[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9402-9404]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03432]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 375

[Docket No. RM14-5-000; Order No. 795]

Delegation of Authority Regarding Consideration of Notice of
Penalty

AGENCY:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  The Commission issues this Final Rule to revise its
regulations to delegate authority to the Director of the Commission's
Office of Electric Reliability to issue orders extending the period of
time for consideration of Notices of Penalty filed by the Electric
Reliability Organization. In addition, this Final Rule revises the
Commission's regulations to remove the same authority, and certain
related authority, that is currently delegated to the Director of the
Commission's Office of Enforcement. These revisions are necessary to
enable the Commission to process routine, non-controversial Notices of
Penalty in a timely and efficient manner.

DATES: Effective Date: This Rule will become effective February 19,
2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Vlissides, Office of the
General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Cheryl A. LaFleur, Acting Chairman; Philip D.
Moeller, John R. Norris, and Tony Clark.

Final Rule

(Issued February 11, 2014)

    1. The Commission issues this Final Rule to revise its delegations
of authority to allow for the efficient and timely processing of
Notices of Penalty (Notices) issued by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO). Specifically, this Final Rule delegates
authority to the Director of the Office of Electric Reliability to
issue orders extending the period of time for consideration of Notices
filed by the ERO. This Final Rule removes the same authority currently
delegated to the Director of the Office of Enforcement to extend the
period of time to consider Notices. This Final Rule also removes the
authority delegated to the Director of the Office of Enforcement to
direct NERC or applicable Regional Entities to submit information when
necessary to process Notices without the need for Commission action.

I. Background

    2. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 added section 215 to the Federal
Power Act (FPA), which requires a Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization to develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval.\1\
Pursuant to FPA section 215(e)(1), the ERO may impose a penalty on a
user, owner or operator of the Bulk-Power System for a violation of a
Reliability Standard approved by the Commission. Pursuant to FPA
section 215(e)(4), the Commission authorized NERC, in its capacity as
the ERO, to delegate authority to impose such penalties to eight
Regional Entities through Commission-approved Delegation Agreements.
Under FPA section 215(e), NERC must file each Notice with the
Commission. The penalty is subject to Commission review upon its own
motion or upon application by the entity subject to the proposed
penalty within 30 days. If no review is sought or initiated, the
penalty takes effect by operation of law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Order No. 728, the Commission determined that, in many cases
involving the assessment of zero dollar penalties, Notices could be
processed without a Commission vote.\2\ Previously, when the Commission
received a Notice, it was analyzed within thirty days by staff from the
Office of Enforcement, the Office of Electric Reliability, and the
Office of General Counsel, who then recommended to the Commission
whether the Notice should become

effective by operation of law. The Commission would conduct a vote and,
if it decided that no further action was warranted, the Commission
instructed the Secretary to issue a public notice to that effect. In
Order No. 728, the Commission stated that, in proceedings involving
non-controversial zero dollar penalties, a Notice could be processed
more efficiently by allowing the Secretary, without a formal Commission
vote, to issue a notice indicating that the Commission will take no
further action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Delegations for Notices of Penalty, Order No. 728, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,298, at P 5 (2009) (cross-referenced at 129 FERC
] 61,094 (2009)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In Order No. 728, the Commission delegated authority to the
Director of the Office of Enforcement to direct NERC or applicable
Regional Entities to submit further information on a Notice where the
Commission did not have sufficient information to reach a decision on
the Notice. The Commission also delegated to the Director of the Office
of Enforcement the authority to extend the period of time to consider
Notices for the purpose of obtaining additional information from NERC
and Regional Entities. Sections 375.311(u) and (v) of the Commission's
regulations delegate these authorities to the Director of the Office of
Enforcement. Order No. 728 also stated a policy that ``Notices will not
need a formal Commission vote only in zero dollar penalty cases that do
not raise significant concerns or other issues,'' and specified various
types of issues that would still require a formal Commission vote.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Order No. 728, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,298 at P 8 (cross-
referenced at 129 FERC ] 61,094).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    5. The Commission believes that its internal processes will be more
efficient if the Office of Electric Reliability is the lead office for
reviewing and processing Notices. Accordingly, this Final Rule revises
the delegations to the Director of the Office of Electric Reliability
and Director of the Office of Enforcement. Specifically, this Final
Rule transfers the authority to extend the period of time to consider
Notices for the purpose of obtaining additional information, which is
currently delegated to the Director of the Office of Enforcement in
section 375.311(v) of the Commission's regulations, to the Director of
the Office of Electric Reliability. In addition, this Final Rule
removes the related authority delegated to the Director of the Office
of Enforcement to require NERC or applicable Regional Entities to
provide information necessary to review and process Notices, which is
currently delegated in section 375.311(u) of the Commission's
regulations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As discussed in Order No. 728, the Director of the Office of
Electric Reliability already possesses this delegated authority.
Order No. 728, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,298 at P 6 (cross-referenced
at 129 FERC ] 61,094).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. New section 375.303(a)(2)(vi) delegates to the Director of the
Office of Electric Reliability the authority to extend the period of
time to review Notices.

III. Information Collection Statement

    7. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB to
approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency
rule.\5\ This Final Rule contains no new or revised information
collections. Therefore, OMB review of this Final Rule is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 5 CFR part 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Environmental Analysis

    8. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\6\ Excluded
from this requirement are rules that are procedural, ministerial, or
internal administrative and management actions, programs or
decisions.\7\ This Final Rule falls within this exception;
consequently, no environmental consideration is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \7\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    9. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \8\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This Final Rule concerns a matter of internal agency procedure and it
will not have such an impact. An analysis under the RFA is therefore
not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

    10. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    11. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document
(i.e., the sub docket number, 000) in the docket number field.
    12. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    13. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional review
of Final Rules do not apply to this Final Rule because the rule
concerns internal agency procedure and practice and will not
substantially affect the rights of non-agency parties.
    14. These regulations are effective on February 19, 2014. The
Commission finds that notice and public comments are unnecessary
because this Final Rule concerns only internal agency procedure and
practice. Therefore the Commission finds good cause to waive the notice
period otherwise required before the effective date of this Final Rule.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 375

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Seals and insignia,
Sunshine Act.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 375,
chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 375--THE COMMISSION

0
1. The authority citation for part 375 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16
U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. In Sec.  375.303 add paragraph (a)(2)(vi) to read as follows:

Sec.  375.303  Delegations to the Director of the Office of Electric
Reliability.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) Issue an order extending the period of time for consideration
of a Notice of Penalty filed under Section

215(e) of the Federal Power Act for the purpose of directing the
Electric Reliability Organization or the applicable Regional Entity to
provide such information as is necessary to implement Section 215(e)(2)
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(2)) pursuant to Sec.  39.2
and Part 40 of this chapter.
* * * * *

Sec.  375.311  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  375.311 remove paragraphs (u) and (v).

[FR Doc. 2014-03432 Filed 2-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53195-53196]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21511]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2512-000]

H.A. Wagner 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 H.A. Wagner LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate schedule, 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 September 17, 2012.
    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
14 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(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for 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: August 27, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21511 Filed 8-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10350-10355]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05215]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85316; File No. SR-EMERALD-2019-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
System Connectivity Fees

March 14, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 1, 2019, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' or ``Exchange''),
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Emerald Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to adopt the Exchange's system
connectivity fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald, at MIAX's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule regarding
connectivity to the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
amend Sections 5(a) and (b) of the Fee Schedule to adopt the network
connectivity fees for the 1 Gigabit (``Gb'') fiber connection and the
10Gb ultra-low latency (``ULL'') fiber connection, which are charged to
both Members \3\ and non-Members of the Exchange for connectivity to
the Exchange's primary/secondary facility. The Exchange also proposes
to adopt network connectivity fees for the 1Gb and 10Gb fiber
connections for connectivity to the Exchange's disaster recovery
facility. Each of these

connections (with the exception of the 10Gb ULL) are shared connections
(collectively, the ``Shared Connections''), and thus can be utilized to
access the Exchange and both of the Exchange's affiliates, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'') and MIAX
PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL''). The 10Gb ULL connection is a dedicated
connection (``Dedicated Connection''), which provides network
connectivity solely to the trading platforms, market data systems, and
test system facilities of MIAX Emerald. These proposed fees are
collectively referred to herein as the ``Proposed Fees.'' The amounts
of the Proposed Fees for the Shared Connections are the same amounts
that are currently in place at MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL.\4\ While
the Exchange is new and only launching trading on March 1, 2019, since:
(i) All of the Proposed Fees (except for the fee relating to the 10Gb
ULL connection) relate to Shared Connections, and thus are the same
amounts as are currently in place at MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL; (ii)
all of the Members of MIAX Emerald are also members of either MIAX
Options and/or MIAX PEARL, and most of those Members already have
connectivity to the Exchange via existing Shared Connections (without
paying any new incremental connectivity fees), the Exchange is
providing similar information to that which was provided in the MIAX
and PEARL Fee Filings, including providing detail about the market
participants impacted by the Proposed Fees, as well as the costs
incurred by the Exchange associated with providing the connectivity
alternatives, in order to provide transparency and support relating to
the Exchange's belief that the Proposed Fees are reasonable, equitable,
and non-discriminatory, and to provide sufficient information for the
Commission to determine that the Proposed Fees are consistent with the
Act. The proposed rule change is immediately effective upon filing with
the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ See SR-MIAX-2019-10 and SR-PEARL-2019-08 (the ``MIAX and
PEARL Fee Filings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to offer to both Members and non-Members
various bandwidth alternatives for connectivity to the Exchange, to its
primary and secondary facilities, consisting of a 1Gb fiber connection
and a 10Gb ULL fiber connection. The 10Gb ULL offering uses an ultra-
low latency switch, which provides faster processing of messages sent
to it in comparison to the switch used for the other types of
connectivity. The Exchange also proposes to offer to both Members and
non-Members various bandwidth alternatives for connectivity to the
Exchange, to its disaster recovery facility, consisting of a 1Gb fiber
connection and a 10Gb connection.
    For the Shared Connections, the Exchange's MIAX Express Network
Interconnect (``MENI'') can be configured to provide Members and non-
Members of the Exchange network connectivity to the trading platforms,
market data systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities of
the Exchange and its affiliates, MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL, via a
single, shared connection. Any Member or non-Member can purchase a
Shared Connection.
    For the Dedicated Connection, the Exchange's MENI is configured to
provide Members and non-Members of the Exchange network connectivity to
the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems, and disaster
recovery facilities of the Exchange. Any Member or non-Member can
purchase a Dedicated Connection. The Exchange determined to design its
network architecture in a manner that offered 10Gb ULL connections as
dedicated connections (as opposed to shared connections) in order to
provide cost saving opportunities for itself and for its Members, by
reducing the amount of equipment that the Exchange would have to
purchase and to which the Members would have to connect.
    For the Shared Connections, Members and non-Members utilizing the
MENI to connect to the trading platforms, market data systems, test
systems and disaster recovery facilities of the Exchange, MIAX Options,
and MIAX PEARL via a single, shared connection are assessed only one
monthly network connectivity fee per connection, regardless of the
trading platforms, market data systems, test systems, and disaster
recovery facilities accessed via such connection. Thus, since all of
the Members of MIAX Emerald are also members of either MIAX Options
and/or MIAX PEARL, and most of those Members already have connectivity
to the Exchange via existing Shared Connections, most Members of MIAX
Emerald have instant connectivity to the Exchange without paying any
new incremental connectivity fees, as more fully-detailed below.
    The Exchange proposes to establish the monthly network connectivity
fees for such connections for both Members and non-Members. As
discussed above, the amounts of the Proposed Fees for the Shared
Connections are the same amounts that are currently in place at MIAX
Options and MIAX PEARL. The amount of the Proposed Fee for the
Dedicated Connection is offered at a substantial discount to the amount
currently in place at MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL. The reason for the
substantial discount is that the Dedicated Connection offers access to
only a single market (the Exchange), whereas the 10Gb ULL connection
offered by MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL offers access to two markets
(MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL). The network connectivity fees for
connectivity to the Exchange's primary/secondary facility will be as
follows: (a) 1,400 for the 1Gb connection; and (b) $6,000 for the 10Gb
ULL connection. The network connectivity fees for connectivity to the
Exchange's disaster recovery facility will be as follows: (a) $550 for
the 1Gb connection; and (b) $2,750 for the 10Gb connection.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among Exchange Members and issuers and other persons
using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls.
The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ 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 and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customer, issuers,
brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, in that the Proposed Fees are fair,
equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory, because the fees for the
connectivity alternatives available on the Exchange, as proposed, are
competitive and market-driven. The U.S. options markets are highly
competitive (there are currently 16 options markets) and a reliance on
competitive markets is an appropriate means to ensure equitable and
reasonable prices.
    The Exchange acknowledges that there is no regulatory requirement
that any market participant connect to the Exchange, or that any
participant

connect at any specific connection speed. The rule structure for
options exchanges are, in fact, fundamentally different from those of
equities exchanges. The Exchange further recognizes that the decision
of whether to connect to the Exchange is separate and distinct from the
decision of whether and how to trade on the Exchange. The Exchange
acknowledges that many firms may choose to connect to the Exchange, but
ultimately not trade on it.
    The Exchange,\8\ MIAX Options,\9\ and MIAX PEARL \10\ are comprised
of 41 distinct members amongst all three exchanges, excluding any
additional affiliates of such members that are also members of the
Exchange, MIAX Options, MIAX PEARL, or any combination thereof. Of
those 41 distinct members, 28 of those distinct members are Members of
MIAX Emerald. (Currently, there are no Members of MIAX Emerald that are
not also members of MIAX Options or MIAX PEARL, or both.) Of those 28
distinct Members of MIAX Emerald, there are 6 Members that have no
connectivity to the Exchange. Members are not forced to purchase
connectivity to the Exchange, and these Members have elected not to
purchase such connectivity. Of note, these same 6 Members also do not
have connectivity to either MIAX Options or MIAX PEARL. These Members
either trade indirectly through other Members or non-Members that have
connectivity to the Exchange, or do not trade and conduct another type
of business on the Exchange. Of the remaining 22 distinct Members of
MIAX Emerald, all 22 of those distinct Members already had connectivity
to the Exchange via existing Shared Connections, thus providing all
such 22 MIAX Emerald Members with instant connectivity to the Exchange
without paying any new incremental connectivity fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange has 28 distinct Members, excluding affiliated
entities. See MIAX Emerald Exchange Member Directory, available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com.
    \9\ MIAX Options has 38 distinct Members, excluding affiliated
entities. See MIAX Options Exchange Member Directory, available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com.
    \10\ MIAX PEARL has 36 distinct Members, excluding affiliated
entities. See MIAX PEARL Exchange Member Directory, available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, of those 22 Members, 14 of such Members elected to
purchase additional connectivity to the Exchange, including additional
Shared Connections and additional Dedicated Connections. The Exchange
made available in advance to all of its prospective Members its
proposed connectivity pricing (subject to regulatory clearance), in
order for those prospective Members to make an informed decision about
whether to become a Member of the Exchange and whether to purchase
connectivity to the Exchange. Accordingly, each such Member made the
decision to become a Member of the Exchange and to purchase
connectivity to the Exchange, knowing in advance the connectivity
pricing. And the vast majority of the additional connectivity purchased
by those Members were for Dedicated Connections, the most expensive
connectivity option.
    As a result, of those 22 Members, through existing Shared
Connections, newly purchased Shared Connections, and newly purchased
Dedicated Connections: 14 Members have 1Gb (primary/secondary)
connections; 13 Members have 10Gb ULL (primary/secondary) connections;
3 Members have 10Gb (disaster recovery) connections; and 10 Members
have 1Gb (disaster recovery) connections, or some combination of
multiple various connections. The Exchange expects that all such
Members with those Shared Connections and Dedicated Connections will
trade on MIAX Emerald.
    The 6 Members who have not purchased any connectivity to the
Exchange are still able to trade on the Exchange indirectly through
other Members or non-Member service bureaus that are connected. These 6
Members who have not purchased connectivity are not forced or compelled
to purchase connectivity, and they retain all of the other benefits of
membership with the Exchange. Accordingly, Members have the choice to
purchase connectivity and are not compelled to do so in any way.
    In addition, there are 5 non-Member service bureaus that already
have connectivity to the Exchange via existing Shared Connections, thus
providing all 5 of those non-Member service bureaus with instant
connectivity to the Exchange without paying any new incremental
connectivity fees. These non-Members freely purchased their
connectivity from one of the Exchange's affiliates, either MIAX Options
or MIAX PEARL, in order to offer trading services to other firms and
customers, as well as access to the market data services that their
connections to the Exchange provide them, but they are not required or
compelled to purchase any of the Exchange's connectivity options.
    The Exchange is launching trading on March 1, 2019. Thus, at the
time that the 14 Members who elected to purchase connectivity to the
Exchange, the Exchange was untested and unproven, and had 0% market
share of the U.S. options industry. For all of 2018, the Exchange's
affiliate, MIAX Options, had only 4.39% market share of the U.S.
options industry in 2018 in Equity/ETF classes according to the
OCC.\11\ For all of 2018, the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX PEARL, had
only 4.82% market share of the U.S. options industry in Equity/ETF
classes according to the OCC.\12\ The Exchange is aware of no evidence
that a combined market share less than 10% provides the Exchange with
anti-competitive pricing power. Certainly, an untested and unproven
exchange, with 0% market share, and no rule or requirement that a
market participant must join or connect to it, does not have anti-
competitive pricing power, with respect to setting the pricing for the
Dedicated Connections or the Shared Connections. If the Exchange were
to attempt to establish unreasonable connectivity pricing, then no
market participant would join or connect. Therefore, since 28 distinct
Members joined MIAX Emerald and 14 of those distinct Members purchased
additional connectivity to the Exchange, all knowing, in advance, the
connectivity fees, the Exchange believes the Proposed Fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Exchange Market Share of Equity Products--2018, The
Options Clearing Corporation, available at https://www.theocc.com/webapps/exchange-volume.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately, the Exchange knows of no reason why market participants
could not simply drop their connections and cease being Members of the
Exchange if the Exchange were to establish unreasonable and
uncompetitive price increases for its connectivity alternatives. No
options market participant is required by rule, regulation, or
competitive forces to be a Member of the Exchange. Several market
participants choose not to be Members of the Exchange and choose not to
access the Exchange, and several market participants are proposing to
access the Exchange indirectly through another market participant. To
illustrate, the Exchange has only 34 total Members (including all such
Members' affiliate Members). However, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'')
has over 200 members,\13\ Nasdaq ISE, LLC has

approximately 100 members,\14\ and NYSE American LLC has over 80
members.\15\ If all market participants were required to be Members of
the Exchange and connect directly to the Exchange, the Exchange would
have over 200 Members, in line with Cboe's total membership. But it
does not. The Exchange only has 34 Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Form 1/A, filed August 30, 2018 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/1800/18002831.pdf); Form 1/A, filed August 30,
2018 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/1800/18002833.pdf);
Form 1/A, filed July 24, 2018 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/1800/18002781.pdf); Form 1/A, filed August 30, 2018 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1473845/999999999718007832/9999999997-18-007832-index.htm).
    \14\ See Form 1/A, filed July 1, 2016 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/1601/16019243.pdf).
    \15\ See https://www.nyse.com/markets/american-options/membership#directory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, since there are 41 distinct members amongst all three
exchanges, and only 28 of those distinct members decided to become
Members of MIAX Emerald, there were 13 distinct members that decided
not to become Members of MIAX Emerald. This further reinforces the fact
that all market participants are not required to be Members of the
Exchange and are not required to connect to the Exchange. It is a
choice whether to join and it is a choice to connect. Therefore, the
Exchange believes that the Proposed Fees are fair, equitable, and non-
discriminatory, as the fees are competitive.
    With respect to the now MIAX Emerald Members that had Shared
Connections in place as of August 1, 2018 (via a previously purchased
Shared Connection from MIAX Options or MIAX PEARL), the Exchange finds
it compelling that all of those Members continued to purchase those
Shared Connections after August 1, 2018, when MIAX Options and MIAX
PEARL increased the connectivity fees for the Shared Connections to the
current amounts proposed by the Exchange herein. In particular, the
Exchange believes that the Proposed Fees for the Shared Connections are
reasonable because MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL, which charge the same
amount for the Shared Connections, did not lose any Members (or the
number of Shared Connections each Member purchased) or non-Member
Shared Connections when MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL proposed to
increase the connectivity fees for the Shared Connections on August 1,
2018. For example, with respect to the Shared Connections maintained by
now Members of MIAX Emerald who had Shared Connections in place as of
July 2018, 12 Members purchased 1Gb connections. The vast majority of
those Members purchased multiple such connections, the number of
connections depending on their throughput requirements based on the
volume of their quote/order traffic associated with their business
model. After the fee increase, beginning August 1, 2018, the same 12
Members purchased 1Gb connections. Furthermore, the total number of
connections did not decrease from July to August.
    Further, with respect to the Shared Connections maintained by now
Members of MIAX Emerald who had Shared Connections in place as of July
2018, of those Members and non-Members that bought multiple
connections, no firm dropped any connections beginning August 1, 2018,
when MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL increased its fees. Furthermore, the
Exchange understands that MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL did not receive
any official comment letters or complaints from any now Members of MIAX
Emerald who had Shared Connections in place as of July 2018 regarding
the increased fees regarding how the change was unreasonable, unduly
burdensome, or would negatively impact their competitiveness amongst
other market participants. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the
Proposed Fees are fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory, as the fees
are competitive.
    The Exchange believes that the Proposed Fees are equitably
allocated among Members and non-Members, as evidenced by the fact that
the fees are allocated across all connectivity alternatives, and there
is not a disproportionate number of Members purchasing any
alternative--14 Members have 1Gb (primary/secondary) connections; 13
Members have 10Gb ULL (primary/secondary) connections; 3 Members have
10Gb (disaster recovery) connections; and 10 Members have 1Gb (disaster
recovery) connections, or some combination of multiple various
connections.
    Second, the Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because the Proposed Fees allow the Exchange
to recover a portion (less than all) of the costs incurred by the
Exchange associated with providing and maintaining the necessary
hardware and other infrastructure to support this technology. The
Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to establish
its fees charged for use of its connectivity at a level that will
partially offset the costs to the Exchange associated with maintaining
and enhancing a state-of-the-art exchange network infrastructure in the
U.S. options industry.
    The costs associated with making the network accessible to Exchange
Members and non-Members, through the expansion associated with new
Shared Connections and Dedicated Connections, as well as the general
expansion of a state-of-the-art infrastructure, are extensive, have
increased year-over-year in the past two years, and are projected to
increase year-over-year in the future. This is due to several factors,
including costs associated with maintaining and expanding a team of
highly-skilled network engineers, fees charged by the Exchange's third-
party data center operator, and costs associated with projects and
initiatives designed to improve overall network performance and
stability, through the Exchange's R&D efforts.
    In order to provide more detail and to quantify the Exchange's
costs, the Exchange notes that costs are associated with the
infrastructure and headcount to fully-support the advances in
infrastructure and expansion of network level services, including
customer monitoring, alerting and reporting. The Exchange incurs
technology expenses related to establishing and maintaining Information
Security services, monitoring and remediation, as well as Regulation
SCI mandated processes, associated with its network technology.
Additionally, the Exchange incurred costs in the expansion/buildout of
the network leading up to the launch of operations, and the network
maintenance costs continue to increase year-over-year. For example,
since the initial phases of the buildout of the Exchange over two years
ago, with respect to the network, there has been an approximate 70%
increase in technology-related personnel costs in infrastructure, due
to expansion of services/support; an approximate 10% increase in
datacenter costs due to price increases and footprint expansion; an
approximate 5% increase in vendor-supplied dark fiber due to price
increases and expanded capabilities; and a 30% increase in market data
connectivity fees. There was also significant capital expenditures over
this same period to upgrade and enhance the underlying technology
components. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate
to establish its fees charged for use of its connectivity at a level
that will partially offset the costs to the Exchange associated with
the buildout, maintenance, and enhancement of its network
infrastructure.
    Further, because the costs of operating a data center are
significant and not economically feasible for the Exchange, the
Exchange does not operate its own data centers, and instead contracts
with a third-party data center provider. The

Exchange notes that larger, dominant exchange operators own/operate
their data centers, which offers them greater control over their data
center costs. Because those exchanges own and operate their data
centers as profit centers, the Exchange is subject to additional costs.
    Further, the Exchange invests significant resources in network R&D
to improve the overall performance and stability of its network. For
example, the Exchange has a number of network monitoring tools (some of
which were developed in-house, and some of which are licensed from
third-parties), that continually monitor, detect, and report network
performance, many of which serve as significant value-adds to the
Exchange's Members and enable the Exchange to provide a high level of
customer service. These tools detect and report performance issues, and
thus enable the Exchange to proactively notify a Member (and the SIPs)
when the Exchange detects a problem with a Member's connectivity. The
Exchange also incurs costs associated with the maintenance and
improvement of existing tools and the development of new tools.
    Certain recently developed network aggregation and monitoring tools
provide the Exchange with the ability to measure network traffic with a
much more granular level of variability. This is important as Exchange
Members demand a higher level of network determinism and the ability to
measure variability in terms of single digit nanoseconds. Also, routine
R&D projects to improve the performance of the network's hardware
infrastructure result in additional cost. As an example, in the last
year, R&D efforts resulted in a performance improvement, requiring the
purchase of new equipment to support that improvement, and thus
resulting in increased costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars
range. In sum, the costs associated with maintaining and enhancing a
state-of-the-art exchange network infrastructure in the U.S. options
industry is a significant expense for the Exchange that also increases
year-over-year, and thus the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to
offset a portion of those costs through establishing network
connectivity fees, as proposed herein. Overall, the Proposed Fees are
projected to offset only a portion of the Exchange's network
connectivity costs.
    The Exchange also believes its proposal to offer 10Gb ULL
connections as dedicated connections furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \16\ 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 and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customer, issuers,
brokers and dealers. In particular, for the Dedicated Connection, the
Exchange's MENI is configured to provide Members and non-Members of the
Exchange network connectivity to the trading platforms, market data
systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities of the
Exchange. Any Member or non-Member can purchase a Dedicated Connection.
The Exchange determined to design its network architecture in a manner
that offered 10Gb ULL connections as dedicated connections (as opposed
to shared connections) in order to provide cost saving opportunities
for itself and for its Members, by reducing the amount of equipment
that the Exchange would have to purchase and to which the Members would
have to connect. A dedicated 10Gb ULL connection does not offer any
unfair advantage over a shared 10GB ULL connection, as is being offered
solely as a cost-saving measure to the Exchange and its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that other exchanges have similar connectivity
alternatives for their participants, including similar low-latency
connectivity. For example, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``Arca''), NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') and Nasdaq ISE, LLC
(``ISE'') all offer a 1Gb, 10Gb and 10Gb low latency ethernet
connectivity alternatives to each of their participants.\17\ The
Exchange further notes that Phlx, ISE, Arca and NYSE American each
charge higher rates for such similar connectivity to primary and
secondary facilities,\18\ however the Exchange also notes that the
Exchange's 10Gb ULL connection is dedicated solely to one market (the
Exchange) whereas the Exchange believes that other exchanges offer a
shared 10Gb ULL connection to multiple markets. Additionally, the
Exchange's proposed connectivity fees to its disaster recovery facility
are within the range of the fees charged by other exchanges for similar
connectivity alternatives.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Phlx and ISE Rules, General Equity and Options Rules,
General 8, Section 1(b). Phlx and ISE each charge a monthly fee of
$2,500 for each 1Gb connection, $10,000 for each 10Gb connection and
$15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra connection, which the equivalent of the
Exchange's 10Gb ULL connection. See also NYSE American Fee Schedule,
Section V.B, and Arca Fees and Charges, Co-Location Fees. NYSE
American and Arca each charge a monthly fee of $5,000 for each 1Gb
circuit, $14,000 for each 10Gb circuit and $22,000 for each 10Gb LX
circuit, which the equivalent of the Exchange's 10Gb ULL connection.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ See Nasdaq ISE, Options Rules, Options 7, Pricing Schedule,
Section 11.D. (charging $3,000 for disaster recovery testing &
relocation services); see also Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') Fees
Schedule, p. 14, Cboe Command Connectivity Charges (charging a
monthly fee of $2,000 for a 1Gb disaster recovery network access
port and a monthly fee of $6,000 for a 10Gb disaster recovery
network access port).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    MIAX Emerald does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, the Exchange has
received no official comment letters or complaints from Members or
others who connect to it that its Proposed Fees are negatively
impacting or would negatively impact their abilities to compete with
other market participants. Further, the Exchange is unaware of any
assertion that its Proposed Fees would somehow unduly impair its
competition with other options exchanges. To the contrary, if the fees
charged are deemed too high by market participants, they can simply
disconnect.
    While the Exchange recognizes the distinction between connecting to
an exchange and trading at the exchange, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive options market in which market
participants can readily connect and trade with venues they desire. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to
remain competitive with other exchanges. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes reflect this competitive environment.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \21\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the

Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EMERALD-2019-11 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-EMERALD-2019-11. 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-EMERALD-2019-11 and should be submitted
on or before April 10, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05215 Filed 3-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                       Technical Support Document (TSD)  for the Final Federal Implementation Plan Addressing Regional Ozone Transport for the                 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards                       Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668                                                                                Status of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP Submissions for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS for States Covered by the Final Federal Implementation Plan Addressing Regional Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards                                 Final Rule TSD

Summary On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone national ambient air quality standards (2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm). 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit, within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, state implementation plan (SIP) submissions meeting the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS were due on October 1, 2018. This document describes the status of each CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ("good neighbor") SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for states that are the covered by the final rule. This document describes actions taken by EPA on CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS from these states:   Alabama  Arkansas  California  Illinois  Indiana  Kentucky  Louisiana  Maryland  Michigan  Minnesota  Mississippi  Missouri

 Nevada  New Jersey  New York  Ohio  Oklahoma  Pennsylvania  Texas  Utah  Virginia  West Virginia  Wisconsin

The facts presented in this technical support document (TSD) support EPA's conclusion that it currently has a legal obligation and the legal authority to finalize each of the good neighbor federal implementation plans (FIPs) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the Final Federal Implementation Plan Addressing Regional Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA notes that the timing of final action on several good neighbor SIP submissions addressing the 2015 ozone NAAQS described below met a deadline for final action of January 31, 2023, established in one or more consent decrees. The consent decrees resolved litigation alleging EPA missed statutory deadlines to take final action on good neighbor SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS from various states. Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 20-8232 (S.D.N.Y.) (New York), New York et al. v. Regan, et al., No. 1:21-CV-00252 (S.D.N.Y.) (Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia), and Downwinders at Risk et al. v. Regan, No. 21-cv-03551 (N.D. Cal.) (Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). There are three states that were included in this TSD at proposal but are not included in the final rule and are not included in this final TSD: Delaware, Tennessee, and Wyoming.  On May 1, 2020, EPA published a notice finalizing approval of Delaware's good neighbor SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 85 FR 25307 (May 1, 2020). As the EPA noted in the preamble for this final rule, the Agency is not finalizing the proposed error correction for Delaware.  On September 17, 2018, the state of Tennessee submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA has not taken final action on Tennessee's SIP submission. EPA is subject to a consent decree deadline to take final action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve and partially disapprove the SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS from Tennessee by December 15, 2023. Downwinders at Risk et al. v. Regan, No. 21-cv-03551 (N.D. Cal.).  On January 3, 2019, the state of Wyoming submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA has not taken final action on Wyoming's SIP submission. EPA is subject to a consent decree deadline to take final action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve and partially disapprove the good neighbor SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS from Wyoming by December 15, 2023. Downwinders at Risk et al. v. Regan, No. 21-cv-03551 (N.D. Cal.).

Status of 2015 Ozone NAAQS Transport SIPs for States Covered by the Final Federal Implementation Plan Addressing Regional Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Alabama On June 21, 2022, Alabama submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 87 FR 64412 (October 25, 2022). On October 17, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the June 2022 SIP submission. Id. On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Alabama's SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Alabama addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Arkansas On October 10, 2019, the state of Arkansas submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On February 1, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9798 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Arkansas' good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a good neighbor FIP for the state of Arkansas addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

California On October 1, 2018, the state of California submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On May 15, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of California's good neighbor SIP submission. 87 FR 31443 (May 24, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of California's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023).  Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a good neighbor FIP for the state of California addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Illinois On May 21, 2019, the state of Illinois submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On January 31, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9838 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Illinois' good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a good neighbor FIP for the state of Illinois addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Indiana On November 2, 2018, the state of Indiana submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On January 31, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9838 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Indiana's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Indiana addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Kentucky On January 11, 2019, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On February 3, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9498 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Kentucky's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the Commonwealth of Kentucky addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Louisiana On November 13, 2019, the state of Louisiana submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On February 1, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9798 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Louisiana's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Louisiana addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Maryland On October 16, 2019, the state of Maryland submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On February 7, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9463 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Maryland's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Maryland addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Michigan On March 5, 2019, the state of Michigan submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On January 31, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9838 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Michigan's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Michigan addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Minnesota On October 1, 2018, the state of Minnesota submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On January 31, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9838 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Minnesota's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Minnesota addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS

Mississippi On September 3, 2019, the state of Mississippi submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On February 3, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9545 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Mississippi's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Mississippi addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Missouri On June 10, 2019, the state of Missouri submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On February 9, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9533 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Missouri's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Missouri addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.  The EPA received a second good neighbor SIP submission addressing the 2015 ozone NAAQS from Missouri on November 1, 2022. Although Missouri identified this submission as a "supplement," the EPA noted in a comment letter to Missouri on a draft version of the submission that we view this submission as a separate SIP submission, which does not impact our pre-existing obligation (subject to a court-ordered deadline) to act on Missouri's original June 10, 2019, SIP submission.

Nevada On October 1, 2018, the state of Nevada submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On May 16, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 31485 (May 24, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing disapproval of Nevada's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Nevada addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

New Jersey On May 13, 2019, the state of New Jersey submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On January 31, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9484 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of New Jersey's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of New Jersey addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

New York On September 25, 2018, the state of New York submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On January 31, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9484 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of New York's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of New York addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Ohio On September 28, 2018, the state of Ohio submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On January 31, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9838 (Feb. 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Ohio's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Ohio addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Oklahoma On October 25, 2018, the state of Oklahoma submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On February 1, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9798 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Oklahoma's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Oklahoma addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Pennsylvania On December 5, 2019, EPA issued a finding of failure to submit a complete good neighbor SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 84 FR 66612 (December 5, 2019, effective January 6, 2020). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.  The EPA notes that the Agency is also subject to a consent decree deadline of March 15, 2023, for EPA to (1) promulgate a FIP, (2) approve a SIP, or (3) partially approve a SIP/promulgate a partial FIP for Pennsylvania. Sierra Club, et al. v. Regan, No. 3:22-cv01992-JD (N.D. Cal.).

Texas On August 17, 2018, the state of Texas submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On February 1, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9798 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Texas' good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Texas addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Utah On October 24, 2019, the state of Utah submitted a SIP revision to address the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS (October 2019 SIP submission). On December 5, 2019, the EPA determined that the October 2019 SIP submission was incomplete and issued a finding of failure to submit a complete good neighbor SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the state of Utah. 84 FR 66612 (December 5, 2019, effective January 6, 2020).  On January 29, 2020, the state of Utah submitted another SIP revision to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS (January 2020 SIP submission). On May 16, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the January 2020 SIP submission. 87 FR 31470 (May 24, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Utah's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023).  Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Utah addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.  The EPA notes that the Agency is also subject to a consent decree deadline of March 15, 2023, for EPA to (1) promulgate a FIP, (2) approve a SIP, or (3) partially approve a SIP/promulgate a partial FIP for Utah. Sierra Club, et al. v. Regan, No. 3:22-cv01992-JD (N.D. Cal.).

Virginia On December 5, 2019, EPA issued a finding of failure to submit a complete good neighbor SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the Commonwealth of Virginia. 84 FR 66612 (December 5, 2019, effective January 6, 2020). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the Commonwealth of Virginia addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.  The EPA notes that the Agency is also subject to a consent decree deadline of March 15, 2023, for EPA to (1) promulgate a FIP, (2) approve a SIP, or (3) partially approve a SIP/promulgate a partial FIP for Virginia. Sierra Club, et al. v. Regan, No. 3:22-cv01992-JD (N.D. Cal.).

West Virginia  On February 4, 2019, the state of West Virginia submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On February 7, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9516 (February 22, 2022).  On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of West Virginia's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of West Virginia addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Wisconsin On September 14, 2018, the state of Wisconsin submitted a SIP submission to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On January 31, 2022, EPA signed a notice proposing disapproval of the SIP submission. 87 FR 9838 (February 22, 2022). On January 31, 2023, EPA signed a notice finalizing the disapproval of Wisconsin's good neighbor SIP submission. 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023). Therefore, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Wisconsin addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.