[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 40 (Thursday, March 2, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12328-12333]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04009]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0748; FRL-9959-07-Region 4]

Air Plan Approvals; TN; Prong 4-2010 NO2, SO2, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
conditionally approve the visibility transport (prong 4) portions of
revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted
by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC),
addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2),
2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 2012 annual Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a
SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.''
Specifically, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the prong 4
portions of Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 and
2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP submission and December
16, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission.
All other applicable infrastructure requirements for these SIP
submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0748 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman of 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. Mr. Lakeman can be reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised
NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for
monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established
or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section
110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the
infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or
revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may
vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the
state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's
implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits
the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state
(prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in
another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the
prong 4 portions of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submissions for the
2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. All other applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed
in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS
relevant to today's proposal is provided below. For comprehensive
information on these NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register
notices cited in the following subsections.

a. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS

    On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion, based

on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution
of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9,
2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions
for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January
22, 2013. For the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, this proposed
action only addresses the prong 4 element of Tennessee's infrastructure
SIP submission received on March 13, 2014. EPA has taken action on the
remainder of Tennessee's March 13, 2014, SIP submission through
separate rulemakings.

b. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an
hourly standard of 75 parts per billion based on a 3-year average of
the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See
75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. For the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS, this proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of
Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submission received on March 13, 2014.
EPA has taken action on the remainder of Tennessee's March 13, 2014,
SIP submission through separate rulemakings.

c. 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of the annual average PM2.5
concentrations. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. For the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, this proposed action only addresses the prong 4
element of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submission received on
December 16, 2015. Several of the other infrastructure elements of
Tennessee's December 16, 2015, SIP submission have been addressed
through a separate rulemaking and the remaining elements will be
addressed in a future rulemaking.

II. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?

    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states
must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as
the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``each such
plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, Title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; Section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of Title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of Title I of the
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\3\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all
of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and
whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action.
Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet
these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make
multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the

infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such
submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.\4\
Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the
individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2)
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP
submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B)
could be very different for different pollutants, because the content
and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this
element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a
minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires attainment plan SIP submissions
required by part D to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of section
110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission
limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air
agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that
attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to
meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD
program required in part C of Title I of the CAA, because PSD does not
apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and
thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example
illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of
section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\9\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that
infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need
not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP
submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that
there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately
address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the
structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program
(e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-
member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are
addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of

Section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of
complete permit applications with respect to the PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure
SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and
EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; \10\ (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR
Reform). Thus, EPA believes that it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\11\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, EPA's
interpretation of the CAA with respect to the approvability of
affirmative defense provisions in SIPs has changed. See ``State
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs;
Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a
result, EPA's 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no longer represents the
EPA's view concerning the validity of affirmative defense
provisions, in light of the requirements of section 113 and section
304.
    \11\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption or affirmative defense for
excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate
that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA
requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring
review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against
all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and
mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\12\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\13\

Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's
infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to
address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's
subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the
basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For
example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to
eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions
in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases
that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a
subsequent action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \13\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it
had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62
FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009)
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \14\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the Prong 4 requirements?

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation plan
to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting
pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to
protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections
169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4
requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has
found to adequately address any contribution of that state's sources to
impacts on visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013
Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-
specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address
the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by
the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS
applies.
    The 2013 Guidance lays out two ways in which a state's
infrastructure SIP may satisfy prong 4. The first way is through an air
agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has
an EPA-approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require
that a state participating in a regional planning process include all
measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction
obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional
haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's
jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included
in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze
SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze
reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed Prong 4?

    Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 and 2010 1-
hour SO2 submission cites to the State's regional haze SIP
and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SIP as satisfying prong 4
requirements.\15\ In its December 16, 2015, 2012 annual
PM2.5 submission, the State notes that it is developing a
regional haze SIP revision with the intent to obtain a fully approved
regional haze SIP and that Tennessee's SIP will be adequate with regard
to prong 4 if EPA approves that revision. As explained below, EPA has
not yet fully approved Tennessee's existing regional haze SIP because
the SIP relies on CAIR to satisfy the nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and SO2 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirements for the CAIR-subject electric generating units (EGUs) in
the State and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to
achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In its March 13, 2014, submission, Tennessee states that
its regional haze SIP and its ``CAIR SIP are sufficient to ensure
emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other
agencies' plans to protect visibility.'' However, as Tennessee notes
in its submittal, a state's infrastructure SIP submission can
satisfy prong 4 solely through confirmation that the state has a
fully approved regional haze SIP.
    \16\ CAIR, promulgated in 2005, required 27 states and the
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of NOX and
SO2 that significantly contribute to, or interfere with
maintenance of, the 1997 NAAQS for fine particulates and/or ozone in
any downwind state. CAIR imposed specified emissions reduction
requirements on each affected State, and established several EPA-
administered cap and trade programs for EGUs that States could join
as a means to meet these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA demonstrated that CAIR achieved greater reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal than BART for NOX and
SO2 at BART-eligible EGUs in CAIR affected states, and
revised the regional haze rule to provide that states participating in
CAIR's cap-and-trade programs need not require affected BART-eligible
EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of
SO2 and NOX. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). As a
result, a number of states in the CAIR region designed their regional
haze SIPs to rely on CAIR as an alternative to NOX and
SO2 BART for CAIR-subject EGUs. These states also relied on
CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy for achieving their
reasonable progress goals.
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008,\17\ but
ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the
environmental benefits provided by CAIR.\18\ On August 8, 2011 (76 FR
48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR and thus to address
the interstate transport of emissions contributing to nonattainment and
interfering with maintenance of the two air quality standards covered
by CAIR as well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \18\ North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to CAIR's status as a temporary measure following the D.C.
Circuit's 2008 ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIP
revisions to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART
requirement and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to
achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals. On these grounds,
EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of Tennessee's
regional haze SIP on April 24, 2012 (77 FR 24392), triggering the
requirement for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
unless Tennessee submitted and EPA approved a SIP revision that
corrected the deficiencies.
    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C.
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir.
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to
the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the
high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct.
1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C.

Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without
vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as to a number of states. EME Homer
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). EPA began
implementation of CSAPR, which replaced CAIR, on January 1, 2015.
Therefore, Tennessee cannot rely on CAIR to satisfy the BART
requirement and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to
achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals.
    As mentioned above, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4
without a fully approved regional haze SIP by showing that its SIP
contains adequate provisions to prevent emissions from within the state
from interfering with other states' measures to protect visibility.
Tennessee did not, however, provide a demonstration in any of the
infrastructure SIP submissions subject to this proposed action that
emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other states'
plans to protect visibility.
    As discussed above, Tennessee does not have a fully approved
regional haze SIP that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 and has
not otherwise shown that its SIP contains adequate provisions to
prevent emissions from within the state from interfering with other
states' measures to protect visibility. Therefore, on December 7, 2016,
Tennessee submitted a commitment letter to EPA requesting conditional
approval of the prong 4 portions of the aforementioned infrastructure
SIP revisions. In this letter, Tennessee commits to submit an
infrastructure SIP revision, within one year of final conditional
approval, that will satisfy the prong 4 requirements for the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS, 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS through reliance on a fully approved
regional haze SIP or through an analysis showing that emissions from
sources in Tennessee will not interfere with the attainment of the
reasonable progress goals of other states. If the revised
infrastructure SIP revision relies on a fully approved regional haze
SIP revision to satisfy prong 4 requirements, Tennessee also commits to
providing the necessary regional haze SIP revision to EPA within one
year of EPA's final conditional approval.
    If Tennessee meets its commitment within one year of final
conditional approval, the prong 4 portions of the conditionally
approved infrastructure SIP submissions will remain a part of the SIP
until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new SIP
revision(s). However, if the State fails to submit these revisions
within the one-year timeframe, the conditional approval will
automatically become a disapproval one year from EPA's final
conditional approval and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA
is not required to propose the finding of disapproval. If the
conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, the final
disapproval triggers the FIP requirement under CAA section 110(c).

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the
prong 4 portions of Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour
NO2 and 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP
submission and December 16, 2015, 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure
SIP submission. All other outstanding applicable infrastructure
requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed
in separate rulemakings.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; 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).
    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 on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 21, 2017.
Kenneth R. Lapierre,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-04009 Filed 3-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 235 (Thursday, December 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 72894]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29617]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: [77 FR 71845,
December 4, 2012].

STATUS: Closed meeting.

PLACE: 100 F Street NW., Washington, DC.

DATE AND TIME OF PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED MEETING: December 6, 2012.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Deletion of Item.
    The following item will not be considered during the Closed Meeting
on Thursday, December 6, 2012:

Adjudicatory matter

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 4, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29617 Filed 12-4-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41238-41239]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17597]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3959-000]

Post Rock Wind Power Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Post Rock Wind Power Project, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 27, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access

who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 7, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17597 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36349-36351]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14941]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72442; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-066]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Delay Implementation of the Nasdaq Opening Cross Contingency

June 20, 2014.
    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 June 13, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    NASDAQ proposes a rule change to delay implementation of the
Opening Cross Contingency.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to delay implementation of the Opening Cross
Contingency, which was adopted by the Exchange on May 13, 2014 \3\ but
is not yet implemented. The Exchange had originally anticipated
implementing the Opening Cross Contingency in mid-June 2014 at the
conclusion of the 30 day operative delay provided by Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\4\ The Exchange, however, has experienced
an unanticipated delay in the development of the new process, which has
made the original implementation date unachievable. The Exchange will
implement the Opening Cross Contingency in the third quarter of 2014
and will provide at least 30 days prior notice of the implementation
date to members and investors via an Equity Trader Alert.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72226 (May 22, 2014), 79
FR 30905 (May 29, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-054).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \5\ Equity Trader Alerts may be found at this Web address:
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=archiveheadlines&cat_id=2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ 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 regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. The Exchange believes that the Opening Cross Contingency will
promote transparency in the process for handling failures of the
Opening Cross in calculating an opening price for System securities,
and will promote consistent results in handling such Opening Cross
failures. Delaying implementation of the Opening Cross Contingency for
a brief period so that NASDAQ may implement the changes necessary to
ensure the process operates as planned promotes fair and orderly
markets, the protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\8\ The Exchange
believes that the proposal is irrelevant to competition because it is
not driven by, and will have no impact on, competition. Specifically,
the proposal is representative of the Exchange's efforts in contingency
planning. Such efforts are never used by exchanges for competitive
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act \11\
normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of
the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) of the Act,\12\
the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately
upon filing and it may delay implementation of the Opening Cross
Contingency until the third quarter of 2014. According to the Exchange,
this delay will allow sufficient time to make necessary programming
changes to ensure that the Opening Cross Contingency performs as the
Exchange originally intended. The Commission believes that waiving the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because waiver will allow the Exchange to
immediately delay implementation and provide the Exchange with
additional time to make necessary programming changes to ensure the
Opening Cross Contingency will operate in the manner intended. The
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ 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 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 to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-066 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-NASDAQ-2014-066. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-NASDAQ-2014-
066, and should be submitted on or before July 17, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14941 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1087-1090]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00157]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82435; File No. SR-IEX-2017-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
the Optional IEX Aggregate Risk Controls Mechanism

January 3, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 22, 2017, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II and III 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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``Exchange'') is filing with the
Commission a proposed rule change to amend Rule 11.380 to clarify that
the optional IEX Aggregate Risk Controls (``ARC'') mechanism will not
cancel certain orders eligible for execution in the Opening or Closing
Auction after the applicable Lock-in Time and before the Opening or
Closing Auction match, respectively.\6\ The Exchange has designated
this rule change as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \7\ and provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule
19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\8\ The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange's website at www.iextrading.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ See Rules 11.350(c) and (d), governing the IEX Opening and
Closing Auction, respectively.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these statement may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 11.380
(Risk

Management) to account for Opening and Closing Auctions in IEX-listed
securities pursuant to Rule 11.350(c) and (d), respectively. Rule
11.380, entitled Risk Management, describes the optional ARC mechanism
that is designed to assist IEX Members \9\ and clearing firms \10\ in
their risk management efforts. IEX does not charge a fee for use of
ARC. ARC can be configured to provide trading limits based on the gross
notional exposure for matched and routed trades for a Member or
clearing firm's broker correspondent across MPIDs, by MPID, by FIX
session or in combination, per clearing firm relationship or Member, as
applicable.\11\ Currently, once the gross notional exposure, as elected
and configured by the Member or clearing firm, has exceeded the pre-
determined limit, IEX will reject new orders and cancel all open orders
for the applicable MPID(s) and/or FIX session specified. As specified
in paragraph (a)(2)(A) of Rule 11.380, gross notional exposure is
calculated as the absolute sum of the notional value of all buy and
sell trades: equal to the value of executed buys plus the absolute
value of executed long sells plus the absolute value of executed short
sells. There is no netting of buys and sales in the same symbol or
across symbols. Gross notional exposure resets for each new trading
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 11.160(s).
    \10\ As described in Rule 11.250(a), a clearing firm is an IEX
Member that is a member of a registered clearing agency. Pursuant to
IEX Rule 2.160(c)(4) an IEX Member must be a member of a registered
clearing agency or clear transactions executed on the Exchange
through another Member that is a member of a registered clearing
agency.
    \11\ In the case of a Member that is subject to ARC limits set
by its clearing firm, the Member will be advised of such limits by
IEX. In the event a Member that is subject to ARC limits set by its
clearing firm also elects to set ARC limits for its own trading, the
Exchange will apply both such limits with a lower limit(s) being
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 4, 2017, the Commission approved a proposed rule change
filed by the Exchange to adopt rules governing auctions in IEX-listed
securities, including Opening and Closing Auction processes that
establish IEX Official Opening and Closing Prices for each trading
day.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81316 (August 4,
2017), 82 FR 37474 (August 10, 2017) (SR-IEX-2017-10). See also
Rules 11.350(a)(12) and (10), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 11.350(c)(1), the Exchange allows Users to submit
orders eligible for execution in the Opening Auction at the beginning
of the Pre-Market Session,\13\ which begins at 8:00 a.m.\14\ Any orders
designated for the Opening Auction Book are queued until 9:30 a.m. at
which time they will be eligible to be executed in the Opening Auction.
Pursuant to Rule 11.350(a)(1)(A), orders on the Opening Auction Book
would include MOO orders,\15\ LOO orders,\16\ market orders with a
time-in-force of DAY,\17\ and limit orders with a time-in-force of DAY
or GTX.\18\ In addition to orders on the Opening Auction Book, limit
orders on the Continuous Book \19\ with a time-in-force of SYS or GTT
are eligible to execute in the Opening Auction (``Pre-market Continuous
Book'').\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 1.160(z).
    \14\ All times are in Eastern Time.
    \15\ See Rule 11.350(a)(25).
    \16\ See Rule 11.350(a)(21).
    \17\ See Rule 11.190(a)(2)(E)(iii).
    \18\ See Rule 11.190(a)(1)(E)(iii) and (v).
    \19\ See Rule 11.350(a)(4).
    \20\ See Rule 11.190(a)(1)(E)(iv) and (vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 11.350(c)(1)(B), beginning at the Opening Auction
Lock-in Time \21\ (i.e., 9:28 a.m.), the Opening Auction will be
subject to certain ``lock-in'' and ``lock-out'' restrictions.
Specifically, Users may enter, cancel, or modify Auction Eligible
Orders until the Opening Auction Lock-in Time, at which time orders on
the Opening Auction Book can no longer be canceled or modified before
the Opening Auction match. After the Opening Auction Lock-in Time, the
Exchange will begin to reject Hyper-aggressive Auction Orders upon
entry. Pursuant to Rule 11.350(a)(8), Hyper-aggressive Auction Orders
include market and MOO orders, as well as LOO and limit orders with a
time in-force of DAY or GTX with a limit price more aggressive than the
latest Opening/Closing Auction Collar \22\ calculated by the System
(i.e., buy (sell) orders priced above (below) the latest upper (lower)
threshold of the Opening/Closing Auction Collar calculated by the
System). However, LOO orders and limit orders with a time-in-force of
DAY or GTX will continue to be accepted until the Opening Auction Lock-
out Time \23\ (i.e., 9:29:50 a.m., ten (10) seconds prior to the
Opening Auction match) so long as they are not Hyper-aggressive Auction
Orders. Restricting orders on the Opening Auction Book from cancelation
or modification (i.e., locking them in) and rejecting Hyper-Aggressive
Auction Orders, while still allowing Users to enter reasonably priced
LOO and limit orders with a time in-force of DAY or GTX is designed to
allow Users to continue to express interest for the auction and offset
imbalances via orders designated for the Auction Book in the minutes
leading up to the auction match, while minimizing the increase of
imbalances or large price swings resulting from the cancellation of
auction eligible orders or the entry of aggressively priced orders to
the Auction Book during the last two minutes of the auction process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Rule 11.350(a)(22).
    \22\ See Rule 11.350(a)(27).
    \23\ See Rule 11.350(a)(23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, pursuant to Rule 11.350(d)(1), the Exchange allows Users
to submit orders eligible for execution in the Closing Auction at the
beginning of the Pre-Market Session, which begins at 8:00 a.m. Any
orders designated for the Closing Auction Book are queued until 4:00
p.m. (or such earlier time as the Regular Market Session \24\ ends on
days that IEX is subject to an early closing) at which time they will
be eligible to be executed in the Closing Auction. Pursuant to Rule
11.350(a)(1)(B), orders on the Closing Auction Book would include MOC
orders \25\ and LOC orders.\26\ In addition to orders on the Closing
Auction Book, all limit and pegged orders resting on the Continuous
Book \27\ with a time-in-force of DAY, GTX, GTT, or SYS are eligible
for execution in the Closing Auction, (``Regular-Market Continuous
Book'').\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Rule 1.160(gg).
    \25\ See Rule 11.350(a)(24).
    \26\ See Rule 11.350(a)(20).
    \27\ See Rule 11.350(a)(4).
    \28\ The following types of orders are not eligible for
execution in the Closing Auction: Market orders (except MOC orders)
and orders with a time-in-force of IOC or FOK, because Market orders
entered during the Regular Market Session and orders marked IOC or
FOK do not rest on the Continuous Book, and therefore are not
eligible for the Closing Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 11.350(d)(1)(B), beginning at the Closing Auction
Lock-in Time \29\ (i.e., 3:50 p.m., or 10 minutes prior to the end of
the Regular Market Session on days that IEX is subject to an early
closing), the Closing Auction will be subject to certain ``lock-in''
and ``lock-out'' restrictions. Specifically, Users may enter, cancel,
or modify Auction Eligible Orders until the Closing Auction Lock-in
Time, at which time orders on the Closing Auction Book can no longer be
canceled or modified, except that between the Closing Auction Lock-in
Time and five minutes before the Closing Auction match (e.g., 3:55
p.m.), LOC and MOC orders can be canceled only if the participant
requests that IEX correct a legitimate error in the order (e.g., side,
size, symbol, price, or duplication of an order). LOC and MOC orders
cannot be canceled or modified at or after five minutes before the
Closing Auction match (e.g., 3:55 p.m.) for any reason. After the
Closing Auction Lock-in Time, the Exchange will begin to reject Hyper-
aggressive Auction Orders upon entry.

Pursuant to Rule 11.350(a)(8)(B), Hyper-aggressive Auction Orders
include MOC orders, and LOC orders with a limit price more aggressive
than the latest Opening/Closing Auction Collar calculated by the System
(i.e., buy orders priced above the latest upper auction collar
threshold and sell orders priced below the latest lower auction collar
threshold calculated by the System). However, LOC orders will continue
to be accepted until the Closing Auction Lock-out Time \30\ (i.e.,
3:59:50 p.m., ten (10) seconds prior to the Closing Auction match) so
long as they are not Hyper-aggressive Auction Orders. As with the
Opening Auction, restricting orders on the Closing Auction Book from
cancelation or modification (i.e., locking them in) and rejecting
Hyper-Aggressive Auction Orders, while still allowing Users to enter
reasonably priced LOC orders is designed to allow Users to continue to
express interest for the auction and offset imbalances via orders
designated for the Auction Book in the minutes leading up to the
auction match, while minimizing the increase of imbalances or large
price swings resulting from aggressively priced orders in the Auction
Book during the last ten minutes of the auction process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Rule 11.350(a)(22).
    \30\ See Rule 11.350(a)(23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX proposes to amend Rule 11.380 to clarify that the ARC mechanism
will not cancel orders eligible for execution in the Opening or Closing
Auction after the applicable Lock-in Time and before the match.
Specifically, the Exchange propose to add paragraph (3) to Rule
11.380(a), to provide that, notwithstanding subparagraphs (1) and (2)
regarding ARC, after the Opening (Closing) Auction Lock-in Time and
before the Opening (Closing) Auction match, if a Member exceeds its
pre-determined ARC limit as configured by the Member or their clearing
firm, IEX will not cancel such Member's orders if they are on the
Opening (Closing) Auction Book (``Locked-in Orders'').\31\ Any
unexecuted portion of Locked-in Orders will be canceled immediately
after the Opening or Closing Auction match.\32\ The proposed rule
change is designed to ensure fair and orderly execution of the Opening
and Closing Auctions, consistent with fair and orderly markets, the
protection of investors, and the public interest. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that to the extent a Member has breached its pre-
determined gross notional exposure limit after the Lock-in Time for the
Opening or Closing Auction, and such Member has Locked-in Orders on the
Opening or Closing Auction Book (which, as discussed above, are not
eligible for modification or cancelation pursuant to Rules 11.350(c)
and (d), respectively), ARC's cancelation of such interest could
significantly disrupt the price discovery process by generating or
exacerbating an order imbalance, or causing large price swings in the
minutes leading into the auction match.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Exchange notes that if a Member's ARC limit is breached
after the Opening Auction Lock-In Time, any MOC or LOC orders on the
Closing Auction Book will be canceled, along with all Pre-market
Continuous Book orders.
    \32\ The Exchange notes the proposed change is not applicable to
IPO, Halt, or Volatility Auctions, because their respective auction
processes do not have ``Lock-in'' or ``Lock-out'' provisions, and
instead include automatic extensions to allow price discovery to
continue when there is a market order imbalance, or a security
experiences price volatility leading into the auction match. See
Rules 11.350(e) and (f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, IEX rules explicitly provide that orders
eligible for execution in the Opening or Closing Auction may not be
modified or cancelled after the applicable Lock-in Time and before the
auction match. In order to avoid any confusion as to how the ARC
mechanism would operate in the event that a Member exceeds its pre-
determined ARC limit (as configured by the Member or its clearing firm)
after the Opening or Closing Lock-in Time and before the match, the
Exchange believes that it is appropriate to amend Rule 11.380(a) to
clarify that the ARC mechanism will not cancel such orders.
    The Exchange believes that the Opening and Closing Auctions will
provide a critical price discovery mechanism that establishes IEX
Official Opening and Closing Prices for IEX-listed securities, and
allows market participants to move in and out of sizable positions
during a single centralized liquidity event. The Exchange also notes
that the official closing price of all securities is generally the data
point most closely scrutinized by investors, securities analysts, and
the financial media, and is used to value and assess management fees on
mutual funds, hedge funds, and individual investor portfolios.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that Opening and Closing Auctions
should not be disrupted by momentary price dislocations or the creation
or exacerbation of large imbalances that can be caused by the
cancelation of Locked-in Orders, and should instead reflect all
available trading interest in a stable and transparent manner.
    The Exchange also believes that ARC, as described above, provides a
useful risk management tool for Members and clearing firms. However,
the Exchange notes that use of ARC by a Member does not automatically
constitute compliance with IEX rules or SEC rules, nor does it replace
Member-managed risk management solutions. The Exchange does not require
Members to use ARC, and Members may use any other appropriate risk-
management tool or service instead of, or in combination with, ARC.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that Members should be aware of
their auction order flow, and clearing firms should be aware of the
auction order flow of their broker correspondents, in order to
appropriately manage their risk limits to account for the fact that
Locked-In Orders cannot be canceled after the Lock-in Time. Thus, the
proposed rule change is designed to balance the utility of the optional
ARC functionality that is voluntarily offered by the Exchange free of
charge, and the interests of fair and orderly markets, the protection
of investors, and the public interest. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change strikes an appropriate balance
between these two goals by continuing to allow Members and clearing
firms to utilize ARC to assist with risk management, while protecting
the Opening and Closing Auctions from undue price dislocation or the
creation or exacerbation of large imbalances by preventing Locked-in
Orders from being canceled after the Lock-in Time.
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Sections 6(b) \33\ of the Act in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \34\ of the Act, in particular, in
that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
supports these objectives in that it is designed to ensure fair and
orderly execution of the Opening and Closing Auctions, as described in
the Purpose section, by minimizing the creation or exacerbation of
large imbalances and the resultant auction price dislocations that can
be caused by the cancelation of Locked-in Orders after the Lock-in Time
and before the Opening or Closing Auction match. As discussed in the
Purpose section, while ARC provides a useful risk management tool for
Members and clearing firms, the proposed rule change

is designed to balance the utility of the optional ARC functionality
that is voluntarily offered by the Exchange free of charge, and the
interests of fair and orderly markets, the protection of investors, and
the public interest. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change
strikes an appropriate balance between these two goals by continuing to
allow Members and clearing firms to utilize ARC to assist with risk
management, while protecting the Opening and Closing Auctions from
undue price dislocation or the creation or exacerbation of large
imbalances by preventing Locked-in Orders from being canceled after the
Lock-in Time and before the Opening or Closing Auction match.
    Furthermore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will provide enhanced clarity on the operation of the ARC
mechanism with respect to orders eligible for execution in the Opening
or Closing Auction after the Lock-in Time and before the auction match,
thereby eliminating any potential confusion in this regard.

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will increase intermarket
competition because it is designed to protect the Exchange's Opening
and Closing Auctions thereby enhancing its ability to compete in the
market for corporate listings.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposal will impose an
intramarket burden on competition because, notwithstanding the limited
proposed exception for Locked-in Orders, ARC remains available to all
Members on a fair and equal basis, and the Exchange continues to
provide a mechanism to enable Members to manage their risk by
preventing trading that is erroneous or exceeds a Member's financial
resources, thereby contributing to the stability of the equities
markets.

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \35\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \36\
thereunder. 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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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-IEX-2017-44 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-IEX-2017-44. 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 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 this filing will also 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-IEX-2017-44 and should be submitted on
or before January 30, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00157 Filed 1-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P