[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80213-80219]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28301]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96574; File No. SR-Phlx-2022-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Modify Equity 4,
Rule 3100 to Establish Common Criteria and Procedures for Halting and
Resuming Trading in Equity Securities in the Event of Regulatory or
Operational Issues

December 22, 2022.
    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 December 15, 2022, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the 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 proposes to modify Equity 4, Rule 3100 to establish
common criteria and procedures for halting and resuming trading in
equity securities in the event of regulatory or operational issues,
reorganize the text of the rule, and make conforming changes to related
rules. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, 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
    In conjunction with adoption of an amended Nasdaq UTP Plan proposed
by its participants (``Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan''),\3\ the Exchange is
amending Rule 3100 \4\ to integrate several definitions and concepts
from the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan and to reorganize the rule in light of
the Exchange's experience with applying the rule over many years as a
national securities exchange.\5\ The Exchange proposes to reorganize
and amend Rule 3100, entitled Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading
Halts on PSX. The rule sets forth the Exchange's authority to halt
trading under various circumstances. The Exchange is a participant of
the transaction reporting plan governing Tape C Securities (``Nasdaq
UTP Plan'').\6\ As part of these changes, the Exchange will amend
categories of regulatory and operational halts, improve the rule's
clarity, adopt defined terms from the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan and
delete parts of the rule that are no longer needed. Last, the Exchange
is updating cross references in other rules that are affected by the
proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On February 11, 2021, the Nasdaq UTP Plan participants filed
Amendment 50 to the Plan, to revise provisions governing regulatory
and operational halts. See Letter from Robert Brooks, Chairman, UTP
Operating Committee, Nasdaq UTP Plan, to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, dated February 11,
2021. The Nasdaq UTP Plan subsequently filed two partial amendments
to the 50th Amendment, on March 31, 2021 and on April 7, 2021. The
SEC approved the amendments on May 28, 2021. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 34-92071 (May 28, 2021), 86 FR 29846 (June 3, 2021)
(S7-24-89). The Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan includes provisions
requiring participant self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') to
honor a Regulatory Halt declared by the Primary Listing Market. The
provisions in the Nasdaq UTP Plan, and the plan for consolidation of
data for non-Nasdaq-listed securities, the Consolidated Tape System
and Consolidated Quotations System (collectively, the ``CTA/CQS
Plan''), include provisions similar to the changes proposed by the
Exchange in this filing.
    \4\ References herein to Nasdaq PHLX Rules in the 3000 Series
shall mean Rules in Nasdaq PHLX Equity 4.
    \5\ The Exchange notes that its sister exchange, The Nasdaq
Stock Market, LLC (``Nasdaq''), filed a similar proposed rule change
with the Commission. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94370
(March 7, 2022), 87 FR 14071 (March 11, 2022); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 94838 (May 3, 2022), 87 FR 27683 (May 9, 2022). The
Commission approved the proposed rule change on June 8, 2022. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95069 (June 8, 2022), 87 FR
36018 (June 14, 2022). Nasdaq BX, Inc. plans to file a similar
proposed rule change. The Exchange's proposal provides the Exchange
with less authority to declare halts in the event of regulatory or
operational issues than under Nasdaq's proposal because the
Exchange, unlike Nasdaq, is not a Primary Listing Market. Given the
Exchange's status as a non-Primary Listing Market, certain
definitions and concepts from the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan,
integrated in Nasdaq's proposal, are not included herein.
    \6\ Each transaction reporting plan has a securities information
processor (``SIP'') responsible for consolidation of information for
the plan's securities, pursuant to Rule 603 of Regulation NMS. The
transaction reporting plan for Nasdaq-listed securities is known as
The Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the
Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and
Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privilege Basis or the ``Nasdaq UTP
Plan.'' Pursuant to the Nasdaq UTP Plan, the UTP SIP, which is
Nasdaq, consolidates order and trade data from all markets trading
Nasdaq-listed securities. The Exchange uses the term ``UTP SIP''
herein when referring specifically to the SIP responsible for
consolidation of information in Nasdaq-listed securities.

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

Background
    The Exchange has been working with other SROs to establish common
criteria and procedures for halting and resuming trading in equity
securities in the event of regulatory or operational issues. These
common standards are designed to ensure that events which might impact
multiple exchanges are handled in a consistent manner that is
transparent. The Exchange believes that implementation of these common
standards will assist the SROs in maintaining fair and orderly markets.
Notwithstanding the development of these common standards, the Exchange
will retain discretion in certain instances as to whether and how to
handle halts, as is discussed below.
    Every U.S.-listed equity security has its primary listing on a
specific stock exchange that is responsible for a number of regulatory
functions.\7\ These include confirming that the security continues to
meet the exchange's listing standards, monitoring trading in that
security and taking action to halt trading in the security when
necessary to protect investors and to ensure a fair and orderly market.
While these core responsibilities remain with the primary listing
venue, trading in the security can occur on multiple exchanges that
have unlisted trading privileges for the security \8\ or in the over-
the-counter market, regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''). The exchanges and FINRA are responsible
for monitoring activity on the markets over which they have oversight,
but also must abide by the regulatory decisions made by the Primary
Listing Market. For example, a venue trading a security pursuant to
unlisted trading privileges must halt trading in that security during a
Regulatory Halt, which is a defined term under the proposed rules,\9\
and may only trade the security once the Primary Listing Market has
cleared the security to resume trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange is proposing to adopt Primary Listing Market as
a new term, defined in Nasdaq UTP Plan, Section X.A.8, as follows:
``[T]he national securities exchange on which an Eligible Security
is listed. If an Eligible Security is listed on more than one
national securities exchange, Primary Listing Market means the
exchange on which the security has been listed the longest.''
    \8\ In addition, securities may be listed on The Nasdaq Global
Market or The Nasdaq Global Select Market, and also listed on the
New York Stock Exchange (``dually-listed''). See The Nasdaq Stock
Market, LLC Rules 5005(a)(11), 5220 and IM-5220.
    \9\ See proposed Rule 3100(a)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange and the other SROs intend to harmonize certain
aspects of their trading halt rules, other elements of the rules will
continue to be unique to each market. The Exchange believes that this
is appropriate to reflect different products listed or traded on each
market.
    In addition to establishing common criteria and procedures for
halting and resuming trading in equity securities in the event of
regulatory or operational issues, the Exchange is deleting provisions
that are no longer needed and reorganizing the rule to improve its
clarity. The Exchange is also making a handful of non-substantive
changes to rule text to improve its clarity. The Exchange will
implement all of the changes proposed herein in conjunction with other
SROs implementing the necessary rule changes. The Exchange will publish
an Equity Trader alert at least 30 business days prior to implementing
the proposed changes.
Definitions
    The Exchange proposes adding a definitions section as Rule 3100(a)
to consolidate the various definitions that will be used in the Rule,
some of which are taken from the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. The Exchange
is adopting the following terms from the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan:
``Operating Committee,'' ``Operational Halt,'' ``Primary Listing
Market,'' ``Processor,'' \10\ ``Regulatory Halt,'' ``Regular Trading
Hours,'' \11\ ``SIP Halt,'' and ``SIP Halt Resume Time.'' The Exchange
is adopting a modified form of the term ``Extraordinary Market
Activity'' from the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, as described below. The
definitions of ``UTP Exchange Traded Product'' and ``Pre-Market
Session'' have been moved into the definitions section from elsewhere
in the current rule without change.\12\ The definitions of ``Trust
Shares,'' ``Index Fund Shares,'' ``Managed Fund Shares,'' and ``Trust
Issues Receipts'' have been moved into the definitions section as
subcategories to the defined term ``UTP Exchange Traded Product'' from
elsewhere in the current rule without changes in the definitions.\13\
The definition of ``Post-Market Session'' has been moved from elsewhere
in the rule \14\ with a minor change deleting the alternative closing
time of 4:15 p.m. as all securities traded on the Exchange commence
their closing cross process at 4:00 p.m.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange proposes to also define the term ``SIP'' to
have the same meaning as the term ``Processor'' as set forth in the
Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. Because the terms ``Processor'' and ``SIP''
are also used throughout the Rules, at times, to apply to processors
of information furnished pursuant to the Consolidated Tape
Association Plan (``CTA Plan''), the term ``Processor'' may, in
those applicable circumstances, refer to the processor of
transactions in Tape A and B securities, as set forth in the CTA
Plan.
    \11\ The Exchange notes that pursuant to existing Rule
3100(b)(3) and 3100(b)(4), the Regular Market Session occurs until
4:00 p.m. or 4:15 p.m., and the Post-Market Session begins at 4:00
p.m. or 4:15 p.m.
    \12\ ``UTP Exchange Traded Product'' is currently defined in
Rule 3100(f). ``Pre-Market Session'' is currently defined in Rule
3100(b)(2).
    \13\ ``Trust Shares,'' ``Index Fund Shares,'' ``Managed Fund
Shares,'' and ``Trust Issues Receipts'' are currently defined in
Rule 3100(b)(1)(A)-(D).
    \14\ ``Post-Market Session'' is currently defined in Rule
3100(b)(3).
    \15\ As noted above, the Exchange is adopting several new terms
that have the same meaning as those terms are defined in the Amended
Nasdaq UTP Plan. Each of the national market system plans governing
the single plan processors has identical definitions of these terms,
thus there will be uniformity in the meaning of the terms among such
plans as well as among the rules of the SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to add the definition of ``Primary
Listing Market'' \16\ to Rule 3100, which will have the same meaning as
in the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, Section X.A.8. As is currently the case
under Rule 3100 and under the Nasdaq UTP Plan, all Regulatory Halt
decisions are made by the market on which the security has its primary
listing. This reflects the regulatory responsibility that the Primary
Listing Market has for fair and orderly trading in the securities that
list on its market and its direct access to its listed companies, which
are required to advise it of certain events and maintain lines of
communication with the Primary Listing Market. The proposed definition
makes clear that if a security is listed on more than one market (a
dually-listed security), the Primary Listing Market means the exchange
on which the security has been listed the longest. This provision
matches language used in the definition of ``Primary Listing Exchange''
in the Limit-Up Limit-Down Plan and will avoid conflict in the event of
dually-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See proposed Rule 3100(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to add the definition of
``Extraordinary Market Activity'' to Rule 3100,\17\ which would
represent a modified version of the term defined in the Amended Nasdaq
UTP Plan, Section X.A.1.\18\ Specifically, the

Exchange proposes to remove the concept of a ``market-wide basis'' from
the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan's definition of Extraordinary Market
Activity for purposes of the Exchange's Rules because the term
``Extraordinary Market Activity'' would only be used in the Exchange's
Rules as a basis for the Exchange to initiate an Operational Halt,
which would only occur on the market declaring the halt (i.e., the
Exchange).\19\ The current rule does not include a definition for
Extraordinary Market Activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Rule 3100(a)(2).
    \18\ In the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, ``Extraordinary Market
Activity'' means a disruption or malfunction of any electronic
quotation, communication, reporting, or execution system operated
by, or linked to, the Processor or a Trading Center or a member of
such Trading Center that has a severe and continuing negative
impact, on a market-wide basis, on quoting, order, or trading
activity or on the availability of market information necessary to
maintain a fair and orderly market. For purposes of this definition,
a severe and continuing negative impact on quoting, order, or
trading activity includes (i) a series of quotes, orders, or
transactions at prices substantially unrelated to the current market
for the security or securities; (ii) duplicative or erroneous
quoting, order, trade reporting, or other related message traffic
between one or more Trading Centers or their members; or (iii) the
unavailability of quoting, order, or transaction information for a
sustained period.
    \19\ The Exchange proposes to define ``Extraordinary Market
Activity'' to mean a disruption or malfunction of any electronic
quotation, communication, reporting, or execution system operated
by, or linked to, the Processor or a Trading Center or a member of
such Trading Center that has a severe and continuing negative impact
on quoting, order, or trading activity or on the availability of
market information necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market.
For purposes of this definition, a severe and continuing negative
impact on quoting, order, or trading activity includes (i) a series
of quotes, orders, or transactions at prices substantially unrelated
to the current market for the security or securities; (ii)
duplicative or erroneous quoting, order, trade reporting, or other
related message traffic between one or more Trading Centers or their
members; or (iii) the unavailability of quoting, order, or
transaction information for a sustained period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third set of new proposed definitions would be specific to
events involving the SIP. While the Exchange recognizes that many
events involving the SIP would also meet the definition of
``Extraordinary Market Activity'' (as defined in the Amended Nasdaq UTP
Plan), the Exchange believes that the critical role of the SIPs in
market infrastructure factors in favor of additional guidance on how
such events will be handled. The definitions of ``SIP Halt Resume
Time'' and ``SIP Halt'' are intended to provide additional guidance to
address this subset of potential market issues.\20\ In addition, the
Exchange is proposing to define terms related to SIP governance needed
in order to understand these definitions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange proposes to define the terms ``SIP Halt Resume
Time'' and ``SIP Halt'' to have the same meaning as in the Amended
Nasdaq UTP Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Processor'' or ``SIP'' \21\ have the same meaning as the
term ``Processor'' set forth in the Nasdaq UTP Plan, namely the entity
selected by the Participants to perform the processing functions set
forth in the Plan. Because the terms ``Processor'' and ``SIP'' are also
used throughout the Rules, at times, to apply to processors of
information furnished pursuant to the CTA Plan, the term ``Processor''
and ``SIP'' may, in those applicable circumstances, refer to the
processor of transactions in Tape A and B securities, as set forth in
the CTA Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Rule 3100(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``SIP Plan'' \22\ is defined as the national market system
plan governing the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed Rule 3100(a)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Operating Committee'' \23\ is defined as having the same
meaning as in the Nasdaq UTP Plan, namely the committee charged with
administering the Nasdaq UTP Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See proposed Rule 3100(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to adopt a category of Regulatory Halt,
called a ``SIP Halt,'' \24\ which will have the same meaning as that
term is defined in Section X.A.11. of the Nasdaq UTP Plan, namely ``a
Regulatory Halt to trading in one or more securities that a Primary
Listing Market declares in the event of a SIP Outage or Material SIP
Latency.'' This new category of Regulatory Halt will address situations
where the Primary Listing Market declares a Regulatory Halt in one or
more securities as a result of a SIP outage \25\ or material SIP
latency.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See proposed Rule 3100(a)(12).
    \25\ SIP outage means a situation in which the Processor has
ceased, or anticipates being unable, to provide updated and/or
accurate quotation or last sale price information in one or more
securities for a material period that exceeds the time thresholds
for an orderly failover to backup facilities established by mutual
agreement among the Processor, the Primary Listing Market for the
affected securities, and the Operating Committee unless the Primary
Listing Market, in consultation with the Processor and the Operating
Committee, determines that resumption of accurate data is expected
in the near future. See Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, Section X.A.13.
    \26\ Material SIP latency means a delay of quotation or last
sale price information in one or more securities between the time
data is received by the Processor and the time the Processor
disseminates the data over the Processor's vendor lines, which delay
the Primary Listing Market determines, in consultation with, and in
accordance with, publicly disclosed guidelines established by the
Operating Committee, to be (a) material and (b) unlikely to be
resolved in the near future. See Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, Section
X.A.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add a definition of ``Regulatory Halt''
\27\ as having the same meaning as in Section X.A.10 of the Amended
Nasdaq UTP Plan. Specifically, the Exchange has proposed to define
Regulatory Halt to mean a halt declared by the Primary Listing Market
in trading in one or more securities on all Trading Centers for
regulatory purposes, including for the dissemination of material news,
news pending, suspensions, or where otherwise necessary to maintain a
fair and orderly market. A Regulatory Halt includes a trading pause
triggered by Limit Up Limit Down, a halt based on Extraordinary Market
Activity (as defined in the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan), a trading halt
triggered by a Market-Wide Circuit Breaker, and a SIP Halt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See proposed Rule 3100(a)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add a definition of ``Operational Halt,''
\28\ which is defined as having the same meaning as in Section X.A.7 of
the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to
define Operational Halt to mean a halt in trading in one or more
securities only on the market declaring the halt and is not a
Regulatory Halt. An Operational Halt is effective only on the Exchange;
other markets are not required to halt trading in the impacted
securities. In practice, the Exchange has always had the capacity to
implement operational halts in specified circumstances.\29\ The
proposed change would provide greater clarity on when an Operational
Halt may be implemented and the process for halting and resuming
trading in the event of an Operational Halt. An Operational Halt is not
a Regulatory Halt.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See proposed Rule 3100(a)(4).
    \29\ See By-Laws of Nasdaq PHLX LLC, Section 7-5 (``Authority to
Take Action Under Emergency or Extraordinary Market Conditions''),
available at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/rulebook/phlx/rules/Phlx_By-Laws.pdf.
    \30\ The Exchange notes that it proposes to amend the existing
definition of the term ``Post-Market Session'' to clarify that it is
a trading session that begins after ``Regular Trading Hours''--a
term that, in turn, is defined in the Nasdaq UTP Plan--and that such
session begins at ``approximately'' 4:00 p.m. See Proposed Rule
3100(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete the defined terms of
``Derivative Securities Product,'' ``UTP Listing Market,'' ``UTP
Regulatory Halt,'' and ``UTP Security'' as the definitions are obsolete
and not utilized within the Exchange's Rules with the proposed changes
herein.
Regulatory Halt
    Proposed Rule 3100(b)(1)(A)(i)-(ii) includes two situations in
which the Exchange must halt trading pursuant to a Regulatory Halt:
under the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan or pursuant to extraordinary market
volatility (market-wide circuit breakers). Proposed Rule
3100(b)(1)(A)(i) retains without substantive modification the existing
rule with respect to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan (current Rule
3100(a)(2)-(5)). The Exchange, as a non-Primary Listing Market, does
not itself declare trading pauses pursuant to the Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan, but rather implements such pauses declared by Primary Listing
Markets. The Exchange proposes to make clear in Rule 3100(b)(1)(A)(ii)
that

a trading halt pursuant to extraordinary market volatility (market-wide
circuit breakers), as is described in Rule 3101, constitutes a
Regulatory Halt.
    The Exchange would also consolidate subsections concerning a
Regulatory Halt declared by Primary Listing Markets in Rule
3100(b)(1)(A)(iii). The Exchange believes this consolidation would add
clarity to the rule. As is the case under the current rule, the
Exchange would honor a Regulatory Halt.
    The Exchange proposes to add proposed Rule
3100(b)(1)(A)(iii)(a)(1), which makes clear that the start time of a
Regulatory Halt is the time the Primary Listing Market declares the
Regulatory Halt, regardless of whether communications issues impact the
dissemination of notice of the Halt.\31\ This proposal would provide
market participants with certainty on the official start time of the
Regulatory Halt. Under the proposed rule, the start time is fixed by
the Primary Listing Market; it is not dependent on whether notice is
disseminated immediately. This will avoid possible disagreement if the
Regulatory Halt time were tied to dissemination or receipt of
notification, which may occur at different times. The Exchange
recognizes that in situations where communication is interrupted,
trades may continue to occur until news of the Regulatory Halt reaches
all trading centers. However, a fixed ``official'' Regulatory Halt time
will allow SROs to revisit trades after the fact and determine in a
consistent manner whether specific trades should stand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ This is consistent with the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. See
Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, Section X.D.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 3100(d), states, in part, that if the UTP Listing
Market declares a UTP Regulatory Halt, the Exchange will halt trading
in that security. This would become proposed Rule
3100(b)(1)(A)(iii)(a)(2). Consistent with Section X.G of the Nasdaq UTP
Plan, the proposed Rule will more broadly require the Exchange to halt
trading of a UTP security if the Primary Listing Market declares a
Regulatory Halt in that security.
    Current Rule 3100(f)(1)-(3), which governs trading halts in certain
Exchange Traded Products traded on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted
trading privileges during pre-market, regular market, and post-market
sessions, would become proposed Rule 3100(b)(1)(A)(iii)(a)(3), without
any substantive changes. Subsection (b)(1)(A)(iii)(a)(3) would replace
the term ``Regular Market Session'' with the term ``Regular Trading
Hours'' to stay consistent with other portions of the proposed rule.
The change is non-substantive and would still refer to the period
between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on days when the Exchange
is open for trading. No other changes have been made to this
subsection.
Resumption of Trading After a Regulatory Halt
    The SROs have jointly developed processes to govern the resumption
of trading in the event of a Regulatory Halt. While the actual process
of re-launching trading will remain unique to each exchange, the
proposed rule would harmonize certain common elements of the reopening
process that would benefit from consistency across markets. These
common elements include the primacy of the Primary Listing Market in
resumption decisions, the requirement that the Primary Listing Market
make its determination to resume trading in good faith,\32\ and certain
parts of the complex process of reopening trading after a SIP Halt.
With respect to a SIP Halt, common elements of the reopening process
include the interaction among SROs (including the Primary Listing
Market with the SIP), the requirement that the Primary Listing Market
terminate a SIP Halt with a notification that specifies a SIP Halt
Resume Time, the minimum quoting times before resumption of trading,
the cutoff time after which trading would not resume during Regular
Trading Hours, and the time when trading may resume if the Primary
Listing Market does not open a security within the amount of time
specified in its rules after the SIP Halt Resume Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Partial Amendment No. 1 of Trading Halt Amendments to
the UTP Plan, dated March 31, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 3100(b)(2) provides the process to be followed when
resuming trading upon the conclusion of a Regulatory Halt. The new
rule, which incorporates Section X.E.1 and X.F.3 of the Amended Nasdaq
UTP Plan, is divided into the following two subsections concerning
resumption of trading: (A) after a Regulatory Halt other than a SIP
Halt; and (B) after a SIP Halt. Proposed Rule 3100(b)(2)(A)(i) provides
that, for a Regulatory Halt other than a SIP Halt, the Exchange may
resume trading subject to the Regulatory Halt after the Exchange
receives notification from the Primary Listing Market that the
Regulatory Halt has been terminated. The Exchange does not conduct halt
crosses and, therefore, the resumption of trading in these securities
will occur once notice from the Primary Listing Market is received.
    Proposed Rule 3100(b)(2)(B)(i) provides that, for securities
subject to a SIP Halt initiated by another exchange that is the Primary
Listing Market, during Regular Trading Hours, the Exchange may resume
trading after trading has resumed on the Primary Listing Market or
notice has been received from the Primary Listing Market that trading
may resume. During Regular Trading Hours, if the Primary Listing Market
does not open a security within the amount of time specified by the
rules of the Primary Listing Market after the SIP Halt Resume Time, the
Exchange may resume trading in that security. Outside Regular Trading
Hours, the Exchange may resume trading immediately after the SIP Halt
Resume Time.\33\ Proposed Rule 3100(b)(2) is consistent with current
practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Partial Amendment No. 2 of Trading Halt Amendments to
the UTP Plan, dated April 7, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 3100(b)(3) retains without substantive modification
existing Rule 3100(e). Proposed Rule 3100(b)(3) states that the
Exchange will not conduct a halt cross or re-opening cross and will
process new and existing orders during a Regulatory Halt as follows:
(1) any unexecuted portion of Midpoint Peg and Midpoint Peg Post-Only
Orders will be cancelled,\34\ (2) all other resting Orders in the
Exchange Book will be maintained at their last ranked price and
displayed price, (3) the Exchange will accept and process all
cancellations, and (4) Orders, including Order modifications, entered
during the Regulatory Halt will not be accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Proposed Rule 3100(b)(3) applies to Regulatory Halts.
Consistent with current practice, Midpoint Pegged Orders are only
cancelled during Regulatory Halts. In contrast, during an
Operational Halt, Midpoint Pegged Orders are not cancelled. The
Exchange notes that its sister exchange, Nasdaq, intends to file a
proposed rule change to reflect this concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete current Rule 3100(c), which
provides procedures for initiating and terminating a trading halt. The
Exchange would not initiate a Regulatory Halt given its status as a
non-Primary Listing Market, rendering language in the current rule
inapplicable. In addition, the procedures for terminating a trading
halt in current Rule 3100(c) would be deleted. Proposed procedures for
terminating Regulatory Halts and resuming trading are included in
proposed Rule 3100(b)(2), as discussed above.

Operational Halt
    The Exchange proposes in Rule 3100(c) to address Operational Halts,
which are non-regulatory in nature and apply only to the exchange that
calls the halt. The ability to call an Operational Halt has existed for
a long time, although in the Exchange's experience, such halts have
rarely been initiated. As part of the Exchange's assessment with the
other SROs of the halting and resumption of trading, the Exchange
believes that the markets would benefit from greater clarity regarding
when an Operational Halt may be appropriate.\35\ In part, the proposed
change is designed to cover situations similar to those that might
constitute a Regulatory Halt, but where the impact is limited to a
single market. For example, just as a market disruption might trigger a
Regulatory Halt for Extraordinary Market Activity (as defined in the
Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan) if it affects multiple markets, so a
disruption at the Exchange, such as a technical issue affecting trading
in one or more securities, could impact trading on the Exchange so
significantly that an Operational Halt is appropriate in one or more
securities. In such an instance, it would be in the public interest to
institute an Operational Halt to minimize the impact of a disruption
that, if trading were allowed to continue, might negatively affect a
greater number of market participants. An Operational Halt does not
implicate other trading centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Differences between Nasdaq and the Exchange's proposals as
it relates to Operational Halts stem from Nasdaq's status as a
Primary Listing Market, unlike the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 3100(c) would authorize the Exchange to implement an
Operational Halt for any security trading on the Exchange:
     if it is experiencing Extraordinary Market Activity \36\
on the Exchange; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ ``Extraordinary Market Activity'' in proposed Rule 3100(c)
would have the meaning proposed by the Exchange, which is a modified
form of the term from the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, as described
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     when otherwise necessary to maintain a fair and orderly
market or in the public interest.
    The Exchange is proposing to delete Rule 3100(a)(1) that authorizes
the Exchange to institute an ``operational trading halt'' in a security
listed on another exchange when that exchange imposes a trading halt
because of an order imbalance or influx. The Exchange believes this
language could restrict its ability to follow an Operational Halt
imposed by another market to a limited set of fact patterns. The
Exchange believes that the broader language provided by the definition
of Extraordinary Market Activity and the ability to initiate an
Operational Halt when necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market
will better serve the interests of investors by allowing the Exchange
to act where appropriate.
    Proposed Rule 3100(c)(2) provides the process for initiating an
Operational Halt. Under the proposed rule, the Exchange must notify the
SIP if it has concerns about its ability to collect and transmit
Quotation Information or Transaction Reports, or if it has declared an
Operational Halt or suspension of trading in one or more Eligible
Securities, pursuant to the procedures adopted by the Operating
Committee.
    Proposed Rule 3100(c)(3) will clarify how the Exchange resumes
trading after an Operational Halt. Proposed Rule 3100(c)(3)(A) provides
that the Exchange would resume trading when it determines that trading
may resume in a fair and orderly manner consistent with the Exchange's
rules. Proposed Rule 3100(c)(3)(B) provides that orders entered during
the Operational Halt will not be accepted, unless subject to
instructions that the order will be directed to another exchange.
Proposed Rule 3100(c)(3)(C) provides that trading in a halted security
shall resume at the time specified by the Exchange in a notice.
Proposed Rule 3100(c)(3)(C) also specifies that Exchange will notify
all other Plan participants and the SIP using such protocols and other
emergency procedures as may be mutually agreed to between the Operating
Committee and the Exchange. If the SIP is unable to disseminate notice
of an Operational Halt or the Exchange is not open for trading, the
Exchange will take reasonable steps to provide notice of an Operational
Halt, which shall include both the type and start time of the
Operational Halt. Each Plan participant shall continuously monitor
communication protocols established by the Operating Committee and the
Processor during market hours to disseminate notice of an Operational
Halt, and the failure of a participant to do so shall not prevent the
Exchange from initiating an Operational Halt.
Conforming Changes to Other Rules
    The Exchange is proposing to modify Rule 3301A that cross
references Rule 3100 in light of the reorganization of Rule 3100. Rule
3301A (Order Types) will be modified to update a cross reference to the
Rule that governs Limit-Up-Limit-Down procedures.
    In addition, the Exchange is proposing to amend several rules that
rely on the definition of ``Regular Market Session'' in current Rule
3100(b)(4). Regular Market Session is defined as ``the trading session
from 9:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. or 4:15 p.m.'' The Exchange is proposing
to replace the references to Regular Market Session in Rule 3301A
(Order Types) and 3312 (Clearly Erroneous Transactions) with references
to Regular Trading Hours as proposed in Rule 3100(a)(10). The term
``Regular Trading Hours'' would be consistent with the existing
application of the definition of ``Regular Market Session'' and obviate
the need for multiple definitions for the regular trading day. No
securities traded on the Exchange currently close at 4:15 p.m. and,
therefore, the alternative closing time in the current Regular Market
Session definition is not needed.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal 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.\37\ Specifically, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \38\ because it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange and other SROs are seeking to
adopt harmonized rules related to halting and resuming trading in U.S.-
listed equity securities. The Exchange believes that the proposed rules
will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the
situations in which trading will be halted and the process through
which that halt will be implemented and terminated. Particularly, the
proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants
across U.S. equities exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly
market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Based
on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules are
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \39\ because they will
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating
and facilitating transactions in securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed previously, the Exchange believes that the various
provisions of the proposed rules that will apply to all SROs are
focused on the type of cross-market event where a consistent approach
will assist market

participants and reduce confusion during a crisis. Because market
participants often trade the same security across multiple venues and
trade securities listed on different exchanges as part of a common
strategy, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules will lessen the
risk that market participants holding a basket of securities will have
to deal with divergent outcomes depending on where the securities are
listed or traded. Conversely, the proposed rules would still allow
individual SROs to react differently to events that impact various
securities or markets in different ways. This avoids the ``brittle
market'' risk where an isolated event at a single market forces all
markets trading equities securities to halt or halts trading in all
securities where the issue impacted only a subset of securities. By
addressing both concerns, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules
further the Act's goal of maintaining fair and orderly markets.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rules' focus of
responsibility on the Primary Listing Market for decisions related to a
Regulatory Halt and the resumption of trading is consistent with the
Act, which itself imposes obligations on exchanges with respect to
issuers that are listed. As is currently the case, the Primary Listing
Market would be responsible for the many regulatory functions related
to its listings, including the determination of when to declare a
Regulatory Halt. While these core responsibilities remain with the
Primary Listing Market, trading in the security can occur on multiple
exchanges that have unlisted trading privileges for the security, such
as on the Exchange, or in the over-the-counter market, regulated by
FINRA. The Exchange is responsible for monitoring activity on its own
markets, but also must honor a Regulatory Halt.
    The proposed changes relating to Regulatory Halts would ensure that
all SROs handle the situations covered therein in a consistent manner
that would prevent conflicting outcomes in cross-market events and
ensure that all trading centers recognize a Regulatory Halt declared by
the Primary Listing Market. The changes are consistent with and
implement the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan.
    The Exchange believes that the definitions in the proposed rules
are also consistent with the Act. The Exchange proposes adding a
definitions section as Rule 3100(a) to consolidate the various
definitions that will be used in the Rule, some of which are taken from
the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. The Exchange is adopting a modified form
of the term ``Extraordinary Market Activity'' from the Amended Nasdaq
UTP Plan, as described above. In addition, several other definitions
have been moved into the definitions section from elsewhere in the
current rule without changes in the definitions. As noted, certain
definitions are consistent with the definitions in the Amended Nasdaq
UTP Plan, furthering the Act's goal of promoting fair and orderly
markets. For example, the Exchange is proposing to adopt a definition
of ``SIP Halt,'' to explicitly address a situation that may disrupt the
markets, and this definition is identical to the definition in the
Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. In addition to ``SIP Halt,'' the Exchange is
adopting the following terms from the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan:
``Operating Committee,'' ``Operational Halt,'' ``Primary Listing
Market,'' ``Processor,'' ``Regulatory Halt,'' ``Regular Trading
Hours,'' and ``SIP Halt Resume Time,'' as discussed above.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rules, which make halts
more consistent across exchange rules, are consistent with the Act in
that they will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in regulating the equities markets. In particular, the Exchange
believes it is important for SROs to coordinate when there is a
widespread and significant event, as multiple trading centers are
impacted in such an event. Further, while the Exchange recognizes that
the proposed rule will not guarantee a consistent result on every
market in all situations, the Exchange does believe that it will assist
in that outcome. While the proposed rules relating to Regulatory Halts
focuses primarily on the kinds of cross-market events that would likely
impact multiple markets, individual SROs will still retain flexibility
to deal with unique products or smaller situations confined to a
particular market.
    Also consistent with the Act, and with the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan,
is the Exchange's proposal in Rule 3100(c) to address Operational
Halts, which are non-regulatory in nature and apply only to the
exchange that calls the halt. As noted earlier, the Exchange presently
has the ability to call an Operational Halt, but does so rarely. The
Exchange believes that the markets would benefit from greater clarity
regarding when an Operational Halt may be appropriate. The proposed
change is designed to cover situations where the impact is limited to a
single market. For example, a disruption at the Exchange, such as a
technical issue affecting trading in one or more securities, could
impact trading on the Exchange so significantly that an Operational
Halt is appropriate in one or more securities. In such an instance, it
would be in the public interest to institute an Operational Halt to
minimize the impact of a disruption that, if trading were allowed to
continue, might negatively affect a greater number of market
participants. An Operational Halt does not implicate other trading
centers.
    Proposed Rule 3100(c) would authorize the Exchange to implement an
Operational Halt for any security trading on the Exchange: (i) if it is
experiencing Extraordinary Market Activity on the Exchange; or (ii)
when otherwise necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market or in
the public interest.
    The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to delete
parts of Rule 3100 that are no longer needed, including certain
definitions, current Rule 3100(c), and Rule 3100(a)(1). The Exchange
proposes to delete certain defined terms (``Derivative Securities
Product,'' ``UTP Listing Market,'' ``UTP Regulatory Halt,'' and ``UTP
Security'') that are obsolete and would no longer be referenced under
the proposed Rules, providing increased clarity in the Rules. The
Exchange proposes to delete current Rule 3100(c), which provides
procedures for initiating and terminating a trading halt, to remove
obsolete language and harmonize procedures for terminating Regulatory
Halts and resuming trading. Current Rule 3100(a)(1) authorizes the
Exchange to institute an ``operational trading halt'' in a security
listed on another exchange when that exchange imposes a trading halt
because of an order imbalance or influx. The Exchange believes this
language could restrict its ability to follow an Operational Halt
imposed by another market to a limited set of fact patterns. The
Exchange believes that the broader language provided by the definition
of Extraordinary Market Activity in proposed Rule 3100(c) will better
serve the interests of investors by allowing the Exchange to act where
appropriate. Other sections of current Rule 3100 are reorganized and
retained without substantive modifications, as described above.

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

    The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(8) of the Act \40\ in that it does not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act as explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

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

    Importantly, the Exchange believes the proposal will not impose a
burden on intermarket competition but will rather alleviate any burden
on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by
all SROs to harmonize and improve the process related to the halting
and resumption of trading in U.S.-listed equity securities, consistent
with the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. In this area, the Exchange believes
that all SROs should have consistent rules to the extent possible in
order to provide additional transparency and certainty to market
participants and to avoid inconsistent outcomes that could cause
confusion and erode market confidence. The proposed changes would
ensure that all SROs handle the situations covered therein in a
consistent manner and ensure that all trading centers handle a
Regulatory Halt consistently. The Exchange understands that all other
non-Primary Listing Markets intend to file proposals that are
substantially similar to this proposal.
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposals concerning
Operational Halts impose an undue burden on competition. Under the
existing Rules, the Exchange already possesses discretionary authority
to impose Operational Halts for various reasons, including because of
an order imbalance or influx that causes another national securities
exchange to impose a trading halt in a security. As described earlier,
the proposed Rule change clarifies and broadens the circumstances in
which the Exchange may impose such Halts, and specifies procedures for
both imposing and lifting them. The Exchange does not intend for these
proposals to have any competitive impact whatsoever. Indeed, the
Exchange expects that other exchanges will adopt similar rules and
procedures to govern operational halts, to the extent that they have
not done so already.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
a burden on intramarket competition because the provisions apply to all
market participants equally. In addition, information regarding the
halting and resumption of trading will be disseminated using several
freely accessible sources to ensure broad availability of information
in addition to the SIP data and proprietary data feeds offered by the
Exchange and other SROs that are available to subscribers. In addition,
the declaration and timing of trading halts and the resumption of
trading is designed to avoid any advantage to those who can react more
quickly than other participants. The proposals encourage early and
frequent communication among the SROs, SIPs and market participants to
enable the dissemination of timely and accurate information concerning
the market to market participants.

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 \41\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \42\ 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 satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2022-49 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-Phlx-2022-49. 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-Phlx-2022-49 and should be
submitted on or before January 19, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-28301 Filed 12-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENVER, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/region08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0

Ref:  8RA									November 5, 2013

MEMORANDUM for RECORD

SUBJECT:	Phone call from Colleen Delaney, Utah DEQ, on Sept. 20, 2013 regarding our proposed disapproval of the definition of Major Source Baseline Date in the GHG Tailoring Rulemaking Notice.

FROM:	Jody Ostendorf
		SIP Program Manager

TO:		Docket ID:  EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0300

	During this phone call, Colleen brought to my attention that a subsequent SIP submittal had removed the Major Source Baseline Date definition that we had previously proposed to disapprove.  We proposed to disapprove R307-405-3(2)(a)(i), consistent with our final action on July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41712),  because it defines "Major Source Baseline Date" in a manner inconsistent with the federal definition.  However, Utah removed the Major Source Baseline Date in a subsequent March 19, 2012 SIP submittal. In our final action on that submittal, which was signed on September 30, 2013 (78 Fed Reg. 63,883), we incorporated into the SIP the required definition for State programs at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14):
(i)  "Major source baseline date" means:
(a)  In the case of PM10 and sulfur dioxide, January 6, 1975;
(b)  In the case of nitrogen dioxide, February 8, 1988; and
(c)  In the case of PM2.5 , October 20, 2010.
      Because we have re-established and incorporated into Utah's SIP the required definition of Major Source Baseline Date in our September 30, 2013 final action, we do not need to act on it here.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 138 (Thursday, July 20, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33471-33475]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15266]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0110; A-1-FRL-9965-12Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; ME; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Maine's regional haze progress report, submitted on February
23, 2016, as a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). Maine's
SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing
progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the State's
existing regional haze SIP. Maine's progress report notes that Maine
has implemented the measures in the regional haze SIP due to be in
place by the date of the progress report and that visibility in federal
Class I areas affected by emissions from Maine is improving and has
already met the applicable RPGs for 2018. EPA is proposing approval of
Maine's determination that the State's regional haze SIP is adequate to
meet these reasonable progress goals for the first implementation
period covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at
this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2016-0110 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109--3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0697, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of Maine's SIP Revision
    A. Regional Haze Progress Report
    B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each
mandatory Class I Federal area \1\ (Class I area) within the state and
in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same
time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the
adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. The progress report
SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.
On December 9, 2010, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
(ME DEP) submitted the State's first regional haze SIP in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
Listed at 40 CFR part 81 Subpart D.
    \2\ On April 24, 2012, EPA approved Maine's Regional Haze SIP
submittal addressing the requirements of the first implementation
period for regional haze. See 77 FR 24385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 23, 2016, ME DEP submitted a revision to the Maine SIP
detailing the progress made in the first planning period toward
implementation of the Long Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in its 2010
regional haze SIP submittal, the visibility improvement measured at the
Class I areas affected by emissions from Maine, and a determination of
the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. EPA is
proposing to approve Maine's February 23, 2016 SIP submittal.

II. EPA's Evaluation of Maine's SIP Revision

    On February 23, 2016, Maine submitted its ``Regional Haze 5-Year
Progress Report'' (Progress Report) to EPA as a SIP revision.
    Maine is home to three Class I areas: Acadia National Park
(Acadia), Roosevelt-Campobello International Park (RCIP), and Moosehorn
Wilderness Area (Moosehorn). Emissions from Maine sources were also
found to be contributing to visibility impairment at nearby Great Gulf
Wilderness Area (Great Gulf) in New Hampshire. See 76 FR 73956
(November 29, 2011).
    Through the consultation process, Maine agreed to pursue the
coordinated course of action agreed to by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) \3\ to assure reasonable progress toward
preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of
visibility in the mandatory Class I areas within the MANE-VU region.
These strategies are commonly referred to as the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' The
MANE-VU ``Ask'' includes: A timely implementation of best available
retrofit technology (BART) requirements; 90 percent or more reduction
in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions at 167 electrical
generating units (EGUs) ``stacks'' identified by MANE-VU (or comparable
alternative measures); lower sulfur fuel oil (with limits specified for
each State); and continued evaluation of other control measures.\4\ In
summary, Maine is on track to fulfill the MANE-VU ``Ask'' by meeting
the deadlines for BART requirements, as of the date of the Progress
Report, for all BART-eligible facilities described in the Progress
Report, adopting a low sulfur fuel oil strategy requiring the use of
0.0015% sulfur by weight in distillate and 0.5% sulfur by weight
residual fuel oil by July 1, 2018, and reducing SO2
emissions by 57% from the State's one identified contributing EGU,
Florida Power and Light's Wyman Station (Wyman). An additional
reduction in SO2 emissions from Wyman is expected with the

implementation of 0.5% sulfur by weight residual oil requirement by
July 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MANE-VU is a collaborative effort of State governments,
Tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the
Northeastern United States. Member State and Tribal governments
include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
    \4\ The MANE-VU ``Ask'' was structured around the finding that
SO2 emissions were the dominate visibility impairing
pollutant at the Northeastern Class I areas and electrical
generating units comprised the largest SO2 emission
sector. See ``Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic States,'' January 31, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    This section includes the EPA's analysis of Maine's Progress Report
SIP submittal, and an explanation of the basis of our proposed
approval.
    Maine's 2010 regional haze SIP included the following key measures:
Implementation of BART for eligible sources, reducing the sulfur in
fuel oil content, and reducing SO2 emissions from the Maine
EGU identified as contributing to visibility impairment at nearby Class
I areas.
    In the Maine 2010 Regional Haze SIP, ME DEP identified 10
facilities subject to BART. For eight of these facilities, the existing
controls were determined to be BART. The remaining two sources eligible
for BART controls were: Wyman Boiler #3 and Verso Androscoggin at Jay
Boilers #1 and #2. As documented in Table 3-1 of the Maine Progress
Report, each of these two sources has implemented a permit revision,
approved in EPA's April 24, 2012 approval of Maine's regional haze SIP
(77 FR 24385), which requires the use of 0.7% sulfur by weight fuel oil
by the BART deadline of 2013.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See EPA's Proposed Approval of Maine's Regional Haze SIP (76
FR 73956, November 29, 2011) for a full discussion of Maine's BART
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maine's Progress Report notes the implementation of the MANE-VU
``Ask'' for sulfur content of fuel oil. The Maine statute, approved by
the EPA as part of Maine's regional haze plan, lowers the sulfur
content of all distillate fuel oils to 0.0015% sulfur by weight and
residual oils to 0.5% sulfur beginning July 1, 2018.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Maine's Sulfur in Fuel Statute 38 MRSA Section 603-A
subsection 2(A) was approved into the Maine SIP on April 24, 2012.
See 79 FR 24385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maine has two EGUs among the 167 EGUs stacks identified for control
of sulfur dioxide emission in the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' These stacks are
Wyman units #3 and #4. As previously discussed above, unit #3 was
required to reduce the sulfur in fuel content to 0.7% by 2013 with a
further reduction to 0.5% sulfur by weight in 2018, as required by
Maine's sulfur in fuels statute. Unit #4 is following the same
timeline. The Progress Report indicates a 1,138 ton/year SO2
(or 57%) emission reduction from Wyman thus far. An additional
reduction in SO2 emission is expected from the required use
of 0.5% sulfur by weight fuel oil by 2018.
    The Maine Progress Report also includes the status of
SO2 emission reductions from states that affect Class I
areas in MANE-VU relative to the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' \7\ Maine consulted
with states in the eastern United States that affect visibility at the
Class I areas at Acadia, Moosehorn, and RCIP, outlining how they could
meet the MANE-VU ``Ask'' and help achieve the progress goals for Class
I areas in Maine and other MANE-VU States. These emission reductions
were included in the modeling that predicted progress toward meeting
RPGs. The EPA is proposing that Maine's summary of the status of the
implementation of measures in its Progress Report adequately addresses
the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g), as the State
demonstrated the implementation of measures within Maine, including
applying BART at subject sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Memorandum from NESCAUM to MANE-VU ``Overview of State and
Federal Actions Relative to MANE-VU Asks'' dated March 28, 2013.
http://www.nescaum.org/documents/summary-memo-mane-vuasks-20130328-fianl.pdf/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the development of the regional haze SIP for the first
planning period, MANE-VU and Maine determined that SO2 was
the greatest contributor to anthropogenic visibility impairment at the
State's Class I areas. Therefore, the bulk of visibility improvement
achieved in the first planning period was expected to result from
reductions in SO2 emissions from sources inside and outside
of the State. Table 6-1 of Maine's 2016 Progress Report details the
SO2 emission reductions from the 2002 Maine regional haze
SIP baseline to 2014 for not only the targeted Wyman units, but all
Maine EUGs.\8\ The Maine EGUs show an emission reduction from 2,022
tons SO2 in 2002 to 856 tons SO2 in 2014, a
reduction of 57%. Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from
these same sources were also reduced from 1,154 tons in 2002 to 539
tons in 2014, a reduction of 53%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Maine's Progress Report SIP includes annual unit-level
emissions data for SO2 and NOX from EGUs from
EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for the years 2002 and 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to find that Maine has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g). Maine has detailed the
SO2 and NOX reductions from the 2002 regional
haze baseline by using the most recently available year of data at the
time of the development of Maine's Progress Report, which is 2014.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) also require that States with
Class I areas within their borders provide information on current
visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of
five-year averages of these annual values.
    Maine is home to three Class I areas; Acadia, RCIP, and Moosehorn.
Maine relies on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) program monitoring network for visibility
measurements. One IMPROVE monitor is located within Acadia. A second
IMPROVE monitor is located one mile northeast of Moosehorn. The
Moosehorn monitor also serves as the monitor for nearby RCIP. In the
Progress Report, ME DEP provides the data in deciviews (dv) \9\ for the
baseline 2000-2004 five-year average visibility, the most recent 2010-
2014 five-year average visibility, the 2018 RPG from the 2010 regional
haze SIP, and the calculated visibility improvement. See Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The deciview is a measure for tracking progress in improving
visibility. Each deciview change is an incremental change in
visibility perceived by the human eye. The preamble to the Regional
Haze Rule provides additional details about the deciview (64 FR
35714 (July 1, 1999)).

       Table 1--Observed Visibility vs. Established Visibility Goals (deciviews) for Acadia and Moosehorn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Baseline  2000-   Most recent
                                2004 5-year    2010-2014  5-    Visibility         2018
                                  average      year average     improvement     Reasonable        Meets 2018
                                visibility      visibility         (dv)       progress  goal   progress  goals?
                                   (dv)            (dv)                            (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             20% Most Impaired Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia......................            22.9            17.5             5.4            19.4  Yes.

Moosehorn...................            21.7            16.5             5.2            19.0  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             20% Least Impaired Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia......................             8.8             7.0             1.8             8.3  Yes.
Moosehorn...................             9.2             6.7             2.5             8.6  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The baseline visibility for Acadia and Moosehorn was 22.9 dv and
21.7 dv, respectively, on the 20% most impaired days. On the 20% least
impaired days, the baseline visibility was 8.8 dv and 9.2 dv for these
two sites, respectively. The most recent five-year average data for
both sites shows an improvement of more than 5 dv on the 20% most
visibility impaired days and no visibility degradation on the 20% least
impaired days. The 2016 Progress Report demonstrates that the State has
already achieved the 2018 RPG for the 20% most impaired days and
ensured no visibility degradation for the 20% least impaired days for
the first planning period. The Class I area outside of Maine affected
by sources in Maine also has achieved the 2018 RPGs.
    EPA is proposing to find that Maine provided the required
information regarding visibility conditions to meet the applicable
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g), specifically providing baseline
visibility conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most
recently available IMPROVE monitoring data (2010-2014), and a
comparison with the RPGs.
    In its Progress Report SIP, Maine presents data from statewide
emissions inventories developed for the years 2002, 2011, and 2014
(EGUs only), and projected inventories for 2018 for SO2,
NOX, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and
volatile organic compounds (VOC).\10\ Maine's emissions inventories
include the following source classifications; Point EGUs, Point Non-
EGU, Area, On-Road Mobile, and Non-road. From 2002 through 2014,
Maine's overall EGU SO2 emissions were reduced from 2,022
tons to 856 tons, well below the 2018 projected level of 7,422 tons.
The largest SO2 sector, Point Non-EGU, saw emissions drop
from 21,709 tons in 2002 to 6,434 tons in 2011, well below the 18,492
tons projected for 2018. Overall, State SO2 emissions
dropped from 39,589 tons in 2002 to 15,528 tons in 2011, below the 2018
projection of 31,830 tons. Statewide NOX emissions
experienced a similar decrease. Overall, State NOX emissions
dropped from 91,928 tons in 2002 to 62,633 tons in 2011. The 2018
projected NOX emissions is 41,922 tons. Additional
NOX reductions are expected from the mobile sector. Finally,
ME DEP indicated that based on 2011 emission data, the State has
already achieved the 2018 projected emissions reduction for direct
PM2.5 (2% reduction) and VOC (20% reduction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 2002 inventory is the MANE-VU V3.3 which is projected
to 2018. The 2011 inventory is based on the 2011 National Emission
Inventory (NEI). The 2014 inventory was the most recent year of
Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) inventory data as reported to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing that Maine has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308. ME DEP compares the most recent updated
emission inventory data available at the time of development of the
Progress Report with the baseline emissions in the regional haze SIP.
The Progress Report appropriately details the 2011 SO2,
NOX, PM2.5, and VOC reductions achieved, by
sector, thus far in the regional haze planning period. In addition, the
State provided the most recent annual SO2 and NOX
emission data for EGUs.
    In its Progress Report SIP, Maine states that sulfates continue to
be the biggest single contributor to regional haze at Acadia,
Moosehorn, RCIP, and Great Gulf. While Maine mainly focused its
analysis on addressing large SO2 emissions from point
sources, the State did not find any significant changes in
NOX and PM2.5 which might impede or limit
progress during the first planning period. In addition, ME DEP cited
the 2013 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
report, discussed below, which indicates that all of the MANE-VU Class
I areas are on track to meet the 2018 visibility goals established by
the States in their Regional Haze SIPs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NESCAUM for MANE-VU, ``Tracking Visibility Progress 2004-
2011,'' revised May 24, 2013. http://www.nescaum.org/documents/manevu-trends-2004-2011-report-final-20130430.pdf/view. The report
was later updated with 2014 IMPROVE data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to conclude that Maine has adequately addressed
the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The State adequately
demonstrated that there are no significant changes in emissions of
SO2, PM2.5, or NOX within the State
which have impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving
visibility in the Class I areas impacted by Maine sources.
    In its Progress Report SIP, ME DEP states that the elements and
strategies relied on in its original Regional Haze SIP are sufficient
to enable Maine and neighboring States to meet all RPGs. To support
this conclusion, ME DEP notes in Table 7-1 of the Progress Report that
the 2014 EGU SO2 emissions from the entire MANE-VU area are
already less than the 2018 projections for that area (323,704 tons
versus 365,024 tons). In addition, Maine discusses visibility data from
Tracking Visibility Progress, 2004-2011, prepared by NESCAUM, which
updated the progress at MANE-VU Class I areas during the five-year
period ending in 2014. The data included information for the Maine
Class I areas, between 2000 and 2014, in the context of short- and
long-term visibility goals. The report indicates that visibility
impairment on the best and worst days from 2000-2014 have dropped at
Acadia, Moosehorn, and Great Gulf. Maine notes the NESCAUM report
indicates that all the MANE-VU Class I states continue to be on track
to meet their 2018 RPGs for improved visibility and that further
progress may occur through recently adopted or proposed regulatory
programs. Based upon the NESCAUM report and visibility data, Maine
states in its Progress Report that visibility improvement at Acadia,

Moosehorn, RCIP, and Great Gulf has occurred for the most impaired days
and no degradation of visibility has occurred for the least impaired
days. Therefore, Maine finds that Acadia, Moosehorn, RCIP, and Great
Gulf are on track to meet the RPGs for 2018 based on observed
visibility improvement.
    EPA is proposing to conclude that Maine has adequately addressed
the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA views this
requirement as an assessment that should evaluate emissions and
visibility trends and other readily available information. In its
Progress Report, Maine describes the improving visibility trends using
data from the IMPROVE network and the downward emission trends in key
pollutants in the State and the MANE-VU region. Maine determined that
the State's regional haze SIP is sufficient for the three Class I areas
within the State and the Class I area outside of the State impacted by
the State's emissions (Great Gulf) to meet their RPGs.
    Maine's visibility monitoring strategy relies upon participation in
the IMPROVE network. The IMPROVE monitor serving Acadia is located
within Acadia National Park. The IMPROVE monitor serving Moosehorn and
RCIP is located one mile northeast of Moosehorn. ME DEP finds that
there is no indication of a need for additional monitoring sites or
equipment.
    EPA is proposing to find that Maine has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) by reviewing the State's
visibility monitoring strategy and assessing whether any modifications
to the monitoring strategy are necessary.

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    In its Progress Report SIP, Maine submitted a negative declaration
to EPA regarding the need for additional actions or emission reductions
in Maine beyond those already in place and those to be implemented by
2018 according to Maine's regional haze plan.
    In the 2016 SIP submittal, Maine determined that the existing
Regional Haze SIP requires no substantive revision at this time to
achieve the RPGs for the Class I areas affected by the State's sources.
The basis for the State's negative declaration is the finding that
visibility has improved at all Class I areas in the MANE-VU region. In
addition, SO2 and PM2.5 emissions for the State
have decreased beyond the original 2018 projections. While
NOX reductions have yet to fully meet the 2018 projections,
additional substantial NOX reductions are expected by 2018.
    EPA is proposing to conclude that Maine has adequately addressed
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility and
emission trends indicate that Acadia, Moosehorn, RCIP, and Great Gulf
are meeting or exceeding the RPGs for 2018, and are expected to
continue to meet or exceed the RPGs for 2018.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Maine's February 23, 2016 regional haze
5-Year Progress Report SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 5, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-15266 Filed 7-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P