[Federal Register: January 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 2)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 232-235]
[DOCID:fr05ja10-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0898; FRL-9099-7]

Finding of Failure To Submit Certain State Implementation Plans
Required for the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking a final action finding that the State of
California has failed to submit revisions to its State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) for three ozone nonattainment areas to satisfy certain
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). To accompany this action we are
issuing additional guidance to states on developing the required SIP
revisions. Under the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations, states
with 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified as Severe or Extreme
were required by the provisions of CAA sections 181(b)(4) and
182(d)(1)(3) to submit by December 31, 2000, SIPs to satisfy CAA
section 185. By this action, EPA is making a finding of failure to
submit the required SIPs for the State of California for three 1-hour
ozone nonattainment areas. With the issuance of additional EPA guidance
to states on developing section 185 fee program SIPs, California will
be able to complete development and promulgation of these programs.
According to the CAA, for each area subject to this finding, EPA must
affirmatively find that California has submitted the required plan
revision within 18 months of the effective date of this finding, or the
offset sanction must apply in that area. Additionally, according to the
CAA, if EPA has still not affirmatively determined that a state has
submitted the required plan for an area within 6 additional months, the
highway funding sanction must apply in that area. Lastly, the CAA
requires that no later than 2 years after the effective date of this
finding, EPA must promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if the
state has not submitted and EPA has not approved the required SIP.

DATES: Effective Date. This action is effective on January 5, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this notice
should be addressed to: Ms. Denise Gerth, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code: C504-
02, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, telephone
(919) 541-5550, or by E-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Andrew
Steckel, Air Rulemaking Office, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit a SIP
II. This Action: Areas Receiving a Finding of Failure To Submit SIPs
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA)
    B. Effective Date Under the Administrative Procedures Act
    C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    I . Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    J. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    M. Congressional Review Act
    N. Judicial Review

I. Background

    The CAA requires states with Severe and Extreme ozone nonattainment
areas to develop a SIP program that provides for collecting fees from
each major stationary source of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) for each calendar year following a
failure to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date.
Section 185 fee program SIPs are required for any area that was
designated as not attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in June 2004
and that was also classified as a Severe or Extreme nonattainment area
for the 1-hour standard at that time. In a decision by the Circuit
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Court determined
that these fee program SIPs were required to prevent backsliding in the
transition from implementing the revoked 1-hour NAAQS to implementing
the 1997 8-hour NAAQS (South Coast AQMD v. EPA, December 22, 2006).
Although EPA has not determined through notice-and-comment rulemaking
that the areas identified in this notice have failed to attain the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS by their statutory attainment dates, current air
quality data for these areas indicate they are violating the 1-hour
NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour NAAQS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although EPA has not in all cases completed determinations
through notice-and-comment rulemaking, current air quality data
indicate that a number of nonattainment areas classified as Severe
or Extreme for the 1-hour NAAQS and also designated in June 2004
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour NAAQS appear to have attained the
1-hour NAAQS and/or the 1997 8-hour NAAQS. In this notice EPA is not
making findings that states failed to submit SIP revisions for these
areas. These areas are: Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN; Milwaukee-
Racine, WI; Philadelphia-Trenton-Wilmington, MD-DE-PA-NJ; Ventura
County, CA; Metropolitan Washington, DC-VA-MD; Baton Rouge, LA; New
York, NY-NJ-CT; Houston, TX; and Baltimore, MD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has been working with states and other stakeholders on EPA
guidance for developing required fee program SIPs, including the
convening of a group of diverse stakeholders through the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee (CAAAC). On May 15, 2009, CAAAC submitted its report
to EPA with suggestions and issues for consideration in creating
guidance that would provide flexibility to states to develop programs
that will meet the requirements of section 185 of the CAA. In
conjunction with this action EPA has issued additional guidance that
will assist California with development of its section 185 fee SIPs for
the affected areas.

A. Statutory Requirements

    Section 185 of the CAA requires each Severe and Extreme ozone

nonattainment area to have a plan implementing the program specified in
that section. The fee program applies if an area fails to attain the
ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date. For each such area,
section 185 requires each major stationary source of VOC and
NOX to pay an annual fee for emissions in excess of 80
percent of the emissions baseline.\2\ The fee is $5,000 (as adjusted
for inflation) per ton of VOC and NOX emissions that are in
excess of the baseline. The CAA states that the computation of a
source's ``baseline amount'' must be the lower of the amount of actual
or allowable emissions under the permit applicable to the source (or if
no permit has been issued for the attainment year, the amount of VOC
and NOX emissions allowed under the applicable
implementation plan) during the attainment year. No source is required
to pay any fee for emissions during a year for which the area receives
an extension of their attainment date under section 181(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While section 185 expressly mentions VOC, section 182(f)
extends the application of this provision to NOX, by
providing that ``plan provisions required under [subpart D)] for
major stationary sources of [VOC] shall also apply to major
stationary sources of [NOX].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit a SIP

    The CAA establishes specific consequences that apply until an area
remedies the identified deficiency if EPA finds that a state has failed
to submit a SIP or, with regard to a submitted SIP, EPA determines it
is incomplete or disapproves it. See, CAA section 179(a)(1).
Additionally, any of these findings also triggers an obligation for EPA
to promulgate a FIP if the state has not submitted and EPA has not
approved the required SIP within 2 years of the finding. See, CAA
section 110(c). The first finding, that a state has failed to submit a
plan or one or more elements of a plan required under the CAA, is the
finding relevant to this action.
    EPA is finding that the State of California has failed to make
required section 185 fee program SIP submissions for all or a portion
of three 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. We note that the state has
been working to establish its required fee program SIP revisions, and
has been awaiting issuance of additional guidance from EPA before
proceeding. EPA has now issued additional guidance, and we will
continue to work with the state on developing approvable and
appropriate fee programs.
    If EPA has not affirmatively determined that the state has made the
required complete submittal for the three areas within 18 months of the
effective date of this rulemaking, pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and
(b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA section
179(b)(2) and 40 CFR 52.31 will apply in each area that remains subject
to the finding. If EPA has not affirmatively determined that the state
has made a complete submission for the areas within 6 months after the
offset sanction is imposed, then the highway funding sanction will
apply to each area that remains subject to the finding, in accordance
with CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31. The 18- and 24-month
clocks for any area will stop and the sanctions will not take effect
if, within 18 or 24 months, respectively, after the date of the
finding, EPA finds that the state has made a complete submittal. In
addition, where EPA has made a finding, EPA is required to promulgate a
FIP for an area if the state has not made the required SIP submittal
and EPA has not taken final action to approve the submittal as fully
meeting the section 185 fee obligation for the 1-hour ozone standard
within 2 years of EPA's finding.
    At approximately the same time as the signing of this action, the
EPA Regional Administrator is sending a letter to the State of
California informing the state that EPA is determining that the state
has failed to submit a SIP addressing the section 185 fee program for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for all or a portion of the three areas
identified below. This letter has been included in docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0898.

II. This Action: Areas Receiving a Finding of Failure To Submit SIPs

    In this action, EPA is making a finding that the State of
California has failed to submit section 185 fee program SIPs for all or
a portion of three 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. California
submitted a section 185 fee program SIP for the Sacramento Metropolitan
Air Quality Management District (AQMD) portion of the Sacramento Metro
Area and EPA approved that submission on August 26, 2003, at 68 FR
51184. Therefore, the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD is not subject to
this action. This finding starts the 18-month emission offset sanctions
clock, the 24-month highway funding sanctions clock, and a 24-month
clock for the promulgation by EPA of a FIP. This action will be
effective on January 5, 2010. EPA is making findings of failure to
submit section 185 fee program SIPs for the nonattainment areas
identified below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   State                         Nonattainment area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California................................  Sacramento Metro Area, CA
                                             (severe 15)--Yolo/Solano
                                             Air Quality Management
                                             District portion; Feather
                                             River Air Quality
                                             Management District
                                             portion; Placer County Air
                                             Pollution Control District
                                             portion; El Dorado County
                                             Air Quality Management
                                             District portion.
California................................  Southeast Desert Modified
                                             Air Quality Management
                                             Association (severe 17)
                                             includes Coachella Valley.
California................................  Los Angeles-South Coast Air
                                             Basin (extreme).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act

    This is a final EPA action, but is not subject to notice-and-
comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(b). EPA believes that because of the limited time provided
to make findings of failure to submit regarding SIP submissions,
Congress did not intend such findings to be subject to notice-and-
comment rulemaking. However, to the extent such findings are subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking, EPA invokes the good cause exception
pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Notice and comment are
unnecessary because no EPA judgment is involved in making a
nonsubstantive finding of failure to submit elements of SIP submissions
required by the CAA. Furthermore, providing notice and comment would be
impracticable because of the limited time provided under the statute
for making such determinations. Finally, notice and comment would be
contrary to the

public interest because it would divert agency resources from the
critical substantive review of complete SIPs. See 58 FR 51270, 51272,
n.17 (Oct. 1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 39853 (Aug. 4, 1994).

B. Effective Date Under the Administrative Procedure Act

    This action will be effective on January 5, 2010. Under the APA, 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3), agency rulemaking may take effect before 30 days
after the date of publication in the Federal Register if the agency has
good cause to specify an earlier effective date. This action concerns
SIP submissions that are already overdue. In addition, this action
simply starts a ``clock'' that will not result in sanctions against the
states for 18 months, and that the state may ``turn off'' through the
submission of complete SIP submittals. These reasons support an
effective date prior to 30 days after the date of publication.

C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
under the Executive Order.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This rule relates to the
requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under section Part D
of title I of the CAA to satisfy elements required for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. The present final rule does not establish any new information
collection requirement.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only
to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. Although
the rule is subject to the APA, the Agency has invoked the ``good
cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b); therefore it is not subject to
the notice-and-comment requirement. Thus Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandate under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1998 (UMAR), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does
not impose any new obligations or enforceable duties on any small
governments.

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the scheme
whereby states take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS and
the federal government acts as a backstop where states fail to take the
required actions. This rule will not modify the relationship of the
states and EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the
NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000.) This rule
responds to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs to
satisfy the nonattainment area requirements of the CAA for the ozone
NAAQS. The CAA requires states with areas that are designated
nonattainment for the NAAQS to develop a SIP describing how the state
will attain and maintain the NAAQS. There are tribal governments within
certain nonattainment areas for which this rule initiates a sanctions
clock. However, this rule does not have tribal implications because it
does not impose any compliance costs on tribal governments nor does it
pre-empt tribal law. The rule will not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the federal
government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian Tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action does not directly affect
the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

J. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. In this
action, EPA is finding that a state has failed to submit SIPs to
satisfy the section 185 program fee requirement of the CAA for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This notice finds that the state has not met the
requirement to submit section 185 fee program SIPs and begins a clock
that could result in the imposition of sanctions if the state

continues to not meet this statutory obligation. If the state fails to
submit the required SIPs or if they submit SIPs that EPA cannot
approve, then EPA will be required to develop the plans in lieu of the
state.

L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology and Transfer Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations of
when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any VCS.

M. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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). This rule will be effective January 5, 2010.

N. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date the final
action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the EPA Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
    Thus, any petitions for review of this action making findings of
failure to submit section 185 fee program SIPs for the nonattainment
areas identified in section II above must be filed in the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the
date that the final action is published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: December 20, 2009.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. E9-31173 Filed 1-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 198 (Thursday, October 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 70670]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2708-000]

Exelon West Medway II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Exelon West Medway II, LLC`s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 25, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 5, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24763 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 53092]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4517-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

West Virginia; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4517-DR), dated April 3, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 5, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
dated April 3, 2020 for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to
include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    All areas within the State of West Virginia are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-20692 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8610-8612]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03993]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805; EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0567; FRL-9974-88--Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Indiana NSR/PSD; Indiana PM2.5 NSR;
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects codification errors for New Source Review
(NSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules in the
Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP).

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 28, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paymon Danesh, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On two separate occasions, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) made inadvertent codification errors when it
approved revisions to Indiana's SIP. The first of these took place on
October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65478). At that time, EPA approved revisions to
Indiana's infrastructure SIP at 326 IAC 2-2-1 and 326 IAC 2-2-4, and
amended the list of EPA-approved Indiana regulations at 40 CFR
52.770(c). In the final rule published in the Federal Register on
October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65478), on page 65487, EPA mistakenly replaced
a September 28, 2011 approval (76 FR 59899) of those Indiana SIP rules
in their entirety, instead of adding new entries to the table in 40 CFR
52.770(c) to identify the approval of the updated portions of the
rules. Furthermore, this updated portion of 326 IAC 2-2-4 was
incorrectly cited at 40 CFR 52.770(c) as 326 IAC 2-2-4(b)(2)(vi),
rather than 326 IAC 2-2-4(b)(2)(A)(vi).
    The second action took place on July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37646). At that
time, EPA approved revisions to Indiana's NSR and PSD regulations at
326 IAC 2-2-1 and 326 IAC 2-2-4 and amended the list of EPA approved
Indiana regulations at 40 CFR 52.770(c). In the final rule published in
the Federal Register on July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37646), on page 37649, EPA
mistakenly perpetuated the error that originated in the October 29,
2012 approval (77 FR 65478): It omitted the previous September 28, 2011
approval (76 FR 59899) of those Indiana SIP rules in their entirety.
EPA also did not change the incorrect citation of 326 IAC 2-2-
4(b)(2)(A)(vi), as was stated in the Preamble. Furthermore, also on
July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37646), EPA approved revisions to the Indiana SIP
regarding Indiana's opacity rule at 326 IAC 5-1-5(b). On page 37649,
EPA made a codification error at 40 CFR 52.770(c) in which the list of
remaining approved portions of 326 IAC 5-1-5(b) from a previous
November 8, 1998 rulemaking (67 FR 46589) were not updated.
    This action amends the regulatory text to correct these errors.
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and
public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the
public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice
and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is
good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and
opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting incorrect
citations in previous actions. Thus, notice and public procedure are
unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to E.O. 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action is not
an E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because
this action is not significant under E.O. 12866. Because the agency has
made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not subject to
notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act
or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information
section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly
or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant
intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of
UMRA. In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of governments,
as specified by E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule
also is not subject to E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically significant.
    This technical correction action does not involve technical
standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as required by E.O. 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct, as required by section 3 of E.O. 12988 (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996). EPA has complied with E.O. 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998)
by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with
the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the
executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection
burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
    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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This
determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including
the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of February
28, 2018. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This correction to
40 CFR 52 for Indiana is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 14, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.770, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
a. Under ``Article 2. Permit Review Rules'', ``Rule 2. Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Requirements'', revising the entries for 2-2-
1 ``Definitions'' and 2-2-4 ``Air quality analysis; requirements''; and
0
b. Under ``Article 5. Opacity Regulations'', ``Rule 1. Opacity
Limitations'', revising the entries for 5-1-5 ``Violations''.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Indiana
 Indiana citation           Subject          effective date     EPA approval date               Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Article 2. Permit Review Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Rule 2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-2-1.............  Definitions............       3/16/2011  9/28/2011, 76 FR 59899  (a) through (e), (f)(2)
                                                                                through (f)(3), (g)
                                                                                through (cc), (dd)(2)
                                                                                through (dd)(3), (ee)(1)
                                                                                through (ee)(2), (ff)(1)
                                                                                through (ff)(6),
                                                                                (gg)(1)(A) through
                                                                                (gg)(1)(B), (gg)(2)
                                                                                through (gg)(3), (hh)
                                                                                through (rr), (ss)(2)
                                                                                through (ss)(6), (tt)
                                                                                through (vv), (ww)(1)(A)
                                                                                through (ww)(1)(E),
                                                                                (ww)(1)(G) through
                                                                                (ww)(1)(W), (ww)(2), (xx)
                                                                                through (aaa).
2-2-1.............  Definitions............       7/11/2012  10/29/2012, 77 FR       (dd)(1), (ff)(7), (ss)(1),
                                                              65478.                  (ww)(1)(F) and (ww)(1)(G)
                                                                                only.
2-2-1.............  Definitions............       7/11/2012  7/2/2014, 79 FR 37646.  (f)(1), (ee)(3), and
                                                                                (gg)(1)(C) only.

                                                  * * * * * * *
2-2-4.............  Air quality analysis;         3/16/2011  9/28/2011, 76 FR 59899  (a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(A)(i)
                     requirements.                                                    through (b)(2)(A)(iv),
                                                                                (b)(2)(A)(vi) through
                                                                                (b)(2)(A)(xiii),
                                                                                (b)(2)(B), (b)(3), (c)(1)
                                                                                through (c)(3), (c)(5)
                                                                                through (c)(7).
2-2-4.............  Air quality analysis;         7/11/2012  10/29/2012, 77 FR       (b)(2)(A)(vi) only.
                     requirements.                            65478.
2-2-4.............  Air quality analysis;         7/11/2012  7/2/2014, 79 FR 37646.  (c)(4) only.
                     requirements.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Article 5. Opacity Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Rule 1. Opacity Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-1-5.............  Violations.............       6/11/1993  6/15/1995, 60 FR 31412  (a) and (c).
5-1-5.............  Violations.............       11/8/1998  7/16/2002, 67 FR 46589  (b)(1)(A) through
                                                                                (b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(F)
                                                                                through (b)(1)(I), (b)(2)
                                                                                through (b)(11).
5-1-5.............  Violations.............       7/11/2012  7/2/2014, 79 FR 37646.  (b)(1)(E) only.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-03993 Filed 2-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20002-20006]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07184]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94565; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt on
a Permanent Basis the Pilot Program for Market-Wide Circuit Breakers

March 31, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on March 30, 2022, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt on a permanent basis the pilot
program for Market-Wide Circuit Breakers in Rule 7.12E. The proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On March 16, 2022, the Commission approved the proposal of the
Exchange's affiliate, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), to
adopt on a permanent basis the pilot program for Market-Wide Circuit
Breakers (``MWCB'') in NYSE Rule 7.12.\4\ The Exchange now proposes to
adopt the same change to make permanent the MWCB pilot program in Rule
7.12E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94441 (March 16,
2022) (SR-NYSE-2021-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Pilot Rules
    The MWCB rules, including the Exchange's Rule 7.12E, provide an
important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and
investor confidence during periods of significant stress when cash
equities securities experience extreme market-wide declines. The MWCB
rules are designed to slow the effects of extreme price declines
through coordinated trading halts across both cash equity and equity
options securities markets.
    The cash equities rules governing MWCBs were first adopted in 1988
and, in 2012, all U.S. cash equity exchanges and FINRA amended their
cash equities uniform rules on a pilot basis (the ``Pilot Rules,''
i.e., Rule 7.12E(a)-(d)).\5\ The Pilot Rules currently provide for
trading halts in all cash equity securities during a severe market
decline as measured by a single-day decline in the S&P 500 Index
(``SPX'').\6\ Under the Pilot Rules, a market-wide trading halt will be
triggered if SPX declines in price by specified percentages from the
prior day's closing price of that index. The triggers are set at three
circuit breaker thresholds: 7% (Level 1), 13% (Level 2), and 20% (Level
3). A market decline that triggers a Level 1 or Level 2 halt after 9:30
a.m. and before 3:25 p.m. would halt market-wide trading for 15
minutes, while a similar market decline at or after 3:25 p.m. would not
halt market-wide trading. (Level 1 and Level 2 halts may occur only
once a day.) A market decline that triggers a Level 3 halt at any time
during the trading day would halt market-wide trading for the remainder
of the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-
025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-
30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-
2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129) (``Pilot
Rules Approval Order'').
    \6\ The rules of the equity options exchanges similarly provide
for a halt in trading if the cash equity exchanges invoke a MWCB
Halt. See, e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 6.65-O(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved the Pilot Rules, the term of which was to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market

Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS (the ``LULD
Plan''),\7\ including any extensions to the pilot period for the LULD
Plan.\8\ In April 2019, the Commission approved an amendment to the
LULD Plan for it to operate on a permanent, rather than pilot,
basis.\9\ In light of the proposal to make the LULD Plan permanent, the
Exchange amended Rule 7.12E to untie the pilot's effectiveness from
that of the LULD Plan and to extend the pilot's effectiveness to the
close of business on October 18, 2019.\10\ The Exchange then filed to
extend the pilot to the close of business on October 18, 2020,\11\
October 18, 2021,\12\ March 18, 2022,\13\ and April 18, 2022.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012). The LULD Plan provides a
mechanism to address extraordinary market volatility in individual
securities.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-73) (Approval
Order); and 68787 (January 31, 2013), 78 FR 8615 (February 6, 2013)
(SR-NYSEMKT-2013-08) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Proposed Rule Change Delaying the Operative Date of a Rule Change
to Exchange Rule 80B-Equities).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85564 (April 9,
2019), 84 FR 15269 (April 15, 2019) (SR-NYSEAMER-2019-14).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87025 (September
19, 2019), 84 FR 50527 (September 25, 2019) (SR-NYSEAMER-2019-37).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90135 (October 8,
2020), 85 FR 65100 (October 14, 2020) (SR-NYSEAMER-2020-74).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93223 (September
30, 2021), 86 FR 55656 (October 6, 2021) (SR-NYSEAMER-2021-40).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. Release No. 94415
(March 15, 2022), 87 FR 16040 (March 21, 2022) (SR-NYSEAMER-2022-
14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The MWCB Working Group Study
    Beginning in February 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic,
the markets experienced increased volatility, culminating in four MWCB
Level 1 halts on March 9, 12, 16, and 18, 2020. In each instance,
pursuant to the Pilot Rules, the markets halted as intended upon a 7%
drop in SPX and did not start the process to resume trading until the
prescribed 15-minute halt period ended.
    On September 17, 2020, the Director of the Commission's Division of
Trading and Markets asked the SROs to conduct a study of the design and
operation of the Pilot Rules and the LULD Plan during the period of
volatility in March 2020. In response to the request, the SROs created
a MWCB ``Working Group'' composed of SRO representatives and industry
advisers that included members of the advisory committees to both the
LULD Plan and the NMS Plans governing the collection, consolidation,
and dissemination of last-sale transaction reports and quotations in
NMS Stocks. The Working Group met regularly from September 2020 through
March 2021 to consider the Commission's request, review data, and
compile its study.
    On March 31, 2021, the MWCB Working Group submitted its study (the
``Study'') to the Commission.\15\ The Study included an evaluation of
the operation of the Pilot Rules during the March 2020 events and an
evaluation of the design of the current MWCB system. In the Study, the
Working Group concluded: (1) The MWCB mechanism set out in the Pilot
Rules worked as intended during the March 2020 events; (2) the MWCB
halts triggered in March 2020 appear to have had the intended effect of
calming volatility in the market, without causing harm; (3) the design
of the MWCB mechanism with respect to reference value (SPX), trigger
levels (7%/13%/20%), and halt times (15 minutes) is appropriate; (4)
the change implemented in Amendment 10 to the LULD Plan did not likely
have any negative impact on MWCB functionality; and (5) no changes
should be made to the mechanism to prevent the market from halting
shortly after the opening of regular trading hours at 9:30 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Report of the Market-Wide Circuit Breaker (``MWCB'')
Working Group Regarding the March 2020 MWCB Events, submitted March
31, 2021 (the ``Study''), available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/Report_of_the_Market-Wide_Circuit_Breaker_Working_Group.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of those conclusions, the MWCB Working Group also made
several recommendations, including that (1) the Pilot Rules should be
made permanent without any changes, and (2) SROs should adopt a rule
requiring all designated Regulation SCI firms to participate in at
least one Level 1/Level 2 MWCB test each year and to verify their
participation via attestation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id. at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Make the Pilot Rules Permanent
    On July 16, 2021, the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE, proposed a rule
change to make the Pilot Rules permanent, consistent with the Working
Group's recommendations.\17\ On March 16, 2022, the Commission approved
NYSE's proposal.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92428 (July 16,
2021), 86 FR 38776 (July 22, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-40).
    \18\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Commission's approval of NYSE's proposal, the
Exchange now proposes that the Pilot Rules (i.e., paragraphs (a)-(d) of
Rule 7.12E) be made permanent. To accomplish this, the Exchange
proposes to remove the preamble to Rule 7.12E, which currently provides
that the rule is in effect during a pilot period that expires at the
close of business on April 18, 2022. The Exchange does not propose any
changes to paragraphs (a)-(d) of the Rule.
    Consistent with the Commission's approval of NYSE's proposal, the
Exchange proposes to add new paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to Rule
7.12E, as follows:

    (e) Market-Wide Circuit Breaker (``MWCB'') Testing.
    1. The Exchange will participate in all industry-wide tests of
the MWCB mechanism. ETP Holders designated pursuant to paragraph (a)
of Rule 2.22E to participate in Exchange Back-up Systems and
Mandatory Testing are required to participate in at least one
industry-wide MWCB test each year and to verify their participation
in that test by attesting that they are able to or have attempted
to:
    (A) Receive and process MWCB halt messages from the securities
information processors (``SIPs'');
    (B) receive and process resume messages from the SIPs following
a MWCB halt;
    (C) receive and process market data from the SIPs relevant to
MWCB halts; and
    (D) send orders following a Level 1 or Level 2 MWCB halt in a
manner consistent with their usual trading behavior.
    2. To the extent that an ETP Holder participating in a MWCB test
is unable to receive and process any of the messages identified in
paragraph (e)(1)(A)-(D) of this Rule, its attestation should notify
the Exchange which messages it was unable to process and, if known,
why.
    3. ETP Holders not designated pursuant to standards established
in paragraph (a) of Rule 2.22E are permitted to participate in any
MWCB test.
    (f) In the event that a halt is triggered under this Rule
following a Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 Market Decline, the
Exchange, together with other SROs and industry representatives (the
``MWCB Working Group''), will review such event. The MWCB Working
Group will prepare a report that documents its analysis and
recommendations and will provide that report to the Commission
within 6 months of the event.
    (g) In the event that there is (1) a Market Decline of more than
5%, or (2) an SRO implements a rule that changes its reopening
process following a MWCB Halt, the Exchange, together with the MWCB
Working Group, will review such event and consider whether any
modifications should be made to this Rule. If the MWCB Working Group
recommends that a modification should be made to this Rule, the MWCB
Working Group will prepare a report that documents its analysis and
recommendations and provide that report to the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to make the Pilot Rules

permanent is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\19\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ in
particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot Rules set out in Rule 7.12E (a)-(d) are an important,
automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and investor
confidence during periods of significant market stress when securities
markets experience broad-based declines. The four MWCB halts that
occurred in March 2020 provided the Exchange, the other SROs, and
market participants with real-world experience as to how the Pilot
Rules actually function in practice. Based on the Working Group's Study
and the Exchange's own analysis of those events, the Exchange believes
that making the Pilot Rules permanent would benefit market
participants, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and protect investors and the public
interest.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that making the Pilot Rules
permanent would benefit market participants, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest, because the Pilot Rules worked as
intended during the March 2020 events. As detailed above, the markets
were in communication before, during, and after each of the MWCB Halts
that occurred in March 2020. All 9,000+ equity symbols were
successfully halted in a timely manner when SPX declined 7% from the
previous day's closing value, as designed. The Exchange believes that
market participants would benefit from having the Pilot Rules made
permanent because such market participants are familiar with the design
and operation of the MWCB mechanism set out in the Pilot Rules, and
know from experience that it has functioned as intended on multiple
occasions under real-life stress conditions. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent would enhance investor
confidence in the ability of the markets to successfully halt as
intended when under extreme stress.
    The Exchange further believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent
would benefit market participants, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest, because the halts that were
triggered pursuant to the Pilot Rules in March 2020 appear to have had
the intended effect of calming volatility in the market without causing
harm. As detailed above, after studying a variety of metrics concerning
opening and reopening auctions, quote volatility, and other factors,
the Exchange concluded that there was no significant difference in the
percentage of securities that opened on a trade versus on a quote for
the four days in March 2020 with MWCB Halts, versus the other periods
studied. In addition, while the post-MWCB Halt reopening auctions were
smaller than typical opening auctions, the size of those post-MWCB Halt
reopening auctions plus the earlier initial opening auctions in those
symbols was on average equal to opening auctions in January 2020. The
Exchange believes this indicates that the MWCB Halts on the four March
2020 days did not cause liquidity to evaporate. Finally, the Exchange
observes that while quote volatility was generally higher on the four
days in March 2020 with MWCB Halts as compared to the other periods
studied, quote volatility stabilized following the MWCB Halts at levels
similar to the January 2020 levels, and LULD Trading Pauses worked as
designed to address any additional volatility later in the day. From
this evidence, the Exchange concludes that the Pilot Rules actually
calmed volatility on the four MWCB Halt days in March 2020, without
causing liquidity to evaporate or otherwise harming the market. As
such, the Exchange believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest.
    The Exchange believes that that making the Pilot Rules permanent
without any changes would benefit market participants, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest, because the current design
of the MWCB mechanism as set out in the Pilot Rules remains
appropriate. As detailed above, the Exchange considered whether SPX
should be replaced as the reference value, whether the current trigger
levels (7%/13%/20%) and halt times (15 minutes for Level 1 and 2 halts)
should be modified, and whether changes should be made to prevent the
market from halting shortly after the opening of regular trading hours
at 9:30 a.m., and concluded that the MWCB mechanism set out in the
Pilot Rules remains appropriate, for the reasons cited above. The
Exchange believes that public confidence in the MWCB mechanism would be
enhanced by the Pilot Rules being made permanent without any changes,
given investors' familiarity with the Pilot Rules and their successful
functioning in March 2020.
    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (e) regarding MWCB
testing is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest. The Working Group recommended that
all cash equities exchanges adopt a rule requiring all designated
Regulation SCI firms to participate in MWCB testing and to attest to
their participation. The Exchange believes that these requirements
would promote the stability of the markets and enhance investor
confidence in the MWCB mechanism and the protections that it provides
to the markets and to investors. The Exchange further believes that
requiring firms participating in a MWCB test to identify any inability
to process messages pertaining to such MWCB test would contribute to a
fair and orderly market by flagging potential issues that should be
corrected. The Exchange would preserve such attestations pursuant to
its obligations to retain books and records of the Exchange.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (f) would benefit
market participants, promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest. Having the MWCB Working Group review any halt
triggered under Rule 7.12E and prepare a report of its analysis and
recommendations would permit the Exchange, along with other market
participants and the Commission, to evaluate such event and determine
whether any modifications should be made to Rule 7.12E in the public
interest. Preparation of such a report within 6 months of the event

would permit the Exchange, along with the MWCB Working Group,
sufficient time to analyze such halt and prepare their recommendations.
    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (g) would benefit
market participants, promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest. Having the MWCB Working Group review instances of a
Market Decline of more than 5% or an SRO implementing a rule that
changes its reopening process following a MWCB Halt would allow the
MWCB Working Group to identify situations where it recommends that Rule
7.12E be modified in the public interest. In such situations where the
MWCB Working Group recommends that a modification should be made to
Rule 7.12E, the MWCB Working Group would prepare a report that
documents its analysis and recommendations and provide that report to
the Commission, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system while
protecting investors and the public interest.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change is consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
intended to address competition, but rather, makes permanent the
current MWCB Pilot Rules for the protection of the markets. The
Exchange believes that making the current MWCB Pilot Rules permanent
would have no discernable burden on competition at all, since the Pilot
Rules have already been in effect since 2012 and would be made
permanent without any changes. Moreover, because the MWCB mechanism
contained in the Pilot Rules requires all exchanges and all market
participants to cease trading at the same time, making the Pilot Rules
permanent would not provide a competitive advantage to any exchange or
any class of market participants.
    Further, the Exchange understands that the other SROs will submit
substantively identical proposals to the Commission. Thus, the proposed
rule change will help to ensure consistency across SROs without
implicating any competitive issues.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\23\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \24\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\25\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange asked
that the Commission waive the 30 day operative delay so that the
proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the
30-day operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately provide
the protections included in this proposal in the event of a MWCB halt,
which is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \26\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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 such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \27\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-17. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions.

    You should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-
17 and should be submitted on or before April 27, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07184 Filed 4-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P