[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 232 (Friday, December 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87086-87089]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28928]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79405; File No. SR-MIAX-2016-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders

November 28, 2016.
    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 November 18, 2016, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' 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 Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 518,
Complex Orders.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders,
to state that (i) the System \3\ will not commence a Complex Auction
\4\ within a defined time period prior to the end of the trading
session as described below; and (ii) the size of an RFR Response
(defined below) that is submitted with a size greater than the
aggregate auctioned size (described below) will be capped for
allocation purposes at the aggregate auctioned size (defined below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \4\ Certain option classes, as determined by the Exchange and
communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular, will be eligible to
participate in a Complex Auction (an ``eligible class''). Upon
evaluation as set forth in Exchange Rule 518(c)(5), the Exchange may
determine to automatically submit a Complex Auction-eligible order
into a Complex Auction. Upon entry into the System or upon
evaluation of a complex order resting at the top of the Strategy
Book, Complex Auction-eligible orders may be subject to an automated
request for responses (``RFR''). See Exchange Rule 518(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complex Auction Defined Time Period
    Certain option classes, as determined by the Exchange and
communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular, are eligible to
participate in a Complex Auction for possible price improvement.\5\
Members may submit Complex Auction-on-Arrival (``cAOA'') orders \6\
that may initiate a Complex Auction, and the Exchange may determine to
automatically submit a Complex Auction-eligible order \7\ into a
Complex Auction. Upon receipt of a Complex Auction-eligible order or
upon an evaluation by the System \8\ indicating that there is a Complex
Auction-eligible order resting on the Strategy Book,\9\ the Exchange
may begin the Complex Auction process by sending a request for
responses (``RFR'') message. Members may submit a response to the RFR
message (an ``RFR Response'') during the ``Response Time Interval.''
\10\ At the end of the Response Time Interval, Complex Auction-eligible
orders (and other complex orders and quotes) may be executed in whole
or in part against the best priced contra side interest.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id.
    \6\ A cAOA order is a complex order designated to be placed into
a Complex Auction upon receipt or upon evaluation. Complex orders
that are not designated as cAOA will, by default, not initiate a
Complex Auction upon arrival, but except as described herein will be
eligible to participate in a Complex Auction that is in progress
when such complex order arrives or if placed on the Strategy Book
may participate in or may initiate a Complex Auction. See Exchange
Rule 518(b)(2)(i).
    \7\ A ``Complex Auction-eligible order'' means a complex order
that, as determined by the Exchange, is eligible to initiate or join
a Complex Auction based in a variety of factors. See Exchange Rule
518(d)(1).
    \8\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \9\ The ``Strategy Book'' is the Exchange's electronic book of
complex orders and complex Quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(17).
    \10\ The ``Response Time Interval'' means the period of time
during which responses to the RFR may be entered. The Exchange will
determine the duration of the Response Time Interval, which shall
not exceed 500 milliseconds, and will communicate it to Members via
Regulatory Circular. See Exchange Rule 518(d)(3).
    \11\ For a complete description of the Complex Auction process,
see Exchange Rule 518(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 518(d)(2) governs the commencement of a Complex
Auction. Upon receipt of a Complex Auction-eligible order or upon an
evaluation by the System indicating that there is a Complex Auction-
eligible order resting on the Strategy Book, the Exchange may begin the
Complex Auction process by sending an RFR message to all subscribers to
the Exchange's data feeds that deliver RFR messages.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 518(d)(2) by stating
that, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of the rule, the System
will not commence a Complex Auction within a defined time period prior
to the end of the trading session (the ``Defined Time Period'')
established by the Exchange and communicated to Members via Regulatory
Circular. The Defined Time Period shall be at least 100 milliseconds,
and may not exceed 10 seconds. The Exchange believes that this proposed
flexibility in the duration of the Defined Time Period is necessary
because the duration of the Response Time Interval is flexible \12\ and
must not be able to exceed the Defined Time Period. For example, if the
Response Time Interval is 300 milliseconds and the Defined Time Period
is 200 milliseconds, a Complex Auction with a 300 millisecond Response
Time Interval could commence within 200 milliseconds of the end of the
trading session, and the Complex Auction could therefore not be
completed. Flexibility in the establishment of the duration of the
Defined Time Period would enable the Exchange to make the duration of
the Response Time Interval and the Defined Time Period consistent in
this regard. The 10-second maximum duration for the Defined Time Period
is intended as an outlier to address situations where the Exchange may
need to ensure a fair and orderly marketplace during times of extreme

volatility and thus may deem it necessary not to commence Complex
Auctions as the end of the trading session approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For consistency, the Exchange is proposing a corresponding
amendment to the definition of a cAOA order \13\ in Exchange Rule
518(b)(2)(i) by stating that a cAOA order received during the Defined
Time Period prior to the end of the trading session (as described in
proposed Rule 518(d)(2)) will not initiate a new Complex Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this provision is to ensure that Complex Auctions
that are commenced on the Exchange can be completed prior to the close
of trading. Upon receipt of a Complex Auction-eligible order or upon an
evaluation by the System indicating that there is a Complex Auction-
eligible order resting on the Strategy Book, the Exchange may begin the
Complex Auction process by sending an RFR message, which then begins
the Response Time Interval during which Complex Auction responses may
be submitted.
    The Exchange believes it is necessary to ensure that a Complex
Auction will not commence when the trading session would end prior to
the end of the Response Time Interval. Thus, any Complex Auction
commenced on the Exchange will be completed during the trading session.
Capping the RFR Response Size
    The Exchange proposes to amend rules relating to the Complex
Auction to limit the size of RFR Responses for trade allocation
purposes.
    Exchange Rule 518(d)(4), RFR Response, states that RFR Responses
must be a Complex Auction-or-Cancel order (a ``cAOC order'') \14\ or a
Complex Auction or Cancel eQuote (a ``cAOC eQuote'').\15\ RFR Responses
must indicate their size and are firm (i.e., guaranteed at the RFR
Response price and size) at the end of the Response Time Interval. The
Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 518(d)(4) to cap the size
of RFR Responses (i.e., cAOC orders and cAOC eQuotes) by stating that
an RFR Response with a size greater than the aggregate size of interest
at the same price on the same side of the market as the initiating
Complex Auction-eligible order (the ``aggregate auctioned size'') \16\
will be capped for allocation purposes at the aggregate auctioned size.
Thus, an RFR Response with a size greater than the aggregate auctioned
size will be deemed to be for a size that is equal to the aggregate
auctioned size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A cAOC order is a complex limit order used to provide
liquidity during a specific Complex Auction with a time in force
that corresponds with that event. cAOC orders are not displayed to
any market participant, and are not eligible for trading outside of
the event. See Exchange Rule 518(b)(3).
    \15\ cAOC eQuote is an eQuote submitted by a Market Maker that
is used to provide liquidity during a specific Complex Auction with
a time in force that corresponds with the duration of the Complex
Auction. cAOC eQuotes will not: (i) Be executed against individual
orders and quotes resting on the Simple Order Book; (ii) be eligible
to initiate a Complex Auction, but may join a Complex Auction in
progress; (iii) rest on the Strategy Book; or (iv) be displayed. See
Exchange Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .02(c)(1).
    \16\ Incoming unrelated complex orders and quotes that are
eligible to join a Complex Auction and are received during the
Response Time Interval for a Complex Auction-eligible order will
join the Complex Auction, will be ranked by price, and will be
allocated pursuant to Rule 518(d)(7). See Exchange Rule 518(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For consistency, the Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rule
518(b)(3), which defines a cAOC order, to state that a cAOC order with
a size greater than the aggregate auctioned size will be capped for
allocation purposes at the aggregate auctioned size. Additionally, the
Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies
.02, which defines a cAOC eQuote, to state that a cAOC eQuote with a
size greater than the aggregate auctioned size (as defined in Rule
518(d)(4)) will be capped for allocation purposes at the aggregate
auctioned size.
    The purpose of capping the size of RFR Responses is to ensure that
the System allocates contracts among participants in the Complex
Auction based on the aggregate size of the Complex Auction-eligible
order and interest joining the Complex Auction-eligible order being
auctioned. Contracts in the Complex Auction are allocated on a pro-rata
basis pursuant to Exchange Rule 514(c)(2) \17\ among participants in
various categories that are ranked in priority order \18\ in Rule
518(d)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Exchange Rule 514(c)(2), Pro-Rata Allocation, states that
under this method, resting quotes and orders on the Book are
prioritized according to price. If there are two or more quotes or
orders at the best price then the contracts are allocated
proportionally according to size (in a pro-rata fashion). If the
executed quantity cannot be evenly allocated, the remaining
contracts will be distributed one at a time based upon price-size-
time priority.
    \18\ Orders and quotes executed in a Complex Auction are
allocated pursuant to Exchange Rule 518(d)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Capping the size of RFR Responses for purposes of pro-rata
allocation is also designed to reduce the possibility that participants
could circumvent or ``game'' the allocation rules through the
submission of oversized RFR Responses. In fact, for the same purpose,
the Exchange currently caps the size of certain orders in the simple
market for allocation purposes. For example, the System will cap
individual responses received during a liquidity refresh pause timer on
the opposite side from the initiating order to the size of the
initiating order and any same side joiners received during the
liquidity refresh pause timer for purposes of pro-rata allocation
against the initiating order and any same side joining interest
received during the liquidity refresh pause.\19\ Also, in the MIAX
PRIME Auction for simple orders, an RFR response with a size greater
than the size of the Agency Order will be capped at the size of the
Agency Order.\20\ The Exchange believes that adding the additional
language regarding a cap applied to the size of RFR Responses will
clarify the manner in which the System allocates contracts at the end
of the Complex Auction so that market participants more clearly
understand the treatment of their orders and quotes during the Complex
Auction process, and will also reduce the impact of potentially
manipulative behavior by market participants to alter the pro-rata
allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Exchange Rule 515, Interpretations and Policies .03.
    \20\ See Exchange Rule 515A(a)(2)(i)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \21\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \22\ in particular, in that 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in, securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange's proposal to set a Defined Time Period
during which a Complex Auction will not be commenced is designed to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system and to protect investors and the
public interest by ensuring that the System can complete the Complex
Auction process before the end of the trading session. This guarantees
that investors will receive the full benefit of the Complex Auction
process and that Complex auctions on the Exchange will be

completed prior to the end of the trading session.
    The proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of
trade by capping the size of RFR Responses, which ensures that the
system allocates contracts among participants in the Complex Auction
based on the actual aggregate size of the Complex Auction-eligible
order and interest joining the Complex Auction-eligible order being
auctioned.
    Furthermore, capping the size of RFR Responses for purposes of pro-
rata allocation is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices by reducing the possibility that participants could
circumvent or ``game'' the allocation rules through the submission of
an oversized RFR Response. Moreover, the Exchange believes that adding
the additional language regarding a cap applied to the size of RFR
Responses removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market system by clarifying the manner
in which the System allocates contracts at the end of the Complex
Auction so that market participants more clearly understand the
treatment of their orders and quotes during the Complex Auction
process.

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.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that its proposal to cap the
size of RFR Responses enhances competition in the Complex Auction by
eliminating the ability of Complex Auction participants to ``game'' the
pro-rata allocation, thus encouraging participants to submit
competitive RFR Responses and ensuring that the size associated with
their RFR Response will be calculated fairly as a percentage of the
size associated with RFR Responses submitted to the Complex Auction.
    Additionally, the Exchange's proposal to establish a Defined Time
Period prior to the end of the trading session within which the
Exchange will not commence a Complex Auction is not competitive in
nature. This proposal is intended to ensure that the Complex Auction
process can be completed once it has begun, and to safeguard the
orderliness of the MIAX marketplace at the end of the trading session.
    For all the reasons stated, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, and
believes the proposed change will in fact enhance competition.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    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 for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \25\ 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 to allow the proposal to
become immediately effective. As discussed above, the Exchange states
that the proposal to set a Defined Time Period will help guarantee that
Complex Auctions on the Exchange will be completed prior to the end of
the trading session. The Exchange also states that its proposal to cap
the size of RFR Responses for purposes of pro-rata allocation is
designed to reduce the possibility that participants could circumvent
or ``game'' the allocation rules through the submission of an oversized
RFR Response. In addition, as discussed above, MIAX also caps the size
of responses to its PRIME Auction and responses received during a
liquidity refresh pause in its simple market. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because the proposed
rule change will allow the Exchange to implement the Defined Time
Period in its Complex Auction, which the Exchange states will ensure
that Complex Auctions begun just prior to the end of the trading
session will be completed before the end of the trading session. In
addition, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay for the Exchange's proposal to cap the size of RFR Responses is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposed rule change is consistent with treatment of
certain orders in the Exchange's simple market.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \26\ 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 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-MIAX-2016-44 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-MIAX-2016-44. 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-MIAX-2016-44 and should be submitted on or before
December 23, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28928 Filed 12-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40718-40720]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18088]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0086; FRL-9966-93-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; TN; Redesignation
of the Knoxville 2006 24-hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 20, 2016, Tennessee, through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), submitted a request
for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the
Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the
``Knoxville Area'' or ``Area'') to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision containing a
maintenance plan and a reasonably available control measures (RACM)
determination for the Area. EPA is approving Tennessee's RACM
determination for the Knoxville Area and incorporating it into the SIP;
approving Tennessee's plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Knoxville Area (maintenance plan),
including the associated motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and direct PM2.5 for the
years 2014 and 2028, and incorporating it into the SIP; and
redesignating the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: This rule is effective September 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0086. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person 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 federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, in the Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Sean Lakeman may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards
for PM2.5. EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of
15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average
of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. In the same rulemaking,
EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October
17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the annual average NAAQS at 15.0
[mu]g/m\3\ but revised the 24-hour NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based again
on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
    On November 13, 2009, at 74 FR 58688, EPA designated the Knoxville
Area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. All
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS areas were designated under title I, part
D, subpart 1 (hereinafter ``Subpart 1''). Subpart 1 contains the
general requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant governed
by a NAAQS and is less prescriptive than the other subparts of title I,
part D. On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20586), EPA promulgated its Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart
Z, in which the Agency provided guidance for state and tribal plans to
implement the PM2.5 NAAQS. The United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded
the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule and the final rule
entitled ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (73
FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rules'') to EPA on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found
that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant
to the general implementation provisions of Subpart 1, rather than the
particulate matter-specific provisions of title I, part D, subpart 4
(hereinafter ``Subpart 4'').
    On June 2, 2014, EPA published a rule entitled ``Identification of
Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS''. See 79 FR 31566. In that rule, the
Agency responded to the D.C. Circuit's January 2013 decision by
identifying all PM2.5 nonattainment areas for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas under
Subpart 4, and by establishing a new SIP submission date of December
31, 2014, for moderate area attainment plans and for any additional
attainment-related or nonattainment new source review plans necessary
for areas to comply with the requirements applicable under Subpart 4.
Id. at 31567-70.
    Based on its moderate nonattainment area classification, Tennessee
was required to submit a SIP revision addressing RACM pursuant to CAA
section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) for the Area. Although EPA
does not believe that section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) RACM
must be approved into a SIP prior to redesignation of an area to
attainment once that area is attaining the NAAQS, EPA is approving
Tennessee's RACM determination and incorporating it into its SIP
pursuant to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2015).
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 30, 2017
(82 FR 24621), EPA proposed to: (1) Approve Tennessee's RACM
determination for the Knoxville Area pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(1)
and 189(a)(1)(C) and incorporate it into the SIP; (2) approve
Tennessee's plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS (maintenance plan), including the associated 2014 and 2028 MVEBs
for PM2.5 and NOX for the Knoxville Area, and
incorporate it into the SIP; and (3) redesignate the Knoxville Area to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ The details
of Tennessee's

submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are explained in the
NPRM. EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a notice published in the Federal Register on March 10,
2017, EPA announced that it had found the MVEBs for the Knoxville
Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. See 82 FR 13347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the effects of these actions?

    EPA's approval of Tennessee's redesignation request changes the
legal designation of Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon Counties and a
portion of Roane County for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment. Approval of
Tennessee's associated SIP revision also incorporates a plan for
maintaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area through
2028 and Tennessee's RACM determination into the Tennessee SIP. The
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future
violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and procedures
for evaluation of potential violations. The maintenance plan also
includes NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2014 and 2028
for the Knoxville Area. The 2014 and 2028 PM2.5 MVEBs are
1.22 tons per day (tpd) and 0.67 tpd, respectively. The 2014 and 2028
NOX MVEBs are 42.73 tpd and 19.65 tpd, respectively.

III. Final Actions

    EPA is taking the following final actions: (1) Approving
Tennessee's RACM determination for the Knoxville Area pursuant to CAA
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) and incorporating it into the SIP;
(2) approving Tennessee's plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (maintenance plan), including the associated
2014 and 2028 MVEBs for the Knoxville Area, and incorporating it into
the SIP; and (3) redesignating the Knoxville Area to attainment for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Approval of the redesignation request changes the official
designation of Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon Counties and a
portion of Roane County for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 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 CAA.
Accordingly, these actions merely approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, these actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January, 21, 2011);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are 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.);
     do 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);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are 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 CAA; and
     will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects 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 as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs of 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 27, 2017. 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

 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: August 16, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2220(e) is amended by adding entries for ``2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for the Knoxville-Sevierville-La
Follette Area'' and ``RACM determination for the Knoxville-Sevierville-
La Follette Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS'' at the
end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * *

                                EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable
  Name of non-regulatory SIP    geographic or        State
          provision             nonattainment   effective date        EPA approval date           Explanation
                                     area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2006 24-hour PM2.5             Anderson,            12/20/2016  8/28/2017 [Insert citation    ..................
 Maintenance Plan for the       Blount, Knox,                    of publication].
 Knoxville-Sevierville-La       and Loudon
 Follette Area.                 Counties and a
                                portion of
                                Roane County
                                (the area
                                described by
                                U.S. Census
                                2000 block
                                group
                                identifier 47-
                                145-0307-2.).
RACM determination for the     Anderson,            12/20/2016  8/28/2017 [Insert citation    ..................
 Knoxville-Sevierville-La       Blount, Knox,                    of publication].
 Follette Area for the 2006     and Loudon
 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.           Counties and a
                                portion of
                                Roane County
                                (the area
                                described by
                                U.S. Census
                                2000 block
                                group
                                identifier 47-
                                145-0307-2.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.343, the table entitled ``Tennessee--2006 24-Hour PM
2.5 NAAQS'' is amended by revising the entry for
``Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN:'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.343   Tennessee.

* * * * *

                                       Tennessee--2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Designation \a\                        Classification
          Designated area           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Date \1\                    Type                  Date \2\       Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette,        8/28/2017  Attainment.......................  ...........  ...........
 TN:
    Anderson County................  ..............  Attainment.......................  ...........  ...........
    Blount County..................  ..............  Attainment.......................  ...........  ...........
    Knox County....................  ..............  Attainment.......................  ...........  ...........
    Loudon County..................  ..............  Attainment.......................  ...........  ...........
    Roane County (part)............  ..............  Attainment.......................  ...........  ...........
    The area described by U.S.       ..............  .................................  ...........  ...........
     Census 2000 block group
     identifier 47-145-0307-2..

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-18088 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P