as the importation of crude oil by
rail. NPCA also addressed the indirect impacts of climate change on
regional haze as warmer temperatures contribute to higher ground level
ozone and PM2.5 concentrations.
    Response: EPA acknowledges that more research and consistent
methods are needed to understand and measure the effects of
anthropogenic emissions from sources outside a state's control (e.g.,
emissions from Asia, Mexico, and Canada). Further research also is
needed concerning the anthropogenic component of wildfires and
prescribed fires, which is subject to interpretation, and varies over
time and place. It is worth noting that the Federal government
continues to regulate emissions from mobile and off-shore shipping, for
example, which are credited in the RH SIPs. Moreover, we understand and
share concerns about the potential effects of climate change on human
health and the environment. We continually work with CARB and other air
quality agencies in California to update and improve emission
inventories in order to evaluate more accurately our progress in
improving human health and the environment.

 F. Meeting the Reasonable Progress Goals

    Comment: NPCA is concerned that the progress that California
appears to be making in most Class I areas may not be enforceable or
permanent. NPCA encouraged EPA to revise downward the RPGs for 2018 to
reflect the progress to date, noting that California has previously
committed to reevaluating the RPGs to determine if they should be
adjusted to better reflect achievable improvement.
    Response: The purpose of the Progress Report is to evaluate whether
the State's existing plan is making sufficient progress in achieving
the established RPGs for 2018 in its 29 Class I areas, and is not
interfering with the ability of other States to make similar progress
in nearby Class I areas. The Rule does not make any provision for EPA
to require a state to lower its RPGs where it appears from a progress
report that they will be achieved.

G. Visibility Monitoring Strategy

    Comment: NPCA encouraged EPA to maintain, and consider increasing,
funding for the IMPROVE monitoring network, given that a number of
California's Class I areas share monitors.
    Response: EPA acknowledges NPCA's support for the IMPROVE
monitoring network.

H. Determination of Adequacy

    Comment: NPCA requested that EPA not approve California's
determination of adequacy. NPCA cited the fact that the LAVO \15\
monitoring data shows degradation of visibility on the worst days, and
is therefore not on track to meet its RPG. This means that the SIP is
not sufficient to meet the established visibility goals. NPCA also
mentioned California's identification of wildfires, shipping emissions,
and Asian dust as relatively significant factors, particularly in
relation to the LAVO monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ LAVO is an IMPROVE monitor collecting air quality data for
Lassen Volcanic National Park, Caribou Wilderness Area, and Thousand
Lakes Wilderness Area in northern California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: EPA disagrees with NPCA's request to disapprove the
State's determination of adequacy. The requested disapproval is based
on the commenter's interpretation that the LAVO monitoring data,
representing three Class I areas in northern California, indicate that
these Class I areas will not achieve the RPG by 2018. As we noted in
our proposal,\16\ LAVO is the only monitor, based on the most recent
five-year average (2008-2012), which shows worse visibility conditions
(15.6 dv) compared to its baseline (14.1 dv). However, this situation
in 2008-2012 does not necessarily mean that the SIP is not adequate to
achieve the RPG by 2018, because wildfire smoke, a key contributor to
haze in this period, should not be assumed to be the same in 2018 as
during 2008-2012. We explained that ``CARB provides technical analyses
of how wildfire smoke can elevate the deciview value on a sufficient
number of the 20 percent worst days to increase the annual average
deciview as well as skew the five-year average deciview at a given
monitor.'' \17\ In fact, CARB provides a technical analysis of the
factors impeding progress at LAVO in its Progress Report.\18\ In
particular, CARB establishes a positive correlation between documented
wildfires in southern Oregon and northern California in 2008 and 2009
with exceptionally high readings of organic carbon at the LAVO monitor
on worst days in those same years.\19\ CARB goes on to document that
the worst day averages at the LAVO monitor for 2010 (12.8 dv), 2011
(11.7 dv), and 2012 (14.3 dv) were below or near the baseline average
of 14.1 dv.\20\ Taking this evidence of wildfire impacts into
consideration, the LAVO monitor establishes a trend toward meeting the
RPG for 2018 of 13.3 dv. It is EPA's determination that CARB adequately
demonstrates that no substantive revisions are needed at this time to
achieve the established RPGs at the Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 79 FR 58307, September 29, 2014.
    \17\ Ibid.
    \18\ Technical Analyses of Factors Impeding Progress, Appendix
D, pages D8-D16.
    \19\ See Figure D-7, Relative Contributions to Total Light
Extinction at LAVO, Progress Report, page D-9.
    \20\ Progress Report, page D-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the California Regional Haze
Plan 2014 Progress Report submitted to EPA on June 16, 2014, as meeting
the applicable RHR requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h),
and (i). With 29 Class I areas in California, we commend CARB on the
Progress Report, and in particular, the development of the case studies
in Appendix D that provide an analysis of wildfire impacts at three of
the IMPROVE monitors. The comprehensive evaluation of the California RH
SIP due in 2018 for the next ten-year planning period is the next
opportunity to reassess progress and make any necessary adjustments.

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 Act and applicable
Federal regulations.\21\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role
is to approve state decisions, 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 this action does not involve technical standards; 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 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.
    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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 1, 2015. 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, Nitrogen oxides, Organic
carbon, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 27, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(454) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (454) The following plan was submitted on June 16, 2014, by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) California Air Resources Board (CARB).
    (1) CARB Resolution 14-15, dated May 22, 2014, approving the
``California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report.''
    (2) The ``California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report'',
adopted on May 22, 2014.

0
3. Section 52.281 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.281  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (g) Approval. On June 16, 2014, the California Air Resources Board
submitted the ``California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report''
(``Progress Report''). The Progress Report meets the requirements of
Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the Regional Haze Rule in 40
CFR 51.308.

[FR Doc. 2015-07232 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64075-64076]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22904]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0703]

National Maritime Security Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is accepting applications to fill two
vacancies on the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee
(Committee). This Committee advises the Secretary of Homeland Security,
via the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to
national maritime security, including on enhancing the sharing of
information related to cybersecurity risks that may cause a
transportation security incident, between relevant Federal agencies and
State, local, and tribal governments; relevant public safety and
emergency response agencies; relevant law enforcement and security
organizations; maritime industry; port owners and operators; and
terminal owners and operators.

DATES: Completed applications must reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or
before November 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be emailed to [email protected] with
the subject line ``Application for NMSAC''.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Maritime Security Advisory
Committee is a Federal advisory committee. The Committee was
established on December 4, 2018, by section 602 of the Frank LoBiondo
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-282, 132 Stat. 4192
(codified at 46 U.S.C. 70112). The Committee operates under the
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5 U.S.C. Appendix),
and 46 U.S.C. 15109. The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee
provides advice, consults with, and makes recommendations to the
Secretary of Homeland Security, via the Commandant of the U.S. Coast
Guard, on matters relating to national maritime security, including on
enhancing the sharing of information related to cybersecurity risks
that may cause a transportation security incident, between relevant
Federal agencies and--
    A. State, local, and tribal governments;
    B. relevant public safety and emergency response agencies;
    C. relevant law enforcement and security organizations;
    D. maritime industry;
    E. port owners and operators; and
    F. terminal owners and operators.
    The Committee is required to meet at least once a year in
accordance with 46 U.S.C. 15109(a). We expect the Committee will hold
meetings at least twice a year, but it may meet more frequently.

    All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary or
other compensation from the Federal Government. Members may be
reimbursed for travel and per diem in accordance with Federal Travel
regulations.
    As required by 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(6), if you are appointed as a
member of the Committee, your membership term will expire on December
31 of the third full year after the effective date of your appointment.
Members serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Homeland Security and
may be removed prior to the end of their term for just cause. In this
solicitation for Committee members, we will consider applications for
two (2) positions:
     Maritime labor;
     State and local governments.
    Each member of the Committee serves as a representative and must
have particular expertise, knowledge, and experience in matters
relating to the function of the Committee, which is to advise the
Secretary of Homeland Security on the matters described above.
    Under 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(4), its members are required to apply for,
obtain, and maintain a government national security clearance at the
Secret level. The U.S. Coast Guard will sponsor and assist candidates
with this process.
    In order for the Department to fully leverage broad-ranging
experience and education, the National Maritime Security Advisory
Committee must be diverse with regard to professional and technical
expertise. The Department is committed to pursuing opportunities,
consistent with applicable law, to compose a committee that reflects
the diversity of the nation's people.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the
Committee, email your application to [email protected] as provided
in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Applications must include: (1)
a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the National
Maritime Security Advisory Committee; (2) a resume detailing the
applicant's relevant experience and (3) a brief biography of the
applicant. The U.S. Coast Guard will not consider incomplete or late
applications.

    Dated: October 14, 2022.
Amy M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-22904 Filed 10-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P