[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48735-48738]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95425; File No. SR-NYSECHX-2022-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Add
Subparagraph (f)(4) Regarding Directed Orders to NYSE Chicago Rule 7.31

August 4, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On April 20, 2022, the NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to introduce Directed Orders. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 3,
2022.\3\ On June 16, 2022, the Commission extended to August 7, 2022,
the time period in which to approve the proposal, disapprove the
proposal, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposal.\4\ On July 28, 2022, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change with the Commission and
submitted Amendment No. 1 for inclusion in the public comment file.\5\
The Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed rule
change. The Commission is publishing notice of the filing of Amendment
No. 1 to solicit comment from interested persons, and is approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94837 (May 3, 2022),
87 FR 27681 (May 9, 2022) (SR-NYSECHX-2022-06) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95119 (June 16,
2022), 87 FR 37538 (June 23, 2022).
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (i) represents that
Directed Orders will not be routed to an ATS with which the Exchange
has a financial arrangement; and (ii) updates the anticipated
implementation date of the proposed rule change from the second
quarter to the third quarter of 2022. See Letter from Martha
Redding, Associate General Counsel, NYSE Chicago, Inc., to
Secretary, Commission (July 28, 2022). Amendment No. 1 is available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysechx-2022-06/srnysechx202206-20135097-306077.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposal, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1

    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 modify Rule 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers) to
add new subparagraph (f)(4) to provide for Directed Orders and to make
other conforming changes to its Rules in connection with the addition
of this new order type on the Exchange. The Directed Order, as further
defined below, would be an order sent to the Exchange to be routed
directly to an alternative trading system (``ATS'') specified by a
Participant.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Directed Orders will not be routed to an ATS with which the
Exchange has a financial arrangement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 7.31(f)(4), which would define a
Directed Order as a Limit Order with instructions to route on arrival
at its limit price to a specified ATS with which the Exchange maintains
an electronic linkage. Proposed Rule 7.31(f)(4) would further provide
that Directed Orders would be available for all securities eligible to
trade on the Exchange. Proposed Rule 7.31(f)(4) would also provide that
a Directed

Order would not be assigned a working time or interact with interest on
the Exchange Book. The Exchange also proposes to provide in Rule
7.31(f)(4) that the ATS to which a Directed Order is routed would be
responsible for validating whether the order is eligible to be
accepted, and if such ATS determines to reject the order, the order
would be cancelled.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(f)(4)(A) would provide that a Directed Order
must be designated for the Exchange's Core Trading Session, as defined
in Rule 7.34(a)(2).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Because the Exchange proposes that Directed Orders may only
be designated for the Core Trading Session, the Exchange also
proposes conforming changes to Rule 7.34 (Trading Sessions).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.34(c)(1)(E) to
provide that Directed Orders designated for the Early Trading
Session would be rejected and Rule 7.34(c)(3)(C) to provide that
Directed Orders designated for the Late Trading Session would be
rejected. The Exchange also proposes an additional change to correct
a typographical error in Rule 7.34(c)(1), to update the reference to
``paragraphs (c)(1)(A)-(E)'' to ``paragraphs (c)(1)(A)-(F)'' to
accurately reflect the number of subparagraphs under Rule
7.34(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(f)(4)(A) would further provide that a Directed
Order must be designated with a Time in Force modifier of IOC \8\ or
Day \9\ and would be routed to the specified ATS with such modifier.
The Exchange proposes that a Directed Order designated IOC would be
traded in whole or in part on the ATS to which it is routed after
receipt of the order, and any untraded quantity would be cancelled. The
Exchange proposes that a Directed Order designated Day would expire at
the end of the Core Trading Session on the day it is entered. Proposed
Rule 7.31(f)(1)(A) would also provide that a Directed Order may not be
designated with any other modifiers defined in Rule 7.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 7.31(b)(2), which provides that a Limit Order may
be designated with an Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'') modifier.
    \9\ See Rule 7.31(b)(1), which provides that orders may be
designated with a Day modifier, and that an order to buy or sell
designated Day, if not traded, will expire at the end of the
designated session on the day on which it was entered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31(f)(4)(B) would provide that, during a trading
halt or pause, an incoming Directed Order would be rejected.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(f)(4)(C) would provide that a request to cancel
a Directed Order designated Day would be routed to the ATS to which the
order was routed.
    The Exchange also proposes the following conforming changes to Rule
7.19 (Pre-Trade Risk Controls) and Article 17, Rule 5 (Brokerplex).
     The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.19(a)(5), which
sets forth the definition of Gross Credit Risk Limit and currently
provides that unexecuted orders in the Exchange Book, orders routed on
arrival pursuant to Rule 7.37(a)(1), and executed orders are included
for purposes of calculating the Gross Credit Risk Limit. The Exchange
proposes to modify Rule 7.19(a)(5) to specify that orders routed on
arrival pursuant to Rule 7.31(f)(4) would also be included for purposes
of the Gross Credit Risk Limit calculation.
     The Exchange proposes to modify Article 17, Rule 5, which
describes the Brokerplex system used by Institutional Brokers
(``IBs''). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 5(c)(1),
which enumerates the order types and modifiers defined in Rule 7.31
that are not available via Brokerplex, to include Directed Orders
because the order type will not be available to IBs.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
facilitate additional trading opportunities by offering Participants
the ability to designate orders submitted to the Exchange to be routed
to an ATS of their choosing for execution. The Exchange believes the
proposed change would encourage Participants to utilize the Exchange as
a venue for order entry and further believes that the proposed change
could create efficiencies for Participants by enabling them to send
orders that they wish to route to an alternate destination through the
Exchange, thereby enabling them to leverage order entry protocols and
specifications already configured for their interactions with the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that the Directed Order, as proposed,
would operate similarly to the Primary Only Order already offered by
the Exchange, which is an order that is routed directly to the primary
listing market on arrival, without being assigned a working time or
interacting with interest on the Exchange Book.\10\ The Exchange also
believes that the Directed Order would offer its Participants
functionality akin to order types and routing options that currently
exist on other equities exchanges.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 7.31(f)(1). NYSE Chicago also offers variations of
the Primary Only Order, including the Primary Only Until 9:45 Order,
which is a Limit or Inside Limit Order that, on arrival and until
9:45 a.m. Eastern Time, routes to the primary listing market, and
the Primary Only Until 3:55 Order, which is a Limit or Inside Limit
Order entered on the Exchange until 3:55 p.m. Eastern Time, after
which time the order is cancelled on the Exchange and routed to the
primary listing market. See Rules 7.31(f)(2) and (f)(3). The
Exchange's affiliated exchanges NYSE American LLC (``NYSE
American''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and NYSE National,
Inc. (``NYSE National'') (collectively, the ``Affiliated
Exchanges'') also offer the Primary Only Order and variations
thereof. See NYSE American Rules 7.31E(f)(1)-;(f)(3); NYSE Arca
Rules 7.31-E(f)(1)-;(f)(3); NYSE National Rules 7.31(f)(1)-;(f)(3).
    \11\ See, e.g., Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), Equity 4,
Equity Trading Rules, Rule 4758(a)(ix) (defining the Nasdaq Directed
Order as an order designed to use a routing strategy under which the
order is directed to an automated trading center other than Nasdaq,
as directed by the entering party, without checking the Nasdaq
Book); Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') Rules 11.8(c)(7)
(defining the Routing/Directed ISO order type as an ISO that
bypasses the EDGX system and is immediately routed by EDGX to a
specified away trading center for execution) and 11.11(g)(2)
(providing for the DRT routing option, in which an order is routed
to an alternative trading system as instructed); Cboe EDGA Exchange,
Inc. (``EDGA'') Rules 11.8(c)(7) (defining the Routing/Directed ISO
order type as an ISO that bypasses the EDGA system and is
immediately routed by EDGA to a specified away trading center for
execution) and 11.11(g)(2) (providing for the DRT routing option, in
which an order is routed to an alternative trading system as
instructed); Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Rules 11.13(b)(3)(D)
(providing for the DRT routing option, in which an order is routed
to an alternative trading system as instructed) and 11.13(b)(3)(F)
(defining the Directed ISO routing option, under which an ISO order
would bypass the BZX system and be sent to a specified away trading
center); Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'') Rules 11.13(b)(3)(D)
(providing for the DRT routing option, in which an order is routed
to an alternative trading system as instructed) and 11.13(b)(3)(F)
(defining the Directed ISO routing option, under which an ISO order
would bypass the BYX system and be sent to a specified away trading
center). The Exchange also believes that the Directed Order would
provide functionality similar to the C-LNK routing strategy formerly
offered by EDGA, in which C-LNK orders bypassed EDGA's local book
and routed directly to a specified Single Dealer Platform
destination. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82904 (March
20, 2018), 83 FR 12995 (March 26, 2018) (SR-CboeEDGA-2018-004)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change To Expand an Offering Known a Cboe Connect To Provide
Connectivity to Single-Dealer Platforms Connected to the Exchange's
Network and To Propose a Per Share Executed Fee for Such Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed
rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date by
Trader Update.\12\ Subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule
change, the Exchange anticipates that the proposed change will be
implemented in the third quarter of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange will also provide information regarding the
ATS(s) to which a Directed Order may be designated to route by
Trader Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\14\ in particular, because it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and

coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and promote just and equitable principles of trade because the
Directed Order would offer Participants access to additional trading
opportunities by permitting them to designate orders submitted to the
Exchange to be routed directly to a specified ATS for execution. The
Exchange further believes that the proposed change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by
offering Participants the option to send orders that they wish to route
to an alternate destination for execution through the Exchange, which
would create efficiencies to the extent Participants are able to
leverage existing protocols and specifications. Finally, the Exchange
notes that the proposed functionality is not novel, as both the
Exchange and other exchanges offer their members functionality whereby
an exchange routes orders on behalf of a member to a specified trading
center without such order interacting with the exchange's book.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See notes 10 & 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rules governing Directed Orders would promote competition
because they would provide for an order type on the Exchange that would
facilitate additional trading opportunities for market participants.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed rules would allow it to
offer Participants functionality similar to order types and routing
options that exist on other equities exchanges, thereby enabling the
Exchange to compete with such exchanges.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See note 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\17\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\18\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities 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 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, and that the rules of a national securities exchange
not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is reasonably
designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system because it would provide
Participants with additional trading opportunities by providing them
with the option to designate orders to be routed by the Exchange
directly to a specified ATS for execution. The use of Directed Orders
would be voluntary, and the Exchange represents that it would not
direct orders to any ATSs with which the Exchange has a financial
relationship. The Commission also believes that the proposed rule
change would not permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers,
or dealers because Directed Orders will be available to all
Participants on an equal basis. Finally, the Commission believes that
the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 7.19(a)(5) will ensure that
Directed Orders are included in the calculation of Gross Credit Risk
Limit.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule
Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSECHX-2022-06 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-NYSECHX-2022-06. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSECHX-2022-06 and should be submitted
on or before August 31, 2022.

V. Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 1

    As noted above,\19\ in Amendment No. 1, as compared to the original
proposal,\20\ the Exchange: (i) represents that Directed Orders will
not be routed to an ATS with which the Exchange has a financial
arrangement; and (ii) updates the anticipated implementation date of
the proposed rule change from the second quarter to the third quarter
of 2022. The Commission finds that Amendment No. 1 to the proposal
raises no novel regulatory issues, that it is reasonably designed to
protect investors and the public interest, and that it is consistent
with the requirements of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission finds
good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\21\ to approve the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 5.
    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\22\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSECHX-2022-06), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-17101 Filed 8-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58865-58866]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23069]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Notice of Applications for Modification of Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications for Modification of Special Permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This
notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because
the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications,
they are not repeated here. Requests for modification of special
permits (e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging
design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described
in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the
suffix ``M'' denote a modification request. These applications have
been separated from the new application for special permits to
facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 15, 2014.

Address Comments To:  Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,
DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the
Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 5, 2014.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Regulation(s)     Nature of special
         Application No.                Docket             Applicant           affected         permit thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          MODIFICATION SPECIAL PERMITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13961-M.........................  3AL Testing Corp.   49 CFR 172.203(a),  To modify the
                                   Centennial, CO.     172.301(c),         special permit to
                                                       180.205(f) and      authorize
                                                       (g), and            ultrasonic
                                                       180.209(a).         equipment with a
                                                                           five sensor head
                                                                           with sensors
                                                                           positioned to
                                                                           perform all
                                                                           required straight
                                                                           and angle beam
                                                                           examinations in a
                                                                           single pass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14700-M.........................  Pentair             49 CFR 173.302a     To modify the
                                   Residential         and 173.306(g).     special permit to
                                   Filtration, LLC                         authorize an
                                   Chardon, OH.                            increase to the
                                                                           tanks maximum
                                                                           operating
                                                                           pressure from 100
                                                                           psig to 125 psig.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-23069 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40266-40269]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17125]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0806; FRL-9998-04-Region 9]

Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and
Promulgations; Hawaii; Infrastructure SIP

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) submission from the State of Hawaii regarding
certain Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements related to
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). The interstate transport requirements consist of
several elements; this approval pertains only to provisions requiring
that SIPs prohibit sources or other types of emissions activity in one
state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. The

EPA is approving Hawaii's August 6, 2015 SIP submittal on the basis
that it addresses two requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
which we refer to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment
of the NAAQS in any other state) and prong 2 (interference with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state). The EPA refers to SIP
revisions addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as
``good neighbor SIPs'' or ``interstate transport SIPs.''

DATES: This rule is effective on September 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0806. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://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 at https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)
947-4192<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Public Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background Information

    On February 28, 2019, the EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve the Hawaii Department of
Health's (DOH) August 6, 2015 submittal addressing two requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\1\ A detailed discussion of Hawaii's
good neighbor SIP and the EPA's rationale for approving the SIP
revision is provided in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 84 FR 6736.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comment

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period
that ended on April 1, 2019. During the comment period, we received one
comment. We summarize the comment below and provide our response.
    Comment 1: The commenter states that the EPA's preamble for its
proposed action summarizes trajectory analyses submitted by Hawaii and
that the EPA concludes that ``[a] very small fraction of emissions
arrives in the continental United States (U.S.) more than two days
after release and a slightly larger fraction arrives five days after
release.'' The commenter states that it is unclear whether this factual
assertion was made by the state or whether it is the EPA's own
conclusion. The commenter goes on to assert that it is not possible to
conclude from wind trajectories what fraction of emissions from Hawaii
reach the continental U.S. The commenter concludes by stating that the
EPA cannot base its approval of the good neighbor SIP on this factual
assertion, as it is not supported by the cited evidence.
    Response 1: This statement is the EPA's own conclusion. We agree
with the commenter that it is not possible to precisely quantify the
fraction of emissions from Hawaii that reaches the continental U.S.
based on the trajectory analysis submitted by Hawaii. This analysis
establishes the time to transport emissions to the continental U.S.,
but does not address the deposition, chemical transformation, and
dispersion that would occur during transport. Quantifying these factors
would require modeling, which, as explained in our proposal, we do not
believe is necessary for an isolated state such as Hawaii. However,
based on the time and distance of transport, as well as the fact that a
certain degree of deposition, chemical transformation, and dispersion
would necessarily occur over such time and distance, we believe it is
reasonable to conclude that the fraction of emissions from Hawaii that
would reach the continental U.S. would be relatively small. The
commenter has provided no evidence to contradict this conclusion.
    Furthermore, this conclusion was only one factor in the overall
weight of evidence analysis that we used to assess Hawaii's interstate
transport obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Another key
factor was that Hawaii's total emissions of ozone precursors are
significantly lower than emissions of these pollutants from several
continental states, including Colorado.\2\ Based on modeling, the EPA
has found that Colorado's emissions do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in downwind states.\3\ Given that emissions from Colorado
are over five times greater than those from Hawaii, and Colorado is
more than 2,000 miles closer to nonattainment receptors than Hawaii, it
is unlikely that Hawaii's emissions significantly contribute to
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 84 FR 6736, 6738.
    \3\ 80 FR 72937 (November 23, 2015) (proposed rule); 81 FR 7706
(February 16, 2016) (final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The commenter notes that the preamble to the EPA's
proposed rule states that Hawaii's emissions are declining. The
commenter asserts that the approval of a good neighbor SIP with respect
to Prong 1 must be based on the effects that emissions from the upwind
state are having on other states at this time, not on the effect of
lower emissions projected to prevail in the future. The commenter
states that the EPA's reference to future levels of emissions should
not be part of the EPA's rationale for approving the SIP with respect
to the Prong 1 requirement. The commenter acknowledges that the fact
that future emissions are expected to be less than current emissions
can be considered in evaluating whether the SIP satisfies Prong 2. The
commenter requests that the EPA more logically state its rationale for
approval of the SIP.
    Response 2: The commenter is incorrect that an approval of a good
neighbor SIP with respect to Prong 1 must be based solely on the
effects emissions from the upwind state are having on other states at
this time. Prong 1 requires SIPs to include adequate provisions
prohibiting emission ``which will contribute significantly to
nonattainment'' in another state.\4\ The EPA has interpreted this
phrase to refer to ``sources that presently and at some point in the
future `will' contribute to nonattainment'' and the D.C. Circuit Court
has upheld this interpretation as reasonable in North Carolina v. EPA
(``North Carolina'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    \5\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 914 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with this interpretation, the EPA has routinely approved
interstate transport SIPs that rely on future year modeling.\6\ In
particular, as

noted in the preamble to the proposed action, the EPA's historical
approach to addressing interstate transport under the good neighbor
provision has been to evaluate states' obligations to address downwind
contributions using a multistep process. This process involves
identifying downwind air quality problems; identifying upwind states
that impact those downwind air quality problems sufficiently such that
they are considered ``linked'' and therefore warrant further review and
analysis; identifying the emissions reductions necessary (if any),
considering cost and air quality factors to prevent the linked upwind
states from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering
with maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations of the downwind air
quality problems; and adopting permanent and enforceable measures
needed to achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., 83 FR 65093 (Final approval of California's
interstate transport SIP for ozone, fine particulate matter, and
sulfur dioxide); Cf. 76 FR 48208 (Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR), promulgating federal implementation plans (FIPs) addressing
good neighbor obligations for ozone and fine particulate matter); 81
FR 74504 (CSAPR Update, promulgating FIPs addressing good neighbor
obligations for ozone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the EPA identified downwind air quality problems as part of
the 2016 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update, we used air
quality modeling projections for the (then) future analytic year of
2017,\7\ consistent with the North Carolina decision.\8\ The EPA also
used a 2017 compliance deadline to ensure that the emissions reductions
achieved through implementing the CSAPR Update would be made prior to
the July 20, 2018 moderate attainment deadline,\9\ again in conformance
with North Carolina.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 81 FR 74504, 74516. See 84 FR 6736 for additional details on
the CSAPR Update.
    \8\ 531 F.3d 914.
    \9\ 81 FR 74504, 74516.
    \10\ 531 F.3d 911-12 (holding that the EPA must coordinate
interstate transport compliance deadlines with downwind attainment
deadlines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Hawaii was not part of the EPA's air quality modeling
analysis for the CSAPR Update, the EPA used a weight of evidence
analysis to assess Hawaii's interstate transport obligations with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This approach included reviewing
Hawaii's recent emissions history that showed emissions have decreased
over time and are substantially lower than emissions from California,
Arizona, Colorado, and Texas, as shown in Table 1 of our proposed
rule,\11\ and reviewing Hawaii's transport patterns using trajectory
analysis. We then compared the emissions data and the distance between
Hawaii and receptors in the continental U.S. with the much higher
emissions levels and much smaller distances between upwind and downwind
states with known, modeled linkages in the continental U.S. In other
words, our analysis considered both the absolute level of recent
emissions from Hawaii and the downward trend in these emissions. Based
on this analysis, the EPA concludes that emissions from Hawaii will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Our approval of Hawaii's
interstate transport SIP is based on this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 84 FR 6736, 6738.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    For the reasons described in our responses to comments, the
comments received do not alter our proposed determination that
emissions from Hawaii will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
any other state. Therefore, the EPA is approving Hawaii's 2008 ozone
transport SIP, submitted by Hawaii DOH on August 6, 2015, as meeting
the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as a
revision to the Hawaii SIP.

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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. 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 regulatory action because
this action is not significant 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 Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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. The 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 October
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, Infrastructure SIP, Interstate transport, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 30, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart M--Hawaii

0
2. In Sec.  52.620, amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry
for ``Hawaii State Implementation Plan Revision to Address CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l) for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard, excluding Attachment 3'' after the entry for ``Hawaii State
Implementation Plan Revision, National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(1) & (2), excluding attachment 3, and appendices A, B, and C.''
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA Approved Hawaii Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or          State       EPA approval date       Explanation
                                    nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      State of Hawaii Air Pollution Control Implementation Plans for Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, PM, and Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Hawaii State Implementation Plan   Statewide..........        8/6/2015  [Insert Federal      Approved SIP
 Revision to Address CAA Section                                         Register page        revision excludes
 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l) for the 2008                                         number where the     Attachment 3
 Ozone National Ambient Air                                              document begins, 8/  (``Summary of
 Quality Standard, excluding                                             14/19.               Public
 Attachment 3.                                                                                Participation
                                                                                Proceedings'').

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

[FR Doc. 2019-17125 Filed 8-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12268-12269]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03945]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-10312; 34-80096]

Securities and Exchange Commission Evidence Summit

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of conference.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission's Office of the
Investor Advocate will host a public conference, characterized as an
``Evidence Summit,'' to discuss, among other things, potential
strategies for enhancing retail investors' understanding of key
investment characteristics such as fees, risks, returns, and conflicts
of interest. An objective of the conference is to marshal research from
the fields of economics and cognitive sciences to help inform ways of
thinking about investor behavior and identify areas for possible future
research to be conducted under the auspices of an investor research
initiative led by the Commission's Office of the Investor Advocate.

DATES: The conference will be held on Friday, March 10, 2017 from 9:30
a.m. until 4:30 p.m. (ET).

ADDRESSES: The conference will be held in the Auditorium, Room L-002 at
the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
The conference will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
www.sec.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Brian Scholl, Principal Economic
Advisor and Senior Economist, Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202)
551-3302, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The conference will be open to the public,
except for that portion of the conference reserved for a nonpublic
networking session for panelists during lunch. Persons needing special
accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the
contact person listed in the section above entitled FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    The agenda for the conference includes: Opening remarks by Acting

Chairman Michael S. Piwowar; plenary remarks by panelists Brigitte
Madrian and Terry Odean; a panel discussion exploring how investors
think and act; a keynote address by panelist George Lowenstein; a panel
discussion addressing ways in which the Commission's disclosure regime
can facilitate disclosure in the most effective manner for a wide
variety of users; remarks from Commissioner Kara M. Stein; a panel
discussion regarding ways in which to improve the disclosure of fees,
strategies/risks, and performance; and a nonpublic networking session
for panelists during lunch.

    Dated: February 24, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03945 Filed 2-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P