[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12150-12153]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03847]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80090; File No. SR-ISE-2017-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend Rule 715 and Rule 721

February 22, 2017.
    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 February 13, 2017, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 amend Rule 715 (Types of Orders) and Rule
721 (Crossing Orders) to codify its Qualified Contingent Cross
(``QCC'') with Stock Order functionality.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.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 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to codify functionality
currently offered to members--i.e., QCC with Stock Orders. The QCC with
Stock Order is a piece of functionality that facilitates the execution
of stock component of qualified contingent trades. In particular, a QCC
with Stock Order is a QCC Order entered with a stock component to be
communicated to a designated broker-dealer for execution.\3\ QCC with
Stock Orders assist members in maintaining compliance with Exchange
rules regarding the execution of the stock component of qualified
contingent trades, and help maintain an audit trail for surveillance of
members for compliance with such rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Proposed Rule 715(t).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, although the Exchange has rules on QCC Orders, those
rules do not specify how the stock component of such transactions is to
be executed. In particular, those rules do not describe how this
process may be facilitated by the Exchange electronically communicating
the stock component to a designated broker-dealer for execution on the
behalf of the member. The proposed rule change will increase the
transparency of this process to the benefit of members and other market
participants that execute QCC Orders on the Exchange, including those
that use the QCC with Stock Order functionality described in this
filing.
    A QCC Order is comprised of an originating order to buy or sell at
least 1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified
contingent trade,\4\

coupled with a contra-side order or orders totaling an equal number of
contracts. QCC Orders are automatically executed upon entry provided
that the execution (i) is not at the same price as a Priority Customer
Order on the Exchange's limit order book and (ii) is at or between the
national best bid or offer (``NBBO'').\5\ QCC Orders are automatically
canceled if they cannot be executed, and may only be entered in the
regular trading increments applicable to the options class.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 715(j). A ``qualified contingent trade'' is a
transaction consisting of two or more component orders, executed as
agent or principal, where: (a) At least one component is an NMS
Stock, as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange
Act; (b) all components are effected with a product or price
contingency that either has been agreed to by all the respective
counterparties or arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or
agent; (c) the execution of one component is contingent upon the
execution of all other components at or near the same time; (d) the
specific relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread
between the prices of the component orders) is determined by the
time the contingent order is placed; (e) the component orders bear a
derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes
of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of
participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been
announced or cancelled; and (f) the transaction is fully hedged
(without regard to any prior existing position) as a result of other
components of the contingent trade. See Supplementary Material .01
to Rule 715.
    \5\ See Rule 721(b).
    \6\ See Rule 721(b)(1), (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since QCC Orders represent one component of a qualified contingent
trade, each QCC Order must be paired with a stock transaction. When a
member enters a QCC Order, the member is responsible for executing the
associated stock component of the qualified contingent trade within a
reasonable period of time after the QCC Order is executed. The Exchange
conducts surveillance of members to ensure that members execute the
stock component of a qualified contingent trade at or near the same
time as the options component. While the Exchange does not specify how
the member should go about executing the stock component of the trade,
this process is often manual and is therefore a compliance risk for
members if they do not execute the stock component within a reasonable
time period.
    Thus, the Exchange also offers QCC with Stock Orders that
communicate the stock component of a qualified contingent trade to a
broker-dealer for execution in connection with the execution of a QCC
Order on the Exchange. This functionality reduces the compliance burden
on members by providing an automated means of executing the stock
component of a qualified contingent trade, and also provides benefits
for the Exchange's surveillance by providing an audit trail for the
execution of the stock component. QCC with Stock Orders can be entered
by members through the Exchange's front-end order and execution
management system (``PrecISE''), or through the member's Financial
Information eXchange (``FIX'') connection to the Exchange.
    QCC with Stock Orders are available to members on a voluntary
basis. Members that enter QCC with Stock Orders must enter into a
brokerage agreement with one or more broker-dealers designated by the
Exchange.\7\ Currently, three broker-dealers have established
connectivity for executing the stock component of QCC with Stock
Orders. The member must designate a specific broker-dealer on each
order if the member has entered into an agreement with more than
one.\8\ The Exchange does not have any financial arrangement with the
designated broker-dealers with respect to communicating stock orders to
them.\9\ While the Exchange does not charge members a fee for the
execution of the stock component of a QCC with Stock Order,\10\ each
member would be responsible for whatever fees or other charges are
imposed by their designated broker-dealer.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Proposed Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 721.
    \8\ Id. The Exchange does not have any role with respect to
determining where to route the stock component of a QCC with Stock
Order if the member has entered into an agreement with more than one
broker-dealer.
    \9\ Id. The Exchange also represents that the designated broker-
dealers that execute the stock component of QCC with Stock Orders do
not receive other special benefits related to trading on the
Exchange.
    \10\ Members that enter their QCC with Stock Orders through
PrecISE are charged a fee for the use of the front end terminal but
are not charged transaction fees for the execution of the stock
component of the trade.
    \11\ These fees are billed directly by the member's designated
broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Members can enter QCC with Stock Orders with separate prices for
the stock and options components, or with a net price for both.\12\ QCC
Orders may not be executable on entry if priced at the same price as a
Priority Customer Order, or at a price that is outside of the NBBO. The
stock component of a qualified contingent trade, however, is permitted
to trade through the stock NBBO pursuant to an exemption granted by the
Commission from the order protection requirements of Rule 611(a) of
Regulation NMS.\13\ Net priced QCC with Stock Orders reduce the chance
that members miss the market since the Exchange will calculate a price
for the stock and options components that honors the net price of the
package and current market prices, if possible. At the same time, the
Exchange permits members to submit QCC with Stock Orders with separate
stock and options prices for members that want specific prices for each
individual component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Proposed Supplementary Material .01 Rule 721.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54389 (August 31,
2006), 71 FR 52829 (September 7, 2006) (Order Granting an Exemption
for Qualified Contingent Trades From Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS
Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934); 57620 (April 4, 2008),
73 FR 19271 (April 9, 2008) (Order Modifying the Exemption for
Qualified Contingent Trades from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS Under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a member enters a QCC with Stock Order, a QCC Order is entered
on the Exchange.\14\ That QCC Order is automatically executed upon
entry provided that the conditions of Rule 721(b) are met. If the QCC
Order is executed, the Exchange will automatically communicate the
stock component to the member's designated broker-dealer for
execution.\15\ Although QCC Orders are eligible for automatic
execution, it is possible that the QCC Order may not be executable
based on market prices at the time the order is entered. If the QCC
Order is not capable of being executed, the entire QCC with Stock
Order, including both the stock and options components, is
cancelled.\16\ This prevents members from executing the stock component
of a qualified contingent trade where the options component has not
been successfully executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Proposed Rule 721(c)(1).
    \15\ See Proposed Rule 721(c)(2).
    \16\ See Proposed Rule 721(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, it is possible that the member will receive an
execution for the QCC Order but not the stock component communicated to
the broker-dealer. Once the stock component is communicated to the
member's designated broker-dealer for execution, the broker-dealer is
responsible for determining whether the stock component may be executed
in accordance with all of the rules applicable to execution of such
orders. Members that execute the options component of a qualified
contingent trade entered as a QCC with Stock Order remain responsible
for the execution of the stock component if they do not receive an
execution from their designated broker-dealer.\17\ In such cases, the
Exchange will inform the member that the stock component of the trade
has not been executed, and that they must find an alternative means of
executing the stock component. The Exchange conducts surveillance to
ensure that members execute the stock component of their qualified
contingent trades; this surveillance also extends to

QCC with Stock Orders where the options component is successfully
executed but the stock component is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Proposed Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1:
Stock NBBO: $100 x $101
Option NBBO: $1 x $2
    Member submits a QCC with Stock Order buying 1,000 puts and 100,000
shares of stock with a net price of $101.50.
    QCC Order is entered on the Exchange and executed at a price of
$1.50.
    Stock component is routed to member's designed broker-dealer at a
price of $100.
    The stock component is executed successfully, or the member remains
responsible for executing the stock component elsewhere.
Example 2:
Stock NBBO: $100 x $101
Option NBBO: $1 x $2
    Member submits a QCC with Stock Order buying 1,000 puts at $1.99
and 100,000 shares of stock at $100.
    QCC Order is entered on the Exchange and executed at a price of
$1.99.
    Stock component is routed to the member's designed broker-dealer at
a price of $100.
    The stock component is executed successfully, or the member remains
responsible for executing the stock component elsewhere.
Example 3:
Stock NBBO: $100 x $101
ABBO: $1.00 x $1.05
Exchange BBO: $1.00 (Priority Customer) x 1.01 (Priority Customer)
    Member submits a QCC with Stock Order buying 1,000 puts at $1.01
and 100,000 shares of stock at $100.
    QCC Order is entered on the Exchange at a price of $1.01 and is
cancelled due to being at the same price as a Priority Customer order
on the Exchange.
    Because the QCC Order is not successfully executed the entire QCC
with Stock Order is cancelled.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\18\ In
particular, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\19\ because is designed to promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade because it will increase
transparency for members and other market participants with respect to
how the Exchange facilitates the execution of the stock component of
qualified contingent trades. The QCC with Stock Order is an optional
piece of functionality offered to members to communicate the stock
component of a qualified contingent trade to a designated broker-dealer
for execution. Members that do not wish to use QCC with Stock
functionality can enter QCC Orders on the Exchange and separately
execute the stock component of their trades on another venue. Members
can also build their own technology to electronically communicate the
stock component of a qualified contingent trade to a broker-dealer for
execution. QCC with Stock Orders reduce members' compliance burden
because it allows for the automatic submission of the stock component
of a qualified contingent trade in connection with the execution of the
options component(s) as a QCC Order on the Exchange. It also provides
benefits to the Exchange by establishing an audit trail for the
execution of the stock component of such trades within a reasonable
period of time after the execution of the QCC Order. Members remain
responsible for ensuring the execution of the stock component of a
qualified contingent trade. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes that
members have found the QCC with Stock Order functionality useful for
ensuring compliance with the requirement that they execute the stock
component of a qualified contingent trade within a reasonable period of
time after executing the option component(s) on the Exchange as a QCC
Order. The Exchange therefore believes that QCC with Stock Orders are
designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market system, and in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\20\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. QCC with Stock
Orders facilitate member compliance with the requirements associated
with executing QCC Orders on the Exchange, and are not designed to
impose any unnecessary burden on competition. Members are not required
to use QCC with Stock Orders, and can either create similar
functionality, or manually communicate the stock component of their
qualified contingent trades to a broker-dealer for execution. In
addition, QCC with Stock Orders are available to all members either
through the Exchange's PrecISE front end or the member's FIX
connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \21\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has met this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \23\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. In its filing with the Commission,
the Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay. The Exchange states that it currently offers QCC with Stock
Order functionality to aid members in their compliance with qualified
contingent trade obligations, and for the surveillance benefits that
this functionality provides. According to the Exchange, waiving the
operative delay will allow the Exchange to update its rules immediately
to reflect this

functionality, to the benefit of members and other market participants.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The QCC with Stock Order functionality is designed to help ISE members
that choose to use the functionality comply with their qualified
contingent trade obligations in connection with a QCC Order,\24\ as
well as help the Exchange surveil its members for compliance with the
Exchange's rules for QCC Orders. Therefore, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \24\ See supra note 4 and accompanying text.
    \25\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2017-12 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-ISE-2017-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-12 and should be
submitted on or March 21, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03847 Filed 2-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31009]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14280]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 83 FR 29582, 25 Jun
2018.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Thursday, June 28,
2018 at 10:00 a.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The following item will not be considered
during the Open Meeting on Thursday, June 28, 2018:
     Whether the Commission should enter into a revised
memorandum of understanding with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission that would update and supersede the existing regulatory
coordination memorandum of understanding between the two agencies.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 28, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14280 Filed 6-28-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29597-29598]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13586]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81011; File No. SR-FINRA-2017-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To
Reduce the Delay Period for Transactions Included in the Historic TRACE
Data Sets Relating to Corporate and Agency Debt Securities

June 23, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On May 12, 2017, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule 7730 (Trade Reporting and
Compliance Engine (TRACE)) to reduce the minimum delay from 18 months
to six months for transactions included in the Historic TRACE Data Sets
relating to corporate and agency debt securities. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 22,
2017.\3\ The Commission did not receive any comments on the
proposal.\4\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission approving
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80685 (May 16,
2017), 82 FR 23385 (May 22, 2017) (``Notice'').
    \4\ FINRA previously solicited comments on the proposal as
Regulatory Notice 15-24 (June 2015) and received four comments.
Regulatory Notice 15-24 and the related comment letters are
available as Exhibit 2 to the Notice on both FINRA and the SEC's Web
sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    FINRA Rule 7730, among other things, sets forth the TRACE data
products offered by FINRA and the fees applicable to such products. In
addition to a real-time data feed, FINRA offers a Historic Corporate
Bond Data Set, Agency Data Set, Securitized Product Data Set, and Rule
144A Data Set (collectively, the ``Historic TRACE Data'').\5\ The
Historic TRACE Data includes information such as the price, date, time
of execution, yield, and uncapped volume for each transaction occurring
at least 18 months ago.\6\ FINRA originally established this 18-month
delay to address the possibility that the Historic TRACE Data might be
used to identify positions or strategies of market participants.\7\
FINRA has proposed to reduce the delay applicable to transactions
included in the Historic Corporate Bond Data Set and the Historic
Agency Data Set--and Rule 144A transactions in corresponding securities
(together, the ``Corporate and Agency Historic TRACE Data'')--from a

minimum of 18 months to a minimum of six months.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Historic TRACE Data originally included only the
Corporate Bond and Agency Data Sets. The Securitized Product Data
Set and the Rule 144A Data Set were added later as information about
transactions in those securities became subject to public
dissemination. FINRA has stated that additional securities may be
included in Historic TRACE Data as they become subject to public
dissemination.
    \6\ Historic TRACE Data also may include transactions or items
of information that were not previously disseminated, such as exact
trade volumes, where the real-time disseminated amount was capped.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56327 (August 28,
2007), 72 FR 51689, 51690 (September 10, 2007).
    \8\ FINRA has not proposed to change the 18-month delay for
transactions included in the Historic Securitized Product Data Set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has stated that researchers and other non-dealers have been
the primary subscribers to Historic TRACE Data. FINRA has attributed
the lack of usage by dealers to the minimum 18-month delay period for
including transactions in the Corporate and Agency Historic TRACE Data.
FINRA has stated that it is not aware of any complaints regarding
information leakage under the current 18-month delay, and that market
participants have indicated that a reduction in the minimum delay to
six months would make the product more useful.
    FINRA believes that a minimum six-month delay would promote the
goal of increased transparency for transactions in TRACE-Eligible
Securities while continuing to address information leakage concerns.\9\
In support of that belief, FINRA conducted a sampling analysis of past
transactions in both corporate and agency bonds to assess whether
positions or strategies of market participants could be identified if
the Corporate and Agency Historic TRACE Data had included transactions
that were aged only six months.\10\ Based on this analysis, FINRA
concluded that ``the proposed rule, if it had been in place, would have
provided little additional information to the public relative to these
positions'' \11\ and that a reduction of the delay would be ``a limited
risk for smaller issues that are held by a limited number of market
participants.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ FINRA noted that the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'') disseminates in real time the exact par value on all
transactions with a par value of $5 million or less, and includes an
indicator (``MM+'') in place of the exact par value on transactions
where the par value is greater than $5 million until the fifth
business day. MSRB disseminates the exact par value for each
transaction on the fifth day after the transaction. See MSRB Rule G-
14.
    \10\ See Notice, 82 FR 23387-89.
    \11\ Id. at 23388.
    \12\ Id. at 23389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further address concerns about information leakage, FINRA
solicited comment from its members on an earlier iteration of the
proposed rule change.\13\ FINRA received four comment letters and made
certain revisions to its initial proposal to respond to those concerns
before filing the current proposal with the Commission.\14\ The
Commission notes that it has received no comments on the version of the
proposed rule change published by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 4.
    \14\ See Notice, 82 FR at 23389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated that it will announce the effective date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later
than 60 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be
no later than 120 days following publication of the Regulatory Notice.

III. Discussion

    After carefully consideration, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association.\15\ In particular, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Act,\16\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, because the proposed rule change does
not require firms to provide FINRA with any additional data, it will
not have any operational impact on firms. Furthermore, the purchase of
TRACE data products is optional for members and others. Finally, in
light of FINRA's analysis of past transactions in corporate and agency
debt securities and the revisions that FINRA made to its first
iteration of the proposal, the Commission believes that reducing the
period before which transactions in such securities are included in the
Historic TRACE Data from a minimum of 18 months to six months is
reasonably designed to promote transparency and respond to consumer
demand for a more useful market data product, while minimizing the
potential for information leakage.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\17\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2017-012) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13586 Filed 6-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 21614]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08446]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, April
14, 2016 at 1:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Chair White, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed
for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: April 7, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08446 Filed 4-8-16; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 37091-37092]
[DOCID:fr27jy09-103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2009-29]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before August 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2009-
0628, using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan Thor, ANM-113,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356, or Ralen Gao, ARM-209,<PHONE_NUMBER>), Office of Rulemaking
(ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2009.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2009-0628.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 25.809(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner seeks relief for its
Boeing 787 airplanes from the requirement that likely areas of evacuee
ground contact must be viewable during ``all lighting conditions''
before opening an emergency exit.

[FR Doc. E9-17773 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31452]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14521]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0505]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Indian Rocks Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Indian Rocks (SR688) Bridge across
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 128.2, Indian Rocks Beach, FL. The
deviation is necessary to accommodate repairs to the Bridge. This
deviation allows the bridge to open, at requested times, a single leaf,
and with a 6 hour notice for double leaf openings.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from July 6,
2018 through 6 p.m. on July 31, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement,
actual notice will be used from 6 a.m. May 29, 2018, until July 6,
2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0505 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email MST1 Deborah A. Schneller, Coast
Guard Sector Saint Petersburg Waterways Management; telephone (813)
228-2194 x8133, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT),
bridge owner, via Quinn Construction Inc, has requested a temporary
deviation from the operation that governs the Indian Rocks Bridge
across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 128.2. This deviation is
necessary to facilitate mechanical and electrical repairs, painting,
roadway and sidewalk grating replacement which includes concrete
removal, and spall repair. The bridge is a double-leaf bascule bridge
and has a vertical clearance in the closed to navigation position of 21
feet at mean high water.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under
this temporary deviation, the bridge will operate on demand but single
leaf only and with a 6 hour notice for double leaf openings. This
section of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is predominantly used by a
variety of vessels including U.S. government vessels, small commercial
vessels and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully
considered the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this
temporary deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast
Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 25, 2018.
Barry L. Dragon,
Director, Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-14521 Filed 7-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25234-25235]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10803]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-1089-000]

EquiPower Resources Management, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

April 29, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
EquiPower Resources Management, 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 May 19, 2010.
    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 St., 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 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10803 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1680-1683]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00138]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0863; FRL-9250-01-OAR]

Findings of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions
in Response to the 2015 Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Calls To Amend Provisions Applying To Excess Emissions During Periods
of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final action.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to find that 12 States and local air pollution control agencies
failed to submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions required by
the Clean Air Act (CAA) in a timely manner to address EPA's 2015
findings of substantial inadequacy and ``SIP calls'' for provisions
applying to excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM). This action triggers certain CAA deadlines for the
EPA to impose sanctions if a State does not submit a complete SIP
revision addressing the outstanding requirements and to promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if the EPA does not approve the
State's submission as a SIP revision.

DATES: This action is effective February 11, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General questions concerning this
notice should be addressed to, Erin Lowder, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, 109 T.W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; by telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How is the preamble organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. How is the preamble organized?
    B. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)
    C. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?
    D. Where do I go if I have specific air agency questions?
II. Background
III. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit
IV. Findings of Failure To Submit for Air Agencies That Failed To
Make a SIP Submittal To Address EPA's 2015 SIP Calls for Provisions
Applying To Excess Emissions During SSM Periods
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
    M. Judicial Review

B. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds
that notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making this final agency action
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no
significant EPA judgment is involved in making findings of failure to
submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the Clean Air Act (CAA),
where states have made no submissions to meet the requirement. As is
discussed in further detail later, pursuant to CAA section
110(k)(1)(B), the EPA ``shall determine'' no later than 6 months after
the date by which a state is required to submit a SIP whether a state
has made a submission that meets the minimum completeness criteria
established pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(A). EPA exercises no
significant judgment in making a determination that a state failed to
make a submission and subsequently issuing a finding of failure to
submit. Thus, notice and public procedures are unnecessary to take this
action. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B).

C. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0863. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, William Jefferson
Clinton Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public,
with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.
Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number for the
Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-
1742. For further information on EPA Docket Center services and the
current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

D. Where do I go if I have specific air agency questions?

    For questions related to specific air agencies mentioned in this
notice, please contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Regional offices                       Air agencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Region 1: Mr. John Rogan, Chief, Air  Rhode Island.
 Program Branch, EPA Region 1, 5 Post
 Office Square, Boston, MA 02109.
 [email protected].
EPA Region 3: Mr. Mike Gordon, Chief,     District of Columbia.
 Planning and Implementation Branch, EPA
 Region 3, 1650 Arch Street,
 Philadelphia, PA 19103.
 [email protected].

EPA Region 4: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin,       Alabama; North Carolina--
 Chief, Air Planning and Implementation    Forsyth; Tennessee--Shelby
 Branch, EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street   (Memphis).
 SW, Atlanta, GA 30303.
 [email protected].
EPA Region 5: Mr. Doug Aburano, Manager,  Illinois; Ohio.
 Air Program Branch, EPA Region 5, 77
 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL
 60604. [email protected].
EPA Region 6: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief,   Arkansas.
 Air Program Branch, EPA Region 6, 1201
 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75270.
 [email protected].
EPA Region 8: Mr. Scott Jackson, Chief,   South Dakota.
 Air Quality Planning Branch, EPA Region
 8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop
 Street, Denver, CO 80202.
 [email protected].
EPA Region 9: Ms. Doris Lo, Manager,      California--San Joaquin Valley
 Rules Office, Air and Radiation           Air Pollution Control
 Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne      District (APCD).
 Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
 [email protected].
EPA Region 10: Ms. Debra Suzuki, Chief,   Washington--Energy Facility
 Air Program Branch, EPA Region 10, 1200   Site Evaluation Council
 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.          (EFSEC); Washington--
 [email protected].                     Southwest Clean Air Agency
                                           (SWCAA).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On June 12, 2015, the EPA finalized an action (2015 SSM SIP
Action), which clarified, restated, and updated EPA's national policy
regarding SSM provisions in SIPs (2015 Policy).\1\ The 2015 Policy
explained the EPA's interpretation of certain CAA requirements,
affirming that SSM exemption provisions (e.g., automatic exemptions,
discretionary exemptions, and overly broad enforcement discretion
provisions) and affirmative defense SIP provisions are generally viewed
as inconsistent with CAA requirements. At the same time, pursuant to
CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA issued findings of substantial
inadequacy for SIP provisions applying to excess emissions during SSM
periods for 36 states that were applicable in 45 statewide and local
jurisdictions (air agencies).\2\ As part of the 2015 SSM SIP Action,
the EPA also issued a ``SIP call'' (2015 SIP Call) to each of those 45
air agencies. The 2015 SIP Call required air agencies to adopt and
submit revisions to the EPA to correct identified SSM-related
deficiencies in their SIPs by November 22, 2016. The 2015 SSM SIP
Action also responded to a petition for rulemaking alleging specific
deficiencies related to SSM provisions in existing SIPs. On July 27,
2015, the 2015 SSM SIP Action was challenged in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to
SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction, 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015).
    \2\ For convenience, the EPA refers to ``air agencies'' in this
action collectively when meaning to refer in general to states, the
District of Columbia, and local air permitting authorities that are
currently administering, or may in the future administer, EPA-
approved implementation plans.
    \3\ Environ. Comm. Fl. Elec. Power v. EPA, et al., No. 15-1239
(D.C. Cir.) (and consolidated cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2017, the EPA requested that the pending litigation on the final
2015 SSM SIP Action be held in abeyance to allow the new administration
time to review the action. In 2020, Regions 4, 6, and 7 took final
actions that were inconsistent with the 2015 Policy and the EPA
withdrew the corresponding SIP calls previously issued to Texas, North
Carolina, and Iowa. These state-specific actions are the subject of
pending litigation.\4\ Moreover, in alignment with the SIP call
withdrawals for Texas, North Carolina, and Iowa, the EPA issued a
Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which established a new
national policy that permitted the inclusion of certain provisions
governing SSM periods in SIPs, including those related to exemptions
and affirmative defenses. Importantly, the 2020 Memorandum was not a
regulatory action and did not alter or withdraw the 2015 SIP Call for
any of the 45 air agencies identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. The
2020 Memorandum did, however, indicate the EPA's intent at the time to
review the remaining SIP calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action to determine whether the EPA should maintain, modify, or
withdraw particular SIP calls through future agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 20-1115 (D.C. Cir.
Apr. 7, 2020); Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 20-1229 (D.C.
Cir. June 29, 2020); Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 21-1022
(D.C. Cir. January 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2021, the EPA issued a Memorandum (2021
Memorandum) that announced a withdrawal of the 2020 Memorandum and
EPA's intent to return to the 2015 Policy and implement it fully. As
previously articulated in the 2015 Policy, the 2021 Memorandum states
that SSM exemption provisions and affirmative defense provisions
included in SIPs will generally be viewed as inconsistent with CAA
requirements.
    As part of the reinstatement of the 2015 Policy, the EPA intends to
implement the pending SIP calls, which remain in place from the 2015
SSM SIP Action. Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the EPA must
determine no later than 6 months after the date by which a state is
required to submit a SIP whether a state has made a submission that
meets the minimum completeness criteria established pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(1)(A). These criteria are set forth at 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. The EPA refers to the determination that a state has not
submitted a SIP submission that meets the minimum completeness
criteria, or has not submitted a SIP at all, as a ``finding of failure
to submit.''
    For the 2015 SIP Call, as previously discussed, SIP submissions
were due by November 22, 2016. The EPA's determinations of whether air
agencies made submittals were therefore due on May 22, 2017. The EPA
has neither made such determinations nor issued findings of failure to
submit. Accordingly, the EPA is now issuing findings of failure to
submit to the 12 air agencies that, as of the date of this action, had
not submitted SIPs responding to the SIP call: Alabama, Arkansas,
California--San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (APCD),
District of Columbia, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina--Forsyth County,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee--Shelby County, Washington--
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), and Washington--
Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCAA). The EPA also notes that on
September 8, 2021, a group of non-governmental organizations filed suit
in the Northern District of

California alleging that the EPA is in violation of its mandatory duty
to issue findings of failure to submit for those states that have not
yet responded to the 2015 SIP Call.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Sierra Club et al. v. Regan et al., No. 4:21-cv-06956 (N.D.
Cal. Sept 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit

    If the EPA finds that a state has failed to make the required SIP
submittal or that a submitted SIP is incomplete, then CAA section
179(a) establishes specific consequences, after a period of time,
including the imposition of mandatory sanctions under CAA section
179(b) for the affected areas or states. The two applicable sanctions
enumerated in CAA section 179(b) are: (1) The 2-to-1 emission offset
requirement for all new and modified major sources subject to the
nonattainment NSR program, and (2) restrictions on highway funding.
Additionally, a finding that a state has failed to submit a complete
SIP triggers an obligation under CAA section 110(c) for the EPA to
promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years after issuance of the finding of
failure to submit if the affected state has not submitted, and the EPA
has not approved, the required SIP submittal.
    With respect to mandatory sanctions, if the EPA has not
affirmatively determined that a state has made the required complete
SIP submittal within 18 months \6\ of the effective date of this final
action, then, pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31,
the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in
the affected nonattainment area or state. If the EPA has not
affirmatively determined that the state has made the required complete
SIP submittal within 6 months after the offset sanction is imposed,
then the highway funding sanction will apply in the affected
nonattainment area(s), in accordance with CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40
CFR 52.31.\7\ The sanctions will not take effect if, within 18 months
after the effective date of these findings, the EPA affirmatively
determines that the state has made a complete SIP submittal addressing
the deficiency for which the finding was made. Additionally, if the
state makes the required SIP submittal and the EPA takes final action
to approve the submittal within 2 years of the effective date of these
findings, the EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ C.A.A. 110(k)(5).
    \7\ Such highway sanctions would only apply in nonattainment
areas. If a state jurisdictional area does not contain any
nonattainment areas, then the highway sanctions would not apply in
that state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Findings of Failure To Submit for Air Agencies That Failed To Make
a SIP Submittal in Response to EPA's 2015 SIP Call for Provisions
Applying to Excess Emissions During SSM Periods

    Based on a review of SIP submittals received and deemed complete as
of the date of signature of this action, the EPA finds that 12 air
agencies have failed to submit SIP revisions in response to the 2015
SSM SIP Call that were statutorily due no later than November 22, 2016.
These affected air agencies are Alabama, Arkansas, California--San
Joaquin Valley APCD, District of Columbia, Illinois, Ohio, North
Carolina--Forsyth County, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee--Shelby
County, Washington--EFSEC, and Washington--SWCAA.

V. Environmental Justice Considerations

    The purpose of this action is to make findings that the named air
agencies failed to provide the identified SIP submissions to the EPA
that are required under the CAA. As such, this action, in and of
itself, does not adversely affect the level of protection provided for
human health or the environment. Moreover, it is intended that the
actions and deadlines resulting from this notice will promote greater
protection for U.S. citizens, including minority, low-income, or
indigenous populations, by ensuring that air agencies meet their
statutory obligation to develop and submit SIPs to ensure that areas
make progress toward reducing excess emissions during periods of SSM.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Executive Order
13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA. This final action does not establish any new
information collection requirement apart from what is already required
by law. This action relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to
submit SIPs in response to findings of substantial inadequacy under
section 110(k)(5).

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The action
is a finding that the named air agencies have not made the necessary
SIP submission in response to findings of substantial inadequacy under
section 110(k)(5) of the CAA.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments, or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action finds that several air agencies have
failed to submit SIP revisions in response to findings of substantial
inadequacy under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. No tribe is subject to
the requirement to submit an implementation plan under the findings of
inadequacy relevant to this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is a finding that several air agencies failed to submit SIP
revisions

in response to findings of substantial inadequacy under section
110(k)(5) of the CAA and does not directly or disproportionately affect
children.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This final action does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes this action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. In finding
that several air agencies have failed to submit SIP revisions in
response to findings of substantial inadequacy under section 110(k)(5)
of the CAA, this action does not directly affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

M. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of
``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions
taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or
regionally applicable, but ``such action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the
Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a
determination.'' For locally or regionally applicable final actions,
the CAA reserves the EPA complete discretion whether to invoke the
exception in (ii).
    This final action is ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning
of CAA section 307(b)(1). In the alternative, to the extent a court
finds this final action to be locally or regionally applicable, the
Administrator is exercising the complete discretion afforded to him
under the CAA to make and publish a finding that this action is based
on a determination of ``nationwide scope or effect'' within the meaning
of CAA section 307(b)(1).\8\ This final action consists of findings of
failure to submit required SIPs from areas within 10 states and the
District of Columbia, located in 8 of the 10 EPA regions, and in 8
different federal judicial circuits.\9\ This final action is also based
on a common core of factual findings concerning the receipt and
completeness of the relevant SIP submittals. For these reasons, this
final action is nationally applicable or, alternatively, the
Administrator is exercising the complete discretion afforded to him by
the CAA and hereby finds that this final action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA section
307(b)(1) and is hereby publishing that finding in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In deciding whether to invoke the exception by making and
publishing a finding that this final action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect, the Administrator has
also taken into account a number of policy considerations, including
his judgment balancing the benefit of obtaining the D.C. Circuit's
authoritative centralized review versus allowing development of the
issue in other contexts and the best use of Agency resources.
    \9\ In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at
323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 this
final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not
affect the finality of the action 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.

Janet G. McCabe,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-00138 Filed 1-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P