[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50891-50893]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20842]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0545; FRL-9447-4]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the SCAQMD portion
of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were
proposed in the Federal Register on October 5, 2010 and concern
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings.
We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on September 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0545 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3019<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On October 5, 2010 (75 FR 61367), EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD............................            1113  Architectural Coatings......        07/13/07        03/07/08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from the following parties.
    1. Dan Pourreau and Dave Roznowski, Lyondell Chemical; letter dated
October 25, 2010.
    2. David Darling, American Coatings Association; letter dated
November 3, 2010.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below.
    Comment #1: Lyondell Chemical commented that, in 2009, they
requested that EPA remove all reporting and recordkeeping requirements
for tertiary-butyl acetate (TBAc), but has not yet received a formal
response from EPA. Lyondell's comment requests that EPA respond to the
2009 request by removing the unique tracking requirement for TBAc and
moving TBAc to the 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1) list of exempt compounds.
Lyondell further requests that EPA remove the proposed recommendation
to include a recordkeeping requirement for future Rule 1113 revisions,
because this is complicating the rule development process and making
TBAc a less attractive VOC-compliance option than it should be
regarding Rule 1113 as well as coatings subject to other South Coast
rules.
    In support of these requests, Lyondell states that EPA is not using
the TBAc data for modeling purposes and does not require reporting for
any other exempt compound with ``borderline'' reactivity, that TBAc has
low toxicity and negligible environmental impact, and that reporting
and tracking its emissions does not help protect human health or the
environment. Lyondell also states most States do not track and report
TBAc emissions. Lyondell feels that tracking and reporting TBAc
emissions is a new and burdensome

requirement, and that Lyondell has provided and continues to provide
TBAc sales data by State to the EPA, so requiring that users and the
States also report emissions is redundant, an unnecessary bureaucratic
burden, and fraught with error.
    American Coatings Association (ACA) similarly objects to EPA's
recordkeeping recommendations on the grounds that the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements created in 2004 specifically for TBAc in 40
CFR 51.100(s)(5) are burdensome, arbitrary, contrary to the goals of
the CAA, and should be rescinded.
    Response #1: Similar comments were summarized and replied to in
EPA's final action to revise treatment of TBAc in 40 CFR 51.100(s)(5)
(See 69 FR 69298, November 29, 2004). The comments have not provided
new information that changes EPA's previous response to these issues.
In addition, we note that TBAc is only addressed in recommendations
discussed in the preamble to today's action. Today's final action does
not require any revisions to South Coast's treatment of TBAc.
    Comment #2: ACA states it is questionable whether the Averaging
Compliance Option is an Economic Incentive Program (EIP) as defined in
EPA's guidance. Emissions occur during the activity of applying
coatings, which is not regulated under Rule 1113. The limits of Rule
1113 apply to the VOC contents, not emissions, of coating expressed as
mass of VOC per volume of coating, not activity level. ACA further
comments that, given the extremely low limits of Rule 1113, additional
discounting is not feasible for specific compliance, averaging
compliance, or a combination of the two.
    Response #2: As ACA noted, part of the regulatory approach in
architectural coatings requires manufacturers to meet specified VOC
standards in their products. EPA's EIP guidance applies broadly and is
not limited to only direct emitters of pollution. EIP is defined as a
program which may include State established measures directed toward
stationary, area, and/or mobile sources, to achieve emissions
reductions milestones, to attain and maintain ambient air quality
standards, and/or provide more flexible, lower-cost approaches to
meeting environmental goals. The Averaging Compliance Option in Rule
1113 provides manufacturers a more flexible and potentially lower cost
approaches to meeting the standards. As such, Rule 1113 is an EIP.
Please see page 158 of the EIP Guidance (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf).
    Comment #3: ACA states that a shorter averaging period is not
feasible because of the complexity involved in gathering and verifying
retail sales data, and making program adjustments to ensure continuous
compliance.
    Response #3: The recommendation was made based on the EIP guidance.
However, after a review of the provision, we feel an averaging period
longer than 30 days is acceptable for this rule. Therefore, we are no
longer recommending the district reduce the averaging period to 30 days
or less and we have communicated this to the district.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving
these rules into the California SIP.

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 action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 17, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 18, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(354)(i)(A)(5) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (354) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (5) Rule 1113, ``Architectural Coatings,'' amended on July 13,
2007.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-20842 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            REGION IX AIR DIVISION

                          Technical Support Document
                                      for
                            the EPA's Rulemaking
                                    for the
                     California State Implementation Plan

                Imperial County Air Pollution Control District
                     Rule 428  -  Wood Burning Appliances
Rule 429  -  Mandatory Episodic Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid Fuel Burning

                                  April 2019
                          Author: Christine Vineyard

RULE IDENTIFICATION
Agency
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD)

New Rule Subject of this TSD

Rule 428  -  Wood Burning Appliances (except section E.4.2)
Adopted  -  September 11, 2018
Submitted  -  October 29, 2018

New Rule Subject of this TSD

Rule 429  -  Mandatory Episodic Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid Fuel Burning
Revised  -  September 11, 2018
Submitted  -  October 29, 2018

Completeness Finding

Completeness Letter: December 12, 2018

RULE SUMMARY

Rule 428, Wood Burning Appliances:
 Applies to anyone who manufactures, sells, orders for sale, or operates a permanently installed, indoor or outdoor, wood burning appliance; and anyone who installs wood burning appliances in any residential or commercial, single or multi-building unit within the Imperial County PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
 Defines terms applicable to Rule 428.
 Exempt from the provisions of Rule 428 are devices that are exclusively gaseous-fueled and cook stoves (as defined in 40 CFR 60.531).
 Requirements are included for sale, installation, operation and transfer of new and old wood burning appliances and permitted fuel types:

Sale and installation of Wood Burning Appliances:
 Effective April 12, 2019, all new wood burning appliances must comply with New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) certification requirements in effect at the time of installation; must have a permanently affixed label certifying compliance with NSPS certification requirements in effect at the time of installation; or must be a U.S. EPA-Qualified Fireplace.

 Used wood burning appliances cannot be sold, supplied, installed, or transferred unless they meet the certification requirements in Rule 428, or have been rendered permanently inoperable.

 Effective April 12, 2019, public awareness information (pamphlets, brochures, or fact sheets) must be distributed with all new wood burning appliances educating the owner on proper installation, operation, and maintenance of the wood burning appliance; proper fuel selection and use; health effects from wood smoke; and home weatherization methods.

 Effective April 12, 2019, no property containing a wood heater shall be sold or transferred unless it meets the certification requirements in this rule or has been rendered permanently inoperable.

	Operation of Wood Burning Appliances:
 All wood burning appliances should be installed and operated according to the manufacturer's specification.  No appliance shall be altered, installed, or disassembled in a way not specified by the manufacturer, or operated in a manner that could result in additional emissions.

      Permitted Fuel Types:
 Only the following fuels or materials may be burned in a Wood Burning Appliance:
 Seasoned wood (less than 20% moisture content, dry basis).
  Uncolored paper.
  Manufactured logs, pellets, and similar manufactured products (i.e., processed fire starters)

Rule 429, Mandatory Episodic Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid Fuel Burning:
 Applies to anyone who operates a wood burning appliance in Imperial County; and takes effect on January 1, 2020.
 Defines terms applicable to Rule 429.
 Exempts the following devices from the requirements of Rule 429:
 Exclusively gaseous-fueled devices.
 Cookstoves, as defined in 40 CFR 60.531.
 Wood burning appliances located in areas where natural gas service is not available.
 Wood burning appliances used as the sole available source of heat in a residence.

 Mandatory Wood Burning Curtailment:
 Curtailment shall be in effect annually during the wood burning season.

 A mandatory wood burning curtailment shall be declared for the Calexico area whenever the District forecasts that the 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration will exceed 35 ug/m[3] at the Calexico monitoring station.

 Upon notification from the EPA that the Imperial County nonattainment area has failed to meet (1) Reasonable Further Progress in the "Imperial County 2018 Annual Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Microns In Diameter State Implementation Plan" ("Imperial Annual PM2.5 Plan") submitted by CARB to the EPA on July 18, 2018, (2) to meet a Quantitative Milestone in the 2018 Annual PM2.5 SIP, and/or (3) to submit a Quantitative Milestone Report required under 40 CFR 51.1013(b), a mandatory wood burning curtailment shall be declared for all of Imperial County whenever the forecast for the 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration is equal to or exceeds 30 ug/m[3] at the Calexico monitoring station.

 During a mandatory wood burning curtailment, no person shall operate any wood burning appliance unless the wood burning appliance is subject to one or more of the exemptions in this rule.

 Mandatory Wood Burning Curtailment Notice:
The public shall be notified of each mandatory wood burning curtailment by notice in newspapers, radio and television broadcasts, record telephone messages, messages on the Air Pollution Control District website, the Imperial Valley forecasting website and mobile app, or any other method determined to be appropriate.

EVALUATION CRITERIA - The following criteria were used to evaluate the submitted rule:

1.  Enforceability - The Bluebook (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook
(Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability.

2.  Stringency  -  Wood burning emits PM, including particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM10) and PM2.5 directly, as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which are precursors to ozone and PM2.5.

ICAPCD regulates a Moderate nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard, which was designated effective April 15, 2015. CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas to implement RACM and RACT as expeditiously as practicable and no later than four years after the designation. Therefore, ICAPCD must implement RACM, including RACT, for PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, as expeditiously as practicable and no later than April 15, 2019. The EPA has defined RACM for PM2.5 as "any technologically and economically feasible measure that can be implemented in whole or in part within 4 years after the effective date of designation of a PM2.5 nonattainment area and that achieves permanent and enforceable reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions and/or PM2.5 plan precursor emissions from sources in the area. . . ."  In addition, Moderate nonattainment areas must implement "additional reasonable measures,"  which are control measures that otherwise meet the definition of RACM, but "can only be implemented in whole or in part during the period beginning 4 years after the effective date of designation of a nonattainment area and no later than the end of the sixth calendar year following the effective date of designation of the area."

ICAPCD also regulates a Serious PM10 nonattainment area (40 CFR 81.305). CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires Serious PM10 nonattainment areas to implement best available control measures (BACM). BACM is generally "required for all categories of sources in Serious areas unless the State adequately demonstrates that a particular source category does not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS." Residential fuel combustion (including wood burning) is estimated to constitute 0.06% or less of daily PM10 emissions in Imperial County as of 2016. Based on this information, we consider the contribution of wood burning to PM10 in Imperial County to be de minimis. Therefore, ICAPCD is not required to implement BACM for wood burning devices at this time.

Finally, Imperial County is currently designated nonattainment under the 1997, 2008, and 2015 ozone standards (40 CFR 81.305). CAA section 172(c)(1) requires ozone nonattainment areas to implement all RACM/RACT, as expeditiously as practicable. Therefore, ICAPCD must implement RACM/RACT for ozone precursors. We are not aware of reasonably available controls for these sources for ozone precursors that are not also reasonably available controls for PM. In addition, because residential wood burning takes place in the winter months when ozone concentrations are lower and the probability of exceeding the ozone NAAQS is low, we do not believe it is necessary to assess RACM/RACT for ozone and its precursors independently from our assessment of RACM/RACT for PM. Therefore, our stringency discussion below focuses on PM emissions.

3.  SIP Relaxation and Non-Interference - CAA section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area.

EPA EVALUATION - A summary of our evaluation of the three criteria follows:

1.  Enforceability - The rule requirements and applicability are clear, and sufficiently ensure that affected sources and regulators can evaluate and determine compliance with Rules 428 and 429 consistently. The rules include several provisions that together provide continuous control of PM emissions such as:
 The restriction of burning materials to seasoned wood, uncolored paper, pellets, and manufactured logs.
 The use of NSPS certified devices or EPA-Qualified fireplaces only.
 The distribution of public awareness information (pamphlets, brochures, or fact sheets) with all new wood burning appliances educating the owner on proper installation, operation, and maintenance of the wood burning appliance; proper fuel selection and use; health effects from wood smoke; and home weatherization methods.
In addition to the measures listed above, Rule 429 includes a mandatory burning curtailment which will take effect on January 1, 2020.

2.  Stringency  -  The EPA will address the overall RACM requirement for the Imperial County PM2.5 Nonattainment Area at a later date when we act on the Imperial Annual PM2.5 Plan. Therefore, our stringency evaluation considers whether Rules 428 and 429 include all technologically and economically feasible measures for wood burning devices by comparing the provisions of the rule with the EPA document "Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke", EPA-456/B-13-001, March 2013 and current State and District wood burning rules.

Rules 428 and 429 incorporate most of the elements outlined in the EPA's "Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke" guidance, including a wood burning curtailment program, requirements regarding wood moisture content, removal of uncertified wood burning stoves upon home resale, restrictions on wood burning devices in new construction, restrictions on the installation of wood burning fireplaces, requirement that all wood burning stoves sold or transferred within the area meet current NSPS certification standards, and education and outreach. We are not acting on the opacity in limit in section E.4.2. of Rule 428 at this time. However, ICAPACD Rule 401, which has been approved into the California SIP, establishes a 20% opacity limit that applies to most sources, including wood burning appliances. Our action on Rule 428 will not affect the applicability of this limit.

Rules 401, 428 and 429 also include measures similar to those in other areas' analogous rules, as summarized in the following table:

Rules 401, 428 and 429
Great Basin
Rule 431
San Joaquin
Rule 4901
Washoe County
Rule 225
Opacity limit of 20%
X
X
X
X
New fireplaces must be EPA qualified
X
X

Remove/replace uncertified appliances upon sale/remodel
X
X
X
X
Limit # wood burning devices in new developments
X
X
X
X
Prohibit use of unseasoned wood
X

X
Curtailment program
X
X
X
X

The provisions of Rules 428 and 429 are generally as stringent as the provisions of these other rules. Therefore, we believe Rules 428 and 429 implement RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measures for wood burning devices.

We note that Rule 429 does not take effect until January 1, 2020, which is later than the April 15, 2019 RACM deadline for the Imperial County PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, but in time for the "additional reasonable measures" deadline of December 31, 2021. The Imperial Annual PM2.5 Plan explains that this delay is necessary "to allow the District to develop and identify a source of funding for an incentive program for Calexico residents to purchase devices that may operate during mandated curtailment" and "provide the District with a winter period in which they could educate the populace regarding the concept of curtailment, possibly of the control measure in 2020 when mandated curtailment provisions are in place." Accordingly, we believe Rule 429 qualifies as an additional reasonable measure.

3.  SIP Relaxation and Non-Interference  -  We believe approval of the submittal would comply with CAA sections 110(l) and 193 because rules 428 and 429 establish new requirements and would not interfere with any CAA requirements, including requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT RULE REVISION
1.  Remove or replace non-EPA certified devices on a deadline.
2.  Prohibit solid wood burning devices in new construction.
3.  Limit the number of wood burning devices per acre in new developments.

EPA ACTION - The submitted Rules 428 and 429 strengthen the SIP by adding new requirements and fulfill the relevant CAA §110 and Title I, part D requirements. Therefore, EPA staff recommends approval of Rules 428 and 429 pursuant to CAA §110(k)(3).

REFERENCES

    "Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations," (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988.
    "Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies," (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001.
    ICAPCD Rule 428, Wood Burning Appliances as adopted on September 11, 2018.
    ICAPCD Rule 429, Mandatory Episodic Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid Fuel Burning, adopted September 11, 2018.
    ICAPCD Staff Report for proposed Rule 428, Wood Burning Appliances, Rule 429, Mandatory Episodic Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid Fuel Burning and revised Rule 804, Open Areas, dated September 11, 2018.
    "Imperial County 2018 Annual Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Microns In Diameter State Implementation Plan" ("Imperial Annual PM2.5 Plan") submitted by CARB to the EPA on July 18, 2018.
    "Imperial County 2018 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Particulate Matter less than 10 Microns in Diameter" adopted October 23, 2018.
    General Preamble Addendum for Serious PM10 Nonattainment areas, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 58178]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1254]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: FAA Airport
Data and Information

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves aeronautical information the FAA
uses to carry out agency missions related to flight safety, flight
planning, airport engineering and federal grant analysis, airport
actions, aeronautical chart and flight information publications, and
the promotion of air commerce as required by statute. The information
will be used for airspace studies conducted under 49 U.S.C. 329(b) and
published in flight information handbooks and charts for pilot use. We
have renamed and updated the collection, previously called the FAA
Airport Master Record, to incorporate several related tools using this
data that are made available and processed via the same online system--
the Airport Data and Information Portal (ADIP).

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By Mail: Andrew Goldsmith, Airport Data and Airspace Branch (AAS-
120), Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    By Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Goldsmith by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0015.
    Title: FAA Airport Data and Information.
    Form Numbers: 5010-1, 5010-2, 5010-3, 5010-4.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 49 U.S.C. 329(b) empowers and directs the Secretary of
Transportation to collect and disseminate information on civil
aeronautics. Aeronautical information is required by the FAA to carry
out agency missions agency missions related to flight safety, flight
planning, airport engineering and federal grant analysis, aeronautical
studies and airport actions, aeronautical chart and flight information
publications, and the promotion of air commerce as required by statute.
The existing FAA Airport Master Record is now fully online and part of
a suite of tools using aeronautical data to support the origination and
distribution of airport data and information. Modules include the
Airports Geographic Information System (AGIS), Airport Master Record
(AMR), Modification of Standards (MOS), Runway Airspace Management
(RAM), and Runway Safety Area Inventory (RSAI) as well as Registration.
The burden per respondent will depend on which module or modules the
respondent is using as well as the complexity of submitted projects.
    We have renamed and updated the collection, previously called the
FAA Airport Master Record, to reflect the consolidation of these tools
and processes into a single online system--the Airport Data and
Information Portal (ADIP). ADIP provides airports with direct access to
their data and the ability to submit changes to it according to defined
business rules. We are cancelling the PDF forms previously used to
collect Airport Master Record data as they are no longer used for any
collection activities.
    Respondents: Approximately 10,000 airport owners/managers and
consultants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1-5 hours, depending on the
module and complexity of the project.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 10,000-50,000 hours for all
submissions.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 19, 2022.
Andrew Goldsmith,
Aeronautical Information Specialist, Airport Data and Airspace Branch,
Office of Airport Safety and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2022-20598 Filed 9-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44018-44019]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16022]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0358; FRL-9948-72-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed
consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Appleton Coated, LLC
(Appleton or Plaintiff), in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin: Appleton Coated, LLC v. McCarthy, Civil
Action No. 1:16-cv-272 (E.D. Wis.). On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
complaint alleging that Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as
Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA''), failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty to grant or deny
within 60 days a petition submitted by Plaintiff on November 19, 2013,
requesting that EPA object to a CAA Title V permit issued by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to Appleton authorizing the
operation of its facility located in Combined Locks, Wisconsin. The
proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for EPA to take such
action.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by August 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2016-0358, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Conrad, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the
Plaintiff seeking to compel the Administrator to take actions under CAA
section 505(b)(2). Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA
would agree to sign its response granting or denying the petition filed
by Plaintiff regarding its facility located in Combined Locks,
Wisconsin pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the CAA, on or before
October 14, 2016.
    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would
expeditiously deliver notice of EPA's response to the Office of the
Federal Register for review and publication following signature of such
response. In addition, the proposed consent decree outlines the
settlement in regard to Petitioners' attorney fees.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0358) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of

Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the
appropriate docket identification number then select ``search.''
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business
information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official
public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that
copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a
public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket
but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official
public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: June 27, 2016.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-16022 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 ADVANCE \y63

	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION III

1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

July 12, 2010

Mr. David K. Paylor, Director

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

629 East Main Street

Richmond, Virginia  23218

Dear Mr. Paylor:

On June 10, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
received a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation
Plan (SIP) which was submitted by your department on June 7, 2010.  This
SIP revision request consists of amendments to Virginia Article 8 of 9
VAC 5 Chapter 80, Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major
Modifications Locating in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas.
 The amendments within the SIP revision request are intended to make the
Commonwealth’s regulation consistent with EPA’s final rule for the
Phase II implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard and to also include
nitrogen oxides as precursors to ozone, as further described as a
regulatory need in Federal Register notice 73 FR 16205 dated March 27,
2008.

EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and
technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Proposed Final
Rulemaking Notice action.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms.
Sharon McCauley, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
She is the principal contact for this rulemaking.

						Sincerely,

						/signature by Marcia Spink, Acting/

						Diana Esher, Director

						Air Protection Division


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4067-4068]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00862]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0585; FRL-10018-47]

Glyphosate Registration Review; Draft Endangered Species Act
Biological Evaluations; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of November 27,
2020, opening a 60-day comment period on the draft nationwide
biological evaluations for the registration review of the pesticide
glyphosate relative to the potential effects on threatened and
endangered species and their designated critical habitats. This
document extends the comment period for 45 days, from January 26, 2021
to March 12, 2021.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2020-0585 must be received on or before March 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in
the Federal Register document of November 27, 2020 (85 FR 76071) (FRL-
10017-03).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy Perry, Pesticide Re-Evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment
period established in the Federal Register document of November 27,
2020 (85 FR 76071) (FRL-10017-03), which opened a 60-day public comment
period for the draft nationwide biological evaluations for the
registration review of the pesticide glyphosate relative to the
potential effects on threatened and endangered species and their
designated critical habitats. As noted in that document, the schedule
for conducting the atrazine and simazine BEs was negotiated as part of
a partial settlement agreement pursuant to a joint stipulation filed on
October 18, 2019 and entered by the

court on October 22, 2019, in Center for Biological Diversity et al. v.
EPA et al. (N.D. Ca) (3:11-cv-00293). EPA stated in that settlement
that it would also include the herbicides propazine and glyphosate in
this group of effects determinations. The Agency has completed a
comprehensive, nationwide draft BE for the use of glyphosate relative
to the potential effects on listed species and their designated
critical habitats.
    After considering a number of requests to extend the comment period
received from various stakeholders, EPA is extending the comment period
for the following reasons: (1) The length, complexity, and highly
technical nature of the draft biological evaluations; (2) the need for
some stakeholders to engage experts familiar with the subject matter to
assist them with providing comments; (3) the large number of
stakeholders potentially impacted by the draft biological evaluations;
(4) the importance of soliciting feedback from stakeholders who may be
affected; and (5) the stakeholders' need for additional time to review
and develop constructive comments for this BE document. This document
extends the comment period for 45 days, from January 26, 2021 to March
12, 2021.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the
detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register
document of November 27, 2020. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: December 16, 2020.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-00862 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 16010]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06325]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee; Notice
of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on April 22, 2014, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a disability,
visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Caleb Briggs, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, Rm. 2428, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss the safety and efficacy for new
drug application 203077, MOXDUO (morphine sulfate and oxycodone
hydrochloride) capsules, QRxPharma Inc., for the proposed indication of
management of moderate to severe acute pain where the use of an opioid
analgesic is appropriate. This product represents the first drug
combination consisting of two immediate-release opioids.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
April 8, 2014. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before March 31, 2014. Time allotted for
each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by April 1, 2014.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Caleb Briggs at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 19, 2014.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-06325 Filed 3-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18082-18084]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91457; File No. SR-MEMX-2021-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Current
Pilot Program Related to MEMX Rule 11.15, Clearly Erroneous Executions

April 1, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 23, 2021, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to extend the current pilot program related to MEMX Rule 11.15,
``Clearly Erroneous Executions,'' to the close of business on October
20, 2021. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit
5.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the effectiveness of the Exchange's
current rule applicable to Clearly Erroneous Executions to the close of
business on October 20, 2021. Portions of Rule 11.15, explained in
further detail below, are currently operating as a pilot program which
is set to expire on April 20, 2021.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See MEMX Rule 11.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 4, 2020, the Commission approved MEMX's Form 1 Application
to register as a national securities exchange with rules including, on
a pilot basis, MEMX Rule 11.15.\6\ Rule 11.15, among other things (i)
provides for uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews
in multi-stock events involving twenty or more securities; and (ii)
reduces the ability of the Exchange to deviate from objective standards
set forth in the rule. The rule further provides that: (i) a series of
transactions in a particular security on one or more trading days may
be viewed as one event if all such transactions were effected based on
the same fundamentally incorrect or grossly misinterpreted issuance
information resulting in a severe valuation error for

all such transactions; and (ii) in the event of any disruption or
malfunction in the operation of the electronic communications and
trading facilities of the Exchange, another SRO, or responsible single
plan processor in connection with the transmittal or receipt of a
trading halt, an Officer of the Exchange or senior level employee
designee, acting on his or her own motion, shall nullify any
transaction that occurs after a trading halt has been declared by the
primary listing market for a security, and before such a trading halt
has officially ended according to the primary listing market.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 88806 (May 4, 2020), 85
FR 27451 (May 8, 2020).
    \7\ See MEMX Rule 11.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Previously, the clearly erroneous pilot programs adopted by the
national securities exchanges and the current Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS
under the Act (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or the ``LULD Plan'')
were a single pilot program. On April 17, 2019, the Commission approved
the Eighteenth Amendment to the LULD Plan, allowing the LULD Plan to
operate on a permanent, rather than pilot, basis.\8\ Accordingly,
national securities exchanges filed with the Commission amendments to
exchange rules to untie the pilot program's effectiveness from that of
the LULD Plan in order to provide such exchanges additional time to
consider further amendments, if any, to the clearly erroneous execution
rules in light of the proposed Eighteenth Amendment to the LULD
Plan.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019) (File No. 4-631).
    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85542 (April
8, 2019), 84 FR 15009 (April 12, 2019) (SR-CboeBYX-2019-003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, national securities exchanges filed with the
Commission amendments to exchange rules to extend the pilot's
effectiveness to the close of business on April 20, 2021.\10\
Similarly, the Exchange amended MEMX Rule 11.15 to extend the pilot's
effectiveness to the close of business on April 20, 2021.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90231
(October 20, 2020), 85 FR 67789 (October 26, 2020) (SR-CboeBZX-2020-
077).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90022 (September
28, 2020), 85 FR 62340 (October 2, 2020) (SR-MEMX-2020-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend MEMX Rule 11.15 to extend the
pilot's effectiveness to the close of business on October 20, 2021.
MEMX understands that certain other national securities exchanges and
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') also intend to
file similar proposals to extend their respective clearly erroneous
execution pilot programs, the substance of which are identical to MEMX
Rule 11.15.
    The Exchange does not propose any additional changes to MEMX Rule
11.15. By proposing to extend the pilot, the Exchange will avoid any
discrepancy between its clearly erroneous pilot program and the pilot
programs of other exchanges and FINRA, as the language of such rules
are identical to MEMX Rule 11.15 and, as noted above, other exchanges
and FINRA also intend to file proposals to extend their respective
clearly erroneous execution pilot programs. The Exchange believes the
benefits to market participants from the more objective clearly
erroneous executions rule should continue on a limited six month pilot
basis. As the LULD Plan was approved by the Commission to operate on a
permanent, rather than pilot, basis the Exchange intends to assess
whether additional changes should also be made to the operation of the
clearly erroneous execution rules. Extending the effectiveness of MEMX
Rule 11.15 for an additional six months should provide the Exchange and
other national securities exchanges additional time to consider future
amendments, if any, to the clearly erroneous execution rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to
protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that extending the clearly
erroneous execution pilot under MEMX Rule 11.15 for an additional six
months would help assure that the determination of whether a clearly
erroneous trade has occurred will be based on clear and objective
criteria, and that the resolution of the incident will occur promptly
through a transparent process. The proposed extension would also help
assure consistent results in handling erroneous trades across the U.S.
equities markets, thus furthering fair and orderly markets, the
protection of investors and the public interest. Based on the
foregoing, the Exchange believes the clearly erroneous executions rule
should continue to be in effect on a pilot basis while the Exchange and
other national securities exchanges consider and develop a permanent
proposal for clearly erroneous executions reviews.

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

    The Exchange believes its proposed rule change would not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
understands that FINRA and certain other national securities exchanges
will also file similar proposals to extend their respective clearly
erroneous execution pilot programs. Thus, the proposed rule change will
help to ensure consistency across market centers without implicating
any competitive issues.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule

19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the
30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule change may become
operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, as it will allow the current clearly
erroneous execution pilot program to continue uninterrupted, without
any changes, while the Exchange and the other national securities
exchanges consider a permanent proposal for clearly erroneous execution
reviews. For this reason, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative
upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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 change 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-MEMX-2021-05 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-MEMX-2021-05. 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-MEMX-2021-05 and should be submitted on
or before April 28, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07118 Filed 4-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P