[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61260-61263]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21252]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78728; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of BlackRock
Government Collateral Pledge Unit Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600

August 30, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On May 19, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the BlackRock Government Collateral Pledge Unit. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June
2, 2016.\3\ On July 14, 2016, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission has received no comments on the
proposed rule change. This order institutes proceedings under section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77941 (May 27,
2016), 81 FR 35425 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78328, 81 FR 47222
(July 20, 2016). The Commission designated August 31, 2016 as the
date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Exchange's Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (``Shares'') of the
BlackRock Government Collateral Pledge Unit (``Fund'') under NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed
Fund Shares. The Fund is a series of the BlackRock Collateral Trust
(``Trust''), a Delaware statutory trust.\7\ BlackRock Fund Advisors is
the investment advisor for the Fund (``Adviser''). State Street Bank
and Trust Company is the administrator, custodian, and transfer agent
for the Fund. BlackRock Investments, LLC will be the Fund's
distributor. The Exchange represents that the Adviser is not registered
as a broker-dealer, but is affiliated with two broker-dealers.
According to the Exchange, the Adviser has implemented and will
maintain a fire wall with respect to its affiliated

broker-dealers regarding access to information concerning the
composition of, and changes to, the Fund's portfolio.\8\ In the event
(a) the Adviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer or newly
affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser
becomes registered as a broker-dealer or newly affiliated with a
broker-dealer, it will implement a fire wall with respect to its
relevant personnel or such broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to
information concerning the composition of, and changes to, the
portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the
use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such
portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange represents that the Trust is registered under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``1940 Act''). According to the
Exchange, on April 7, 2016, the Trust filed with the Commission its
registration statement on Form N-1A under the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act'') and the 1940 Act relating to the Fund (File
Nos. 333-210648 and 811-23154) (``Registration Statement''). The
Exchange also states that the Trust and the Adviser (as defined
herein) have obtained certain exemptive relief under the 1940 Act.
See Investment Company Act Release No. 29571 (January 24, 2011)
(File No. 812-13601) (``Exemptive Order''). The Exchange represents
that the Fund will be offered in reliance upon the Exemptive Order.
    \8\ The Exchange further represents that an investment adviser
to an open-end fund is required to be registered under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). As a result, the
Adviser and its related personnel are subject to the provisions of
Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act relating to codes of ethics. This
Rule requires investment advisers to adopt a code of ethics that
reflects the fiduciary nature of the relationship to clients as well
as compliance with other applicable securities laws. Accordingly,
procedures designed to prevent the communication and misuse of non-
public information by an investment adviser must be consistent with
Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act. The Exchange represents that the
Adviser and its related personnel are subject to Advisers Act Rule
204A-1. In addition, Rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisers Act makes it
unlawful for an investment adviser to provide investment advice to
clients unless such investment adviser has (i) adopted and
implemented written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
prevent violation, by the investment adviser and its supervised
persons, of the Advisers Act and the Commission rules adopted
thereunder; (ii) implemented, at a minimum, an annual review
regarding the adequacy of the policies and procedures established
pursuant to subparagraph (i) above and the effectiveness of their
implementation; and (iii) designated an individual (who is a
supervised person) responsible for administering the policies and
procedures adopted under subparagraph (i) above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has made the following representations and statements
in describing the Fund and its investment strategies, including the
Fund's portfolio holdings and investment restrictions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission notes that additional information regarding
the Trust, the Fund, and the Shares, including investment
strategies, risks, net asset value (``NAV'') calculation, creation
and redemption procedures, fees, Fund holdings disclosure policies,
distributions, and taxes, among other information, is included in
the Notice and the Registration Statement, as applicable. See Notice
and Registration Statement, supra notes 3 and 7, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Exchange's Description of the Fund's Principal Investments

    According to the Exchange, the Fund's investment objective will be
to seek to provide as high a level of current income as is consistent
with liquidity and minimum volatility of principal. The Fund will seek
to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal
circumstances,\10\ at least 80% of its net assets in a portfolio of
U.S. dollar-denominated short-term government securities and other
money market securities eligible for investment by U.S. government
money market funds that seek to maintain a stable net asset value
(including indirect investments through the ``Underlying Funds,'' as
defined below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``under normal circumstances'' includes, but is
not limited to, the absence of extreme volatility or trading halts
in the fixed income securities markets or the financial markets
generally; circumstances under which the Fund's investments are made
for temporary defensive purposes; operational issues causing
dissemination of inaccurate market information; or force majeure
type events such as systems failure, natural or man-made disaster,
act of God, armed conflict, act of terrorism, riot or labor
disruption or any similar intervening circumstance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under normal circumstances, the Fund intends to invest a
substantial portion of its assets in the following government money
market funds (individually, ``Underlying Fund,'' and together,
collectively, ``Underlying Funds''), which principally invest in short-
term U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and other obligations issued or
guaranteed as to principal and interest by the U.S. government or its
agencies or instrumentalities, and repurchase agreements secured by
such obligations or cash: \11\ (1) FedFund and T-Fund (each, a series
of BlackRock Liquidity Funds); and (2) BlackRock Premier Government
Institutional Fund and BlackRock Select Treasury Strategies
Institutional Fund (each, a series of Funds For Institutions
Series).\12\ The Adviser may add, eliminate, or replace any or all
Underlying Funds at any time. Any additions to, or replacements for,
the Underlying Funds will also be government money market funds with
substantially similar investment characteristics as those applicable to
the Underlying Funds. The Adviser or its affiliates may advise the
Underlying Funds. The Fund generally will allocate and reallocate its
assets among the Underlying Funds on a monthly basis on an approximate
pro rata basis based on the amount of net assets of each Underlying
Fund, subject to minimum investment amounts or other constraints on the
Underlying Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Each Underlying Fund is a ``government money market fund,''
as defined in Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act and seeks to maintain a
stable NAV of $1.00. The Fund, however, will not be a money market
fund and will not seek to maintain a stable NAV of $1.00.
    \12\ According to the Exchange, the Underlying Funds invest in
securities maturing in 397 days (13 months) or less (with certain
exceptions) and their portfolios will have a dollar-weighted average
maturity of 60 days or less and a dollar-weighted average life of
120 days or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund and certain Underlying Funds may invest in various types
of U.S. government obligations. The Fund and the Underlying Funds may
invest in variable and floating rate instruments. The Fund and the
Underlying Funds may transact in securities on a when-issued, delayed
delivery, or forward commitment basis. The Fund and the Underlying
Funds may invest in repurchase agreements that are secured by either
obligations issued or guaranteed as to principal and interest by the
U.S. government or agencies or instrumentalities, or by cash.
    The securities purchased by the Fund will comply with the quality
and eligibility requirements of Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act. The
securities purchased by the Underlying Funds will comply with all
requirements of Rule 2a-7 and other rules of the Commission applicable
to money market funds that seek to maintain a stable NAV per share. The
Fund itself will invest only in money market securities eligible for
investment for funds that comply with Rule 2a-7, but will not be
subject to other requirements of Rule 2a-7 applicable to money market
funds that seek to maintain a stable NAV.

B. Exchange's Description of the Fund's Other Investments

    While the Fund, under normal circumstances, will invest at least
80% of its net assets in the securities and financial instruments
described above, the Fund may invest its remaining assets in other
assets and financial instruments, as described below.
    The Fund and the Underlying Funds may invest in certain U.S.
government obligations other than those referenced in the Principal
Investments section above, namely Treasury receipts where the principal
and interest components are traded separately under the Separate
Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities (STRIPS)
program. The Fund and certain Underlying Funds also may invest in
reverse repurchase agreements. In addition, the Fund may invest in the
securities of other investment companies (including money market funds)
to the extent permitted by law, regulation, exemptive order, or
Commission staff guidance.

C. Exchange's Description of the Fund's Investment Restrictions

    According to the Exchange, the Fund will be classified as
``diversified'' pursuant to the diversification standard set forth in
section 5(b)(1) of the 1940 Act.
    The Fund intends to maintain the required level of diversification
and

otherwise conduct its operations so as to qualify as a regulated
investment company for purposes of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended.
    The Fund may invest up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net
assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment). Each
Underlying Fund may invest up to an aggregate amount of 5% of its net
assets in illiquid securities. The Fund will monitor its portfolio
liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current
circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and
will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate
liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other
circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in
illiquid assets. Illiquid assets include securities subject to
contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that
lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with
Commission staff guidance.
    The Exchange represents that the Fund will not invest in futures,
options, swaps, or forward contracts. The Exchange further represents
that the Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's
investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. That is,
while the Fund will be permitted to borrow as permitted under the 1940
Act, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that
is the multiple or inverse multiple (e.g., 2x and 3x) of the Fund's
primary broad-based securities benchmark index (as defined in Form N-
1A).

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NYSEArca-2016-63 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \13\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\14\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the public
interest.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, the NAV for the Fund's Shares would generally
be calculated as of 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on each day the New York
Stock Exchange is open for trading. The cutoff time for the submission
of creation and redemption orders for the Shares would also generally
be 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The Commission notes the proposal does not
provide any explanation for the early NAV calculation time and creation
and redemption cutoff time. The proposal also does not explain whether
the early NAV calculation time and creation and redemption cutoff time
would have any impact on the trading of the Shares, including any
impact on arbitrage. Accordingly, the Commission seeks commenters'
views on the 12:00 p.m. NAV calculation time and creation and
redemption cutoff time, and on whether the Exchange's statements
relating to the NAV calculation and the creation and redemption process
support a determination that the listing and trading of the Shares
would be consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which, among other
things, requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public
interest.

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to
be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm.
on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by September 27, 2016. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
October 11, 2016. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal,
which are set forth in the Notice,\17\ in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NYSEArca-2016-63 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-NYSEArca-2016-63. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-63 and should
be submitted on or before September 27, 2016. Rebuttal comments should
be submitted by October 11, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-21252 Filed 9-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4233-4236]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01268]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96691; File No. SR-NYSECHX-2023-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rules 10.9132, 10.9133, 10.9135, 10.9146, 10.9522, 10.9524, 10.9559 and
10.9630

January 18, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on January 4, 2023, the NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 10.9132, 10.9133, 10.9135,
10.9146, 10.9522, 10.9524, 10.9559 and 10.9630 to permit, and in some
instances require, electronic service and filing of documents in
disciplinary and other proceedings and appeals, in conformity with
recent changes by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 10.9132, 10.9133, 10.9135,
10.9146, 10.9522, 10.9524, 10.9559 and 10.9630 to permit, and in some
instances require, electronic service and filing of documents in
disciplinary and other proceedings, in conformity with recent changes
by FINRA.
    In 2020, following the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease
(``COVID-19''), FINRA temporarily amended certain of its rules,
including related to the method of service and filing in disciplinary
proceedings before the Office of Hearing Officers (OHO) and appeals
before the National Adjudicatory Council (NAC), among other types of
administrative proceedings (the ``temporary amendments'').\4\ The
temporary amendments allowed, and in some instances required, FINRA (in
its capacity as an Adjudicator per FINRA Rule 9120) to serve certain
documents on parties by electronic mail (``email'') and required
parties to file or serve documents by email, unless the parties agreed
to an alternative method of service.\5\ Earlier this year, FINRA made
permanent the temporary amendments to its rules regarding electronic
service and filing permanent, with some modifications.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88917 (May
20, 2020), 85 FR 31832 (May 27, 2020) (SR-FINRA-2020-015) (Notice
and immediate effectiveness of filing to temporarily amend certain
timing, method of service and other procedural requirements in FINRA
Rules during the outbreak of COVID-19). FINRA extended the temporary
amendments several times before filing to make certain of the
aforementioned amendments permanent. The temporary amendments
included rule changes to permit the conduct of virtual hearings
(i.e., Rules 9261 and 9830), which rule changes are not being
included in this proposal. Rather, the Exchange is solely copying a
subset of rules covered by the temporary amendments as discussed
herein.
    \5\ See id.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 95147 (June 23,
2022), 87 FR 38803 (June 29, 2022) (order approving change to
certain FINRA rules to permit, and in some instances require,
electronic service and filing of documents in disciplinary and other
proceedings and appeals) (``Approval Order of FINRA Rules''); 94654
(April 8, 2022), 87 FR 22264 (April 14, 2022) (SR-FINRA-2022-009)
(``FINRA Notice''). The Approval Order of FINRA Rules related to
FINRA Rules 1012, 1015, 6490, 9132, 9133, 9135, 9146, 9321, 9341,
9349, 9351, 9522, 9524, 9559 and 9630 (collectively, ``the approved
FINRA Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its filing, FINRA noted that advances in technology
and its availability made filing and service permitted by the temporary
amendments more efficient than under FINRA's ``original'' (non-amended)
rules.\7\ Moreover, FINRA determined that electronic service and filing
is beneficial for parties, panelists and FINRA staff.\8\ FINRA also
noted that the Commission likewise amended its rules in November 2020
to require electronic filing and service of documents in its
administrative proceedings.\9\ For these reasons, FINRA determined that
making permanent the temporary amendments would similarly improve and
modernize FINRA's operations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See FINRA Notice, 87 FR at 22267.
    \8\ See FINRA Notice, 87 FR at 22267.
    \9\ See Amendments to the Commission's Rules of Practice,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90442 (November 17, 2020), 85 FR
86464 (File No. S7-18-15) (December 30, 2020) (codified at 17 CFR
201 (2020)).
    \10\ See FINRA Notice, 87 FR at 22266-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To likewise improve and modernize Exchange rules, the Exchange
proposes to modify certain of its disciplinary rules to allow for
electronic service and filing of documents in disciplinary and other
proceedings in conformity with the approved FINRA Rules.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Consistent with the Approval Order of FINRA Rules, the
Exchange is not proposing to permit electronic service of an initial
complaint on a respondent due to heightened fair process concerns.
As is the case today, the only permissible methods of serving the
initial complaint are by hand, mail or courier. See Rule 10.9131(b)
(requiring that service be pursuant to Rule 10.9134(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In 2022, NYSE Chicago adopted disciplinary rules that are, with
certain

exceptions, substantially the same as the disciplinary rules of its
affiliate NYSE Arca, Inc., which are in turn substantially similar to
the FINRA Rule 8000 Series and Rule 9000 Series, and which set forth
rules for conducting investigations and enforcement actions.\12\ The
Exchange notes that FINRA and OHO administers disciplinary hearings on
the Exchange's behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95020 (June 1,
2022), 87 FR 35034, (June 8, 2022) (SR-NYSECHX-2022-10) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Adopt
Investigation, Disciplinary, Sanction, and Other Procedural Rules
Modeled on the Rules of the Exchange's Affiliates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting disciplinary rules modeled on FINRA's rules, the
Exchange adopted the filing, service and other procedural requirements
as contained the FINRA Rule 9100, 9500, and 9600 Series. As adopted,
the text of Exchange Rules 10.9132, 10.9133, 10.9135, 10.9146, 10.9522,
10.9524, 10.9559 and 10.9630 are based on, and are substantially the
same as, their counterpart FINRA rules.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that this proposal adopts a subset of
the approved FINRA Rules, which subset are applicable to the
Exchange rules. As noted herein, this proposal does not extend to
the temporary amendments related to the conduct of virtual hearings
(i.e., Rules 10.9261 and 10.9830).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    Consistent with FINRA's recent proposal, the Exchange proposes to
amend certain of its disciplinary rules related to filing, service and
other procedural requirements and appeals. The proposed rule change
includes provisions to allow, and in some instances require, FINRA (in
its capacity as an Adjudicator per Rule 10.9120) to serve certain
documents on parties by email and require parties to file or serve
documents by email, unless another method of service is ordered by the
Adjudicator.\14\ In addition, to support the transition to email
service and filing, the Exchange proposes to require parties in OHO
proceedings to file and serve all parties with their current email
address and contact information at the time of their first appearance,
and to file and serve any change in email address or contact
information during the course of the proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ To the extent that a party lacks the ability to use or
access technology needed to file, serve or accept service by email,
FINRA, as adjudicator, may order an alternative method of service
upon a showing of good cause. See FINRA Notice, 87 FR at 22265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would permit service of documents other
than the initial complaint by email among various other methods of
service, such as personal service, mail and courier, and to provide
that service by email is deemed complete upon sending. The Exchange
intends to elect email service whenever possible. If the Exchange has
knowledge that the address used for service is not current or not
functional (i.e., the Exchange receives a bounce back or other message
indicating that there was a failure to deliver the email), the Exchange
will use other permissible methods of service until it can verify the
party's email address.\15\ The Exchange notes that, in most cases, the
Exchange and the relevant party, or their counsel, will have already
engaged in communications prior to the service of documents or other
information. Accordingly, in most cases, the Exchange will already have
information regarding the relevant party, or their counsel's, preferred
method of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As indicated in the proposed rule text, the Exchange will
consider service by email complete upon sending of the relevant
document or other information. This is consistent with service by
mail under the current rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule 10.9000 Series, among other things, sets forth the
procedure for disciplinary proceedings concerning a member, associated
person or formerly associated person. The Rule 10.9100 Series is of
general applicability to all proceedings set forth in the Rule 10.9000
Series, unless a rule specifically provides otherwise. Rules
10.9132(b),\16\ 10.9133(b),\17\ and 10.9146(l) \18\ provide that the
documents and other information governed by those rules be served
pursuant to Rule 10.9134, which permits service on the parties using
the following methods: (1) personal service, (2) mail, or (3) courier.
Rule 10.9134 does not permit service by email. The proposed rule change
would amend Rule 10.9132(b) to allow service of the relevant documents
or information by email, and Rules 10.9133(b) and 10.9146(l) to require
parties to serve documents by email, unless an alternative method of
service is ordered by the Adjudicator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Rule 10.9132(b) (Service of Orders, Notices, and Decisions
by Adjudicator; How Served).
    \17\ Rule 10.9133(b) (Service of Papers Other Than Complaints,
Orders, Notices or Decisions; How Served).
    \18\ Rule 10.9146(l) (Motions; General).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, to support the transition to email service and filing,
the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 10.9135 to add paragraph (d), which
would require parties in OHO proceedings to file and serve the parties
with their current email address and contact information at the time of
their first appearance, and to file and serve any change in email
address or contact information during the course of the proceeding.\19\
The Exchange believes this proposed rule change will help ensure that
documents are successfully sent from and received at a valid email
address. It will also ensure that all participants, including the
Exchange, applicants, respondents and any other parties, have accurate
contact information for all parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed Rule 10.9135(d) (Filing of Papers with
Adjudicator: Procedure; Party Contact Information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule 10.9520 Series sets forth the procedures for eligibility
proceedings and review of those proceedings by the Exchange Board.
Because the applicable rules in this series do not allow for email as a
method of service, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 10.9522(a)(4)
\20\ and to add new paragraph (d) to Rule 10.9524 \21\ to permit
effective service by email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See proposed Rule 10.9522(a)(4) (Initiation of Eligibility
Proceeding; Member Regulation Consideration; Service).
    \21\ See proposed Rule 10.9524(d) (Exchange Board of Directors
Consideration; Service by Electronic Mail; When Service is
Complete).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule 10.9550 Series sets forth the procedures for expedited
proceedings and the ability of the Exchange Board to call for review a
proposed decision prepared under the Rule 10.9550 Series. Rule
10.9559(h) \22\ sets forth the timing and method of service
requirements for the parties' exchange of proposed exhibit and witness
lists in advance of an expedited proceeding, but do not allow for email
as a method of service. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule
10.9559(h)(2) to require service of exhibit and witness lists by email,
unless an alternative method of service is ordered by the Adjudicator
and to remove text from Rule 10.9559(h)(1) that requires that documents
served by email must also be served by overnight courier or personal
service.\23\ Finally, the Exchange proposes to add new paragraph (s) to
Rule 10.9559 to provide that, for purposes of proposed Rule 10.9559(h),
service by email is complete upon sending the documents or
decision.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Rule 10.9559(h) (Hearing Procedures for Expedited
Proceedings Under the Rule 10.9550 Series). Rule 10.9559(h)
currently permits email as a method of service.
    \23\ See proposed Rule 10.9559(h)(1), (2) (Hearing Procedures
for Expedited Proceedings Under the Rule 10.9550 Series;
Transmission of Documents).
    \24\ See proposed Rule 10.9559(s) (Hearing Procedures for
Expedited Proceedings Under the Rule 10.9550 Series; Service by
Email; When Service is Complete). Rule 10.9559(h) currently permits
email as a method of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule 10.9600 Series sets forth the procedures for members to
seek exemptive relief from a variety of Exchange rules. Rule 10.9630(e)
\25\

requires the Exchange (via the Chief Regulatory Officer) to serve its
decision pursuant to Rules 10.9132 and 10.9134, which do not allow for
email as a method of service. The proposed rule change would amend Rule
10.9630 to add new paragraph (d) to allow for email as a method of
service.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Rule 10.9630 (Procedures for Exemptions; Appeal).
    \26\ See proposed Rule 10.9630(f) (Appeal; Service by Electronic
Mail; When Service is Complete).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal, like the approved FINRA
Rules, will modernize the rules and make service and filing more
efficient and effective. Email technology is widely available, and use
of electronic methods of service and filing is common practice in the
courts and other regulatory agencies, including the Commission.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 9 (regarding Amendments to the Commission's
Rules of Practice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted below, the Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for
immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the
requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, so the Exchange can implement the
proposed rule change immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the
Act,\28\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5),\29\ in particular, because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in 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 designed to provide a fair procedure for
the disciplining of members and persons associated with members,
consistent with sections 6(b)(7) and 6(d) of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) & 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change protects
investors and the public interest by requiring use of broadly available
technology to make service and filing processes more efficient and
effective. The Exchange's disciplinary and eligibility proceedings and
other review processes serve a critical role in providing investor
protection and maintaining fair and orderly markets by, for example,
sanctioning misconduct and preventing further customer harm by members
and associated persons.
    The proposed rule change promotes efficiency in these processes by
permitting electronic service and filing in most instances. To ensure
that documents are effectively sent and received, the Exchange is
proposing to require parties to provide and update their contact
information, including their email address, during the course of a
proceeding. These amendments reduce the reliance on paper documents in
favor of more efficient electronic formats. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change regarding electronic service and filing is
especially important as hybrid and remote work become more common.
    The Exchange notes that, per the approved FINRA Rules, there are
procedures in place for persons who lack the ability to use or access
technology necessary to send or receive documents electronically to
request relief from FINRA (as the Adjudicator) to file or serve
documents by another method. Per FINRA, requests to use non-electronic
methods of service were rare during the approximately two year period
that it operated under the temporary amendments and, as such, FINRA
anticipates that such requests under the approved FINRA Rules will be
rare.
    In addition, the proposed rule change balances the interests of
fairness and efficiency. As discussed, service of the initial complaint
will continue to occur by hand, mail or courier, rather than by
electronic means, thus ensuring there is satisfactory notice and fair
process.
    Thus, the proposed rule change represents a significant step toward
modernizing the service and filing processes in a manner that will
protect investors and the public interest by promoting efficiency while
preserving fair process.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change supports the
objectives of the Act by providing greater harmonization between
Exchange rules and FINRA rules of similar purpose, resulting in less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance. As such, the
proposed rule change will foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but is designed to modernize
the service and filing process in harmonization with the approved FINRA
Rules.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \31\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\32\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \33\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\34\ the Commission
may 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 proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange states that
this filing is non-controversial and eligible to become effective
immediately because the proposal promotes uniformity in disciplinary
rules across self-regulatory organizations and thereby enables the
Exchange to modernize the service and filing process related to the
conduct of disciplinary hearings.\35\ The Exchange further states that
the proposed rule change would not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest or

impose any significant burden on competition because the proposed rule
change is based on the approved FINRA Rules. After reviewing the
filing, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay for this proposal is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \35\ See supra Item II.
    \36\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
section 19(b)(2)(B) \37\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSECHX-2023-03 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-NYSECHX-2023-03. 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-NYSECHX-2023-03 and should be submitted
on or before February 14, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01268 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40344-40349]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17406]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0108; FRL-9998-00-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Transport State Implementation
Plans for the 1997, 2008, and 2015 Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Massachusetts that address the interstate transport of air
pollution requirements for Infrastructure SIPs for the 1997, 2008, and
2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (i.e.,
Transport SIPs). The intended effect of this action is to propose
approval of the Transport SIPs as revisions to the Massachusetts SIP.
This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 13,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2008-0108 at https://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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square-Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square-Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1684, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. The term ``the Commonwealth''
refers to the State of Massachusetts.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submittals
    A. Background and Evaluation of the Transport SIP for the 1997
Ozone Standard
    B. Background and Evaluation of the Transport SIP for the 2008
Ozone Standard
    C. Background and Evaluation of the Transport SIP for the 2015
Ozone Standard
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On January 31, 2008, February 9, 2018, and September 27, 2018, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted
revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of
interstate transport SIPs for the 1997, 2008, and 2015 ozone NAAQS. The
interstate transport SIPs we are proposing to approve were submitted to
address the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    Over the past two decades, EPA has revised the primary ozone
standard three times. On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the ozone standard
from 0.120 parts per million (ppm), based on a one-hour average, to
0.08 ppm, based on a three-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average. See 62 FR 38856. On March 12, 2008, EPA
revised the level of the primary ozone standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075
ppm and maintained the form of the standard. See 73 FR 16436. Most
recently, on October 1, 2015, EPA revised the primary ozone standard by
lowering the level to 0.070 ppm while maintaining the form of the
standard. See 80 FR 65292.
    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to
address a new or revised NAAQS within three years after promulgation of
a standard, or within a shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a)(2) lists the elements that new SIPs must address, as applicable,
including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to interstate
transport of certain emissions.
    The interstate transport SIP provisions require each state to
submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that have certain adverse effects
in another state due to interstate transport of air pollution. Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four elements related to the evaluation of
impacts of interstate transport of air pollutants; in this rulemaking,
we are addressing the first two elements; the remaining two elements
will be acted on under separate rulemaking actions. Specifically, the
portions that we are proposing to approve pertain to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): (1) Significant contribution to nonattainment of
the ozone NAAQS in any other state (commonly called ``prong 1''); and
(2) interference with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS (commonly called
``prong 2'') by any other state. These two provisions (or ``prongs'')
are commonly referred to as the ``good neighbor'' provisions of the
CAA. The first provision requires that a state's SIP for a new or
revised NAAQS contain adequate measures to prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity in the state from emitting pollutants in
amounts that ``contribute significantly'' to nonattainment of the NAAQS
in another state. The second provision requires that a state's SIP
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in the state
from emitting pollutants in amounts that will ``interfere with
maintenance'' of the applicable NAAQS in any other state.

II. EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submittals

A. Background and Evaluation of the Transport SIP for the 1997 Ozone
Standard

    On April 25, 2005, EPA published a final rule that made a finding
that all 50 states had failed to submit, pursuant to Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, interstate transport SIPs for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 21147. Subsequently, on August 15, 2006, EPA
issued a guidance memorandum that provided recommendations to states
for making submissions to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 fine-particle
(PM2.5) standards (2006 Guidance).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance for
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5National Ambient Air Quality Standards''
(Aug. 15, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA does not specifically mandate how to determine significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS. Therefore, EPA has interpreted these terms in past regulatory
actions, such as the 1998 nitrogen oxides (NOX) SIP Call, in
which EPA took action to address emissions of NOX that
significantly contributed to nonattainment of, or interfered with
maintenance of, the then-applicable ozone NAAQS. See 63 FR 57356
(October 27, 1998).
    The NOX SIP Call was the mechanism through which EPA
evaluated whether NOX emissions from sources in certain
states had prohibited interstate impacts, and if they did, required the
states to adopt SIP revisions to eliminate the NOX emissions
through participation in a regional cap-and-trade program or by other
means.
    After promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA recognized that regional transport was a serious concern
throughout the eastern United States and, therefore, developed the 2005
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to address emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX that exacerbate ambient ozone and
PM2.5 levels in many downwind areas through interstate
transport. See 70 FR 25162. In CAIR, EPA interpreted the term
``interfere with maintenance'' as part of the evaluation of whether the
emissions of sources in certain states had impacts on areas that could
put them at risk of violating the NAAQS in a modeled future-year unless
actions were taken by upwind states to reduce SO2 and
NOX emissions. Through CAIR, EPA required states that had
such interstate impacts to adopt SIP revisions to eliminate the
SO2 and NOX emissions, whether through
participation in a regional cap-and-trade program or by other means.
Massachusetts was included in CAIR as a state that, under the 1997
ozone NAAQS, contributed significantly to ozone-season nonattainment in
another state.
    EPA's 2006 Guidance addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. For
those states subject to CAIR, EPA indicated that compliance with CAIR
would meet the two requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these
NAAQS.
    In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that
CAIR and the related CAIR federal implementation plans (FIPs) were
unlawful.\2\ Among other issues, the court held that EPA had not
correctly addressed the second element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in
CAIR and noted that ``EPA gave no independent significance to the
`interfere with maintenance' prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to
separately identify upwind sources interfering with downwind
maintenance.'' \3\ EPA's approach, the court reasoned, would leave
areas that are ``barely meeting attainment'' with ``no recourse'' to
address upwind emissions sources.\4\ The court, therefore, concluded
that a plain-language reading of the statute requires EPA to give
independent meaning to the ``interfere with maintenance'' requirement
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and that the approach used by EPA in CAIR
failed to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
amended on rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (2008).
    \3\ 531 F.3d at 909.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 8, 2011, to address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA
adopted a new rule to address interstate transport of air pollution
pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): ``Federal Implementation Plans:
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone, and
Correction of SIP Approvals,'' known as the Cross State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR). See 76 FR 48208. As part of CSAPR, EPA reexamined the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.\5\ In CSAPR, EPA developed an
approach to predict which areas that would violate the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in the future, and which areas that
would be close to the level of these NAAQS and, therefore, at risk of
becoming nonattainment areas. This approach starts by identifying
geographic areas for which further evaluation is appropriate and
differentiates between areas where the concern is ``significant
contribution to nonattainment'' from those where the concern is
``interference with maintenance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The original CSAPR did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CSAPR, EPA evaluated data from air-quality monitors over
three overlapping 3-year periods (i.e., 2003-2005, 2004-2006, and 2005-
2007), as well as data from air-quality modeling to predict which areas
would violate the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012,
and which areas would have difficulty maintaining attainment. If an
area's projected monitoring data for 2012 indicated that it would
violate the NAAQS based on the average of these three overlapping
periods, then this monitor was considered appropriate for comparison
for purposes of the ``significant contribution to nonattainment''
element. However, if an area's projected data indicated that it would
violate the NAAQS based on a single period, but not over the average of
the three periods, then this monitor was considered appropriate for
comparison for purposes of the ``interfere with maintenance'' element.
    EPA's 2006 Guidance did not specifically recommend this approach to
states. However, in light of the court's decision on CAIR, EPA used
this approach to evaluate whether Massachusetts had met its ``good
neighbor'' obligations with respect to the 1997 ozone standard. In this
guidance, EPA stated that ``EPA believes that the contents of the SIP
submission required by section 110(a)(2)(D) may vary, depending upon
the facts and circumstances related to the specific NAAQS. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
State develops and submits a SIP for a new or revised NAAQS necessarily
affects the contents of the required submission.''[thinsp]
    On January 31, 2008, Massachusetts submitted a SIP revision to EPA
addressing the CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) ``good neighbor''
requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The Commonwealth's submittal
noted that EPA's 2006 Guidance indicates that states subject to EPA's
CAIR can meet their CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) ``good neighbor''
obligations with a state-adopted, SIP-approved CAIR regulation.
Massachusetts submitted a CAIR regulation to EPA on March 30, 2007, and
EPA approved it into the Massachusetts SIP on December 3, 2007. See 72
FR 67854. Massachusetts noted

that it doubted that the CAIR rule would be adequate to ensure all
areas in the Eastern U.S. would meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the
required attainment dates, and, therefore, supplemented its submittal
with information about additional controls measures it had adopted, or
planned to adopt, that stemmed from a planning effort overseen by the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC).
    Although Massachusetts was identified as a state that contributed
significantly to ozone nonattainment in another state, and, therefore,
was required under CAIR to reduce ozone-season NOX
emissions, EPA's August 2011 CSAPR rule reached a different conclusion
based on an updated analysis of air-quality and emissions data. See 76
FR 48299. Specifically, Table V.D-7 of the CSAPR rule indicates that
Massachusetts' largest downwind contribution to nonattainment for ozone
was 0.0 ppb, and its largest downwind contribution to maintenance for
ozone was 0.6 ppb. Id. at 48245. These levels are below the 1 percent
of the standard (0.8 ppb) that EPA established as the contribution
threshold for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA concluded in CSAPR
that Massachusetts does not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Id. at 48236
(explaining that states whose contributions are below the threshold do
not violate the Good Neighbor provision). In light of the analysis of
ozone transport contained in the CSAPR rule, the final determination
pertaining to Massachusetts in that action, and the Commonwealth's
continued adoption of VOC and NOX control strategies as
noted in their January 31, 2008, Transport SIP submittal, we are
proposing to find that Massachusetts has met its CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' SIP obligation for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.

B. Background and Evaluation of the Transport SIP for the 2008 Ozone
Standard

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the primary and secondary ozone
standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR
16436. As discussed above, upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS,
states have three years to submit the SIP revision under section
110(a)(2) of the Act, including ``good neighbor'' SIPs. The CAA gives
EPA a backstop role to issue federal implementation plans (FIPs), as
appropriate, for states that do not have ``good neighbor'' provisions,
or other required provisions, approved in their SIP.
    To meet this backstop role for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA updated
the CSAPR ozone-season program by issuing a final rule on October 26,
2016, known as the CSAPR Update. See 81 FR 74504. The CSAPR Update
addressed the summertime (May-September) transport of ozone in the
eastern United States that crosses state lines to help downwind states
meet and maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\6\ The CSAPR Update used the
same framework that was used by EPA in developing CSAPR.\7\ Prior to
this, on July 13, 2015, EPA published a rule finding that 24 states,
including Massachusetts, failed to make complete submissions addressing
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the CSAPR Update, EPA issued FIPs to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations for 22 eastern states but determined
that no FIP was needed for Massachusetts.
    \7\ Key elements of the four-step interstate transport framework
have been upheld by the Supreme Court in EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through several previous rulemakings,\8\ EPA, working in
partnership with states, established a four-step interstate-transport
framework to address the requirements of the ``good neighbor''
provision for the ozone NAAQS.\9\ The four steps are: Step 1--Identify
downwind receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or
maintaining the NAAQS; step 2--determine which upwind states contribute
enough to these identified downwind air quality problems to warrant
further review and analysis; step 3--identify the emissions reductions
necessary to prevent an identified upwind state from contributing
significantly to those downwind air quality problems; and step 4--adopt
permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions
reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NOX SIP Call. 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005); Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 75 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); and
CSAPR Update. 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
    \9\ The four-step interstate framework has also been used to
address requirements of the good neighbor provision for some
previous particulate matter (PM) NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To apply the first and second steps of the four-step interstate-
transport framework to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA evaluated modeling
projections for air-quality monitoring sites in 2017 and considered
current (at the time) ozone monitoring data at these sites to identify
receptors \10\ anticipated to have problems attaining or maintaining
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Next, EPA used air-quality modeling to assess
contributions from upwind states to these downwind receptors and
evaluated the contributions relative to a screening threshold of one
percent (1%) of the NAAQS. States with contributions that equaled or
exceeded the 1% threshold were identified as warranting further
analysis for ``significant contribution to nonattainment'' or
``interference with maintenance'' of the NAAQS. In the CSAPR Update,
EPA found that Massachusetts did not contribute at or above the 1%
threshold to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor. See 81
FR 74506. Therefore, EPA did not issue FIP requirements for sources in
Massachusetts as part of CSAPR Update. See id. at 74553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Within the CSAPR framework, the term ``receptor'' indicates
a monitoring site. Under CSAPR Update, nonattainment receptors are
downwind monitoring sites that are projected to have an average
design value that exceed the NAAQS and that have a current monitored
design value above the NAAQS, while maintenance receptors are
downwind monitoring sites that are projected to have maximum design
values that exceed the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 6, 2014, Massachusetts submitted most of its infrastructure
SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to EPA. On December 21, 2016, EPA fully
approved most, and conditionally approved some portions, of that
submittal. See 81 FR 93627. However, that submittal did not include the
``good neighbor'' provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On February
9, 2018, Massachusetts submitted a SIP revision to address this unmet
SIP obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In today's action, we are
proposing to approve that submittal.
    In its February 2018, submittal, the Commonwealth noted that the
CSAPR Update states that the largest modeled contribution of emissions
from Massachusetts to nonattainment and maintenances receptors are well
below the threshold of 1% of the NAAQS. Massachusetts also pointed to
the declining trend in ozone-precursor emissions that has occurred in
the Commonwealth to support its view that Massachusetts is unlikely to
cause future problems to downwind attainment or maintenance receptors.
Moreover, we note that, in the CSAPR Update, EPA already ``determined
that emissions from [Massachusetts] do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
downwind states'' and that EPA ``need not require further emission
reductions from sources in [Massachusetts] to address the good

neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.'' 81 FR at 74506.
    In light of the above, we propose that Massachusetts has met its
CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``good neighbor'' SIP obligation for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.

C. Background and Evaluation of the Massachusetts Transport SIP for the
2015 Ozone Standard

    EPA has released several documents relevant to evaluating
interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First, on
January 6, 2017, EPA published a notice of data availability (NODA) for
preliminary interstate ozone-transport modeling with projected ozone
design values for 2023.\11\ The year 2023 aligns with the expected
attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas under the 2015
ozone standard. On October 27, 2017, EPA issued a memorandum (2017
memorandum) containing updated modeling data for 2023, with changes
made in response to comments on the NODA.\12\ The 2017 memorandum also
included data for the 2023 modeling year. Although it stated that the
modeling may be useful for states for developing SIPs addressing ``good
neighbor'' obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2017 memorandum
did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR
1733 (January 6, 2017).
    \12\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
(Oct. 27, 2017), available in the docket for this action or at
https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 27, 2018, EPA issued a memorandum (March 2018 memorandum)
indicating that the same 2023 modeling data released in the 2017
memorandum may also be useful for evaluating potential downwind air-
quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of the
four-step framework).\13\ The March 2018 memorandum included
contribution-modeling results to help states evaluate their impact on
potential downwind air-quality problems (step 2 of the four-step
framework). In August and October 2018, EPA issued two more memoranda
that provided guidance for developing ``good neighbor'' SIPs for the
2015 ozone NAAQS regarding (1) potential contribution thresholds that
may be appropriate to apply in step 2 and (2) considerations for
identifying downwind areas that may have problems maintaining the
standard (i.e., prong 2) at step 1 of the framework.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
(Mar. 27, 2018), available in the docket for this action or at
https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
    \14\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (Aug. 31, 2018) (``August 2018 memorandum'');
Considerations for Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (Oct. 19, 2018), available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The March 2018 memorandum described the updated photochemical and
source-apportionment modeling used to project ambient ozone
concentrations for 2023 and the state-by-state impacts on those
concentrations. As described in the 2017 and March 2018 memoranda, EPA
used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version
6.40) to model average and maximum design values in 2023 to identify
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. The March 2018 memorandum presented design values calculated in
two ways: (1) Following the EPA's historic ``3 x 3'' approach \15\ to
evaluating all sites, and (2) following a modified approach for coastal
monitoring sites in which ``overwater'' modeling data were not included
in the calculation of future-year design values (known as the ``no
water approach'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See March 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For identifying potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors
in 2023, EPA applied the same approach as that used in the CSAPR
Update. Specifically, EPA identified nonattainment receptors as those
monitors with both measured values \16\ and projected 2023 average
design values exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA identified maintenance
receptors as those monitors with projected maximum design values
exceeding the NAAQS. This included monitoring sites with measured
values below the NAAQS, but with projected average and maximum design
values above the NAAQS, and monitoring sites with projected average
design values below the NAAQS, but with projected maximum design values
above the NAAQS. Data for all monitoring sites projected to be
nonattainment or maintenance receptors based on the updated 2023
modeling is included in Attachment B of the March 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The EPA used 2016 ozone design values, based on 2014-2016
measured data, which were the most current data at the time of the
analysis. See attachment B of the March 2018 memorandum, p. B-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After identifying potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors, EPA performed nationwide, state-level ozone source-
apportionment modeling to estimate the expected impact from each state
to each nonattainment and maintenance receptor.\17\ For more
information, see the 2017 and March 2018 memoranda, the NODA for the
preliminary interstate transport assessment, and the supporting
technical documents included in the docket for today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As discussed in the March 2018 memorandum, the EPA
performed source-apportionment model runs for a modeling domain that
covers the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia,
and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, on August 31, 2018, EPA issued a memorandum
(the August 2018 memorandum) providing guidance concerning contribution
thresholds that may be appropriate to apply with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS in step 2. Consistent with the process for selecting the 1%
threshold in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the memorandum included
analytical information regarding the degree to which potential air-
quality thresholds would capture the collective amount of upwind
contribution from upwind states to downwind receptors for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. The August 2018 memorandum indicated that, based on EPA's
analysis of its most recent modeling data, the amount of upwind
collective contribution captured using a 1 ppb threshold is generally
comparable, overall, to the amount captured using a threshold
equivalent to 1% of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA indicated
that it may be reasonable and appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb
contribution threshold, as an alternative to the 1% threshold, at step
2 of the four-step framework in developing their SIP revisions
addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See August 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the March 2018 memorandum presented information regarding
EPA's latest analysis of ozone transport, EPA has not made any final
determinations regarding how states should identify downwind receptors
with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the four-step
framework. Rather, EPA noted that, in developing their SIPs, states
have flexibility to

follow different analytical approaches than EPA if their chosen
approach has adequate technical justification and is consistent with
the requirements of the CAA.
    On September 27, 2018, Massachusetts submitted a SIP revision
addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2),
including the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\19\ Massachusetts relied on the
results of EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (in the March 2018
memorandum) to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in the
Commonwealth. Based on Massachusetts' review of EPA's modeling
assumptions, model performance evaluation, and the modifications made
in response to public comments, the Commonwealth determined that EPA's
future-year projections were appropriate for purposes of evaluating
Massachusetts' impact on attainment and maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in other states. Thus, the Commonwealth concurred with EPA's
photochemical modeling results that indicate Massachusetts' greatest
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.24 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As noted earlier, in this action, EPA is only addressing
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA will address the
remaining infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in a
separate rulemaking(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Massachusetts compared these values to a screening threshold of
0.70 ppb, representing 1% of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded that
because none of the Commonwealth's impacts exceed this threshold,
emissions from Massachusetts sources will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state.
    The March 2018 memorandum also provided contribution data regarding
the impact of other states on the potential receptors. To evaluate the
Commonwealth's 2015 ozone NAAQS interstate-transport SIP submission,
EPA used the 1% threshold to conclude that the state's impact will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS in any other state. EPA notes that, consistent with the
August 2018 memorandum, it may be reasonable for states to use a 1-ppb
contribution threshold as an alternative to a 1% threshold at step 2 of
the four-step framework. However, for the reasons discussed below, it
is unnecessary for EPA to determine the appropriateness of applying a
1-ppb threshold for purposes of today's action.
    EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that Massachusetts' largest impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor is 0.24 ppb at the Queens, New
York, monitor. This value is less than 0.70 ppb (1% of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS),\20\ and demonstrates that emissions from Massachusetts are not
linked to any projected 2023 downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors identified in the March 2018 memorandum. Therefore, EPA
proposes to find that Massachusetts will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Because none of Massachusetts' impacts exceed 0.70 ppb,
they necessarily also do not exceed the 1ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts' SIP revisions that were
submitted to address prongs 1 and 2 of the interstate transport
requirements for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997, 2008, and
2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters.\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA is not reopening for comment final determinations made
in CSAPR or in the CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to support
those rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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);
     Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
     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, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: August 7, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-17406 Filed 8-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P