[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62379-62389]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24742]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0745, FRL-9918-08-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington:
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submittal from Washington, received September 22, 2014,
demonstrating that the SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on March 12, 2008, and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) on January 22, 2010. The CAA requires that each state,
after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIP to ensure
that it meets the infrastructure requirements necessary to implement
the new or revised NAAQS. Washington certified that the Washington SIP
meets the infrastructure requirements of the CAA for the ozone and
NO2 NAAQS, except for those requirements related to the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program
currently operated under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), certain
elements of the regional haze program currently operated under a FIP,
and specific requirements related to interstate transport which will be
addressed in a separate submittal. The EPA is proposing to find that
Washington's SIP is adequate for purposes of the infrastructure SIP
requirements of the CAA with the exceptions noted above. The EPA is
proposing to find that the SIP deficiencies related to PSD permitting
and regional haze, however, have been adequately addressed by the
existing EPA FIPs and, therefore, no further action is required by
Washington or the EPA for those elements. The EPA will address the
remaining interstate transport requirements in a separate action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2014-0745, by any of the following methods:
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101
     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th floor, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT--107. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2014-0745. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in

the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider
to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your email address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which 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. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle WA, 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Elements
III. The EPA's Approach to Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
IV. Analysis of the State's Submittal
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone. The
EPA revised the ozone NAAQS to provide an 8-hour averaging period which
replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the
NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR
38856). Subsequently, on March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of
the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 ppm (73 FR
16436).
    The EPA first set standards for NO2 in 1971, setting
both a primary standard (to protect health) and a secondary standard
(to protect the public welfare) at 53 parts per billion (53 ppb),
averaged annually. The EPA reviewed the standards in 1985 and 1996,
deciding to retain the standards at the conclusion of each review. In
2005, the EPA began another review, resulting in the January 22, 2010,
rulemaking to establish an additional primary NO2 standard
at 100 ppb, averaged over one hour (75 FR 6474).
    States must submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after promulgation of a new or
revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to
address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories,
monitoring, and modeling to implement, maintain, and enforce the
standards, so-called ``infrastructure'' requirements. To help states
meet this statutory requirement, the EPA issued guidance to address
infrastructure SIP elements generally for all NAAQS, including the 2008
ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.\1\ As noted in the guidance
document, to the extent an existing SIP already meets the CAA section
110(a)(2) requirements, states may certify that fact via a letter to
the EPA. On September 22, 2014, Washington made a submittal to the EPA
certifying that the current Washington SIP meets the CAA section
110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone and
2010 NO2 NAAQS, except for certain requirements related to
PSD permitting, regional haze, and interstate transport described in
the ``Analysis of the State's Submittal'' section below. Washington's
submittal also included an infrastructure demonstration for the fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS promulgated in 1997, 2006,
and 2012, which the EPA will address in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Elements

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states
must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. The requirements, with their
corresponding CAA subsection, are listed below:
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Washington's submittal does not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA intends to address Washington's
obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS in a separate action. In
contrast, portions of the Washington SIP submittal relating to
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) were submitted. In this
notice, we are proposing to act on Washington's submittal for
purposes of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
    The EPA's guidance clarified that two elements identified in CAA
section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission
deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary
local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time
the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to CAA
section 172 and the various pollutant specific subparts 2-5 of part D.
These requirements are: (i) Submissions required by CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program
as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii)

submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a
result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source
review (NSR) or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA
interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not
being triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in
part C, title I of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.

III. The EPA's Approach to Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals

    The EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Washington that
addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The
requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out
of CAA 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 the EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
    The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, the 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
the EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA
section 169A, 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.\3\ The 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, the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 the
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 the 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.\4\
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 the 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.\5\ This ambiguity illustrates that
rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, the EPA must determine which provisions of
section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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)).
    \5\ The 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 sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(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 the 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, the 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, the EPA can elect to act on such submissions either
individually or in a larger combined action.\6\ Similarly, the 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,
the EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various
elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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) (the EPA's final action approving the
structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State
separately to meet the requirements of the 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) (the EPA's final action on
the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \7\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to the EPA demonstrating that the State meets the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The 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), the
EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.

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

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, the 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,
for example 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when the EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, the
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 that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, 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), the 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, the 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, the 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, the 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.\9\ The
EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September
13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\10\ The EPA developed this document to
provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any
new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, the 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. The EPA also made recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of
infrastructure SIP submissions.\11\ The guidance also discusses the
substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections
of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, the EPA interprets sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need
to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, the
EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the
applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires the
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 the EPA provides guidance or
regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such
guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.
    \10\ ``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.
    \11\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, the
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 the 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 the 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, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP
submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD
program requirements contained in part C and the 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. By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under the
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 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of
provisions the EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an
infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, the 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, the 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, the 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, the 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 that may be contrary to the CAA and the EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (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 the EPA; and (iii)
existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of the EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR
80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007).
Thus, the EPA believes 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.\12\ It is important to note
that the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ By contrast, the 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 for excess emissions
during SSM events, then the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is
to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. The 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 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and the 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 the EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure
SIP submission. The EPA believes that a better approach is for states
and the 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, the 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, the EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes the EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the EPA 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.\13\ Section 110(k)(6)
authorizes the EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past
approvals of SIP submissions.\14\ Significantly, the 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 the 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, the 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, the 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).
    \14\ The 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). The EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) 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).
    \15\ See, e.g., the 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 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Analysis of the State's Submittal

110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable
emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques
(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and
auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA.
    State submittal: The Washington submittal cited an overview of the
air quality laws including portions of Chapter 70.94 Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) Washington Clean Air Act and Chapter 43.21A RCW
Department of Ecology. These underlying statutory authorities remain
unchanged with respect to ozone and NO2 since the EPA's last
comprehensive review for the 1997 ozone NAAQS infrastructure
certification (77 FR 30902, May 24, 2012). Washington also included an
overview of state and local regulations approved into the SIP,

codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW. These regulations include minor
stationary source permitting, monitoring, and other basic program
elements that apply to the regulation of all NAAQS, which were reviewed
as part of the 1997 ozone NAAQS infrastructure certification. Other
cited regulations were developed as part of previous nonattainment area
strategies developed for the former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas of
Puget Sound and Vancouver, Washington. The EPA redesignated these areas
to attainment on September 26, 1996 (61 FR 5438) and May 19, 1997 (62
FR 27204), respectively. These control measures kept all areas of
Washington in attainment for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS revisions.
Similarly, all areas of Washington are attaining the 2010
NO2 NAAQS. The only notable revision to the Washington SIP
since the EPA's last review of the 1997 ozone infrastructure
certification is the EPA's approval of Chapter 173-476 WAC Ambient Air
Quality Standards, mirroring the Federal 2008 ozone and 2010
NO2 NAAQS (79 FR 12077, March 4, 2014). These state-wide
ambient air quality standards ensure that the general minor stationary
source permitting programs codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW,
cover all the applicable NAAQS.
    EPA analysis: Washington generally regulates emissions of ozone
precursors and NO2 through its Federally-approved minor new
source review (NSR) program and the PSD FIP, through a delegation
agreement. On March 4, 2014, the EPA approved revisions to Chapter 173-
476 WAC Ambient Air Quality Standards, to mirror the Federal 2008 ozone
and 2010 NO2 NAAQS (79 FR 12077, March 4, 2014). These
state-wide ambient air quality standards ensure that the general minor
NSR permitting program codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW, covers
the applicable NAAQS.
    The EPA agrees that there is no compelling need for additional
control measures for ozone and NO2 beyond those already
reviewed as part of the 1997 ozone infrastructure certification.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 ozone and
2010 NO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to
provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality
monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making
these data available to the EPA upon request.
    State submittal: Washington derives its general statutory authority
to establish and operate ambient air quality monitors from RCW
70.94.331(5) Powers and Duties of Department which states, ``[t]he
department is directed to conduct or cause to be conducted a continuous
surveillance program to monitor the quality of the ambient atmosphere
as to concentrations and movements of air contaminants and conduct or
cause to be conducted a program to determine the quantity of emissions
to the atmosphere.'' Regulatory authority is contained in the EPA-
approved SIP provisions of WAC 173-400-105 Records, Monitoring and
Reporting.
    EPA analysis: Washington submitted a comprehensive air quality
monitoring plan to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, which the
EPA approved on April 15, 1981. This air quality monitoring plan has
been updated annually, with the most recent submittal dated May 2014.
The EPA has not yet acted on Ecology's May 2014 air quality monitoring
plan, however there are no known deficiencies related to the ozone or
NO2 monitoring network at this time. The EPA approved the
previous year's air quality monitoring plan, dated May 2013, on March
10, 2014. The letter approving the plan is included in the docket for
this action.
    Washington's plan includes the ozone and NO2 monitoring
network, including the establishment of a near roadway monitoring site
in the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue Metropolitan Statistical Area, in
accordance with the EPA's most recent ambient monitoring requirements
for NO2 (78 FR 16184, March 14, 2013). Washington provides
air quality monitoring data summaries and a map of the state air
monitoring network at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/enviwa/Default.htm.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 ozone and
2010 NO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of
construction of new or modified stationary sources, including a program
to meet PSD and nonattainment NSR requirements.
    State submittal: The Washington submittal refers to EPA-approved
regulatory provisions contained in the SIP under WAC 173-400-230
Regulatory Actions and WAC 173-400-240 Criminal Penalties, as well as
the enforcement-related statutory provisions of Chapter 70.94 RCW,
Washington Clean Air Act. All of these enforcement provisions remain
unchanged since the EPA's last review and approval of the Washington
1997 ozone infrastructure SIP submittal on May 24, 2012 (77 FR 30902).
Washington also cites the EPA-approved minor new source review
permitting program contained in the SIP under WAC 173-400-110 New
Source Review and WAC 173-400-113 Requirements for New Sources in
Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas. Specifically, WAC 173-400-113(3)
ensures that, ``[a]llowable emissions from the proposed new source or
modification will not delay the attainment date for an area not in
attainment nor cause or contribute to a violation of any ambient air
quality standard.'' \16\ Washington also notes that any major PSD
sources in attainment or unclassifiable areas would be addressed under
the existing EPA FIP codified in 40 CFR 52.2497.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ On October 3, 2014, following the State's infrastructure
submission, the EPA approved updates to portions of WAC 173-400,
including regulations related to minor new source review (79 FR
59653). The EPA's final approval of the updates to WAC 173-400 is
not effective until November 3, 2014. In the interim, the EPA notes
that both the version of WAC 173-400 currently approved in the SIP
(effective June 2, 1995) and the recent updates (effective November
3, 2014) provide broad, general authority to maintain and protect
the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA analysis: With regard to the requirement to have a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures, we are proposing to find
that the Washington provisions cited in the submittal provide the state
with authority to enforce the air quality regulations, permits, and
orders promulgated pursuant to the SIP. Washington may issue emergency
orders to reduce or discontinue emission of air contaminants where air
emissions cause or contribute to imminent and substantial endangerment
under the EPA-approved provisions of WAC 173-435 Emergency Episode
Plan. Enforcement cases may be referred to the State Attorney General's
Office for civil or criminal enforcement. Therefore, we are proposing
to approve the Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) related to enforcement for the 2008 ozone and 2010
NO2 NAAQS.
    To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
regard to the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary
sources, a state is required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor
NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2008 ozone and 2010
NO2 NAAQS. As

explained above, in the ``CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Elements'' discussion, we are not evaluating nonattainment related
provisions in this action, such as the nonattainment NSR program
required by part D, title I of the CAA, nor does Washington have any
nonattainment areas for either NAAQS. With regard to the minor NSR
requirement of this element, we have determined that the Washington
minor NSR program adopted pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA,
and codified in 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW, is adequate to regulate
emissions of ozone precursors and NO2 for purposes of
implementing the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Lastly, as
previously discussed, the PSD permitting program in Washington is
operated under an EPA FIP. As noted in the EPA's infrastructure
guidance, when an area is already subject to a FIP for PSD permitting
(whether or not a state, local, or tribal air agency has been delegated
Federal authority to implement the PSD FIP), the air agency may choose
to continue to rely on the PSD FIP to have permits issued pursuant to
the FIP. If so, the EPA could not fully approve the infrastructure SIP
submission; however, the EPA anticipates that there would be no adverse
consequences to the air agency or to sources from a partial disapproval
of the infrastructure SIP. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to partially
disapprove Washington's SIP for those requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) related to PSD.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ On January 27, 2014, Washington submitted PSD regulations
for approval into the SIP. The EPA has not finalized our review of
that submittal. The EPA's proposed disapproval of the PSD elements
in this action to rely on the existing PSD FIP is not a reflection
on Ecology's January 27, 2014, submittal. Instead, the EPA has
determined that the existing PSD FIP currently provides protection
and maintenance of the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS so
there is no compelling reason to delay a proposed determination on
the adequacy of Ecology's infrastructure certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate Transport

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires state SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). Further, this section requires state SIPs to
include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from interfering with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality, or from interfering
with measures required to protect visibility (i.e. measures to address
regional haze) in any state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
    State submittal: Washington indicated in the submittal that the
State intends to fulfill its requirements related to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in a separate submittal.
    With respect to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements,
Washington's certification notes that a FIP is in place to address the
PSD components. With respect to visibility, Washington submitted a
regional haze plan in 2010, which the EPA partially approved, partially
disapproved, and supplemented with a FIP (79 FR 33438, June 11, 2014).
    EPA analysis: As noted above, this action does not address the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone and
2010 NO2 NAAQS. We intend to address the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in a separate action.
    The EPA believes that the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD sub-
element is satisfied when new major sources and major modifications in
Washington are subject to a SIP-approved PSD program that
satisfactorily implements the NAAQS. As previously noted, a FIP is in
place for the PSD program in Washington. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to disapprove the Washington SIP with respect to the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD sub-element. However, the EPA
anticipates that there would be no adverse consequences to the air
agency or to sources from this partial disapproval of the
infrastructure SIP.
    The EPA believes that one way the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
visibility sub-element (prong 4) can be satisfied for any relevant
NAAQS is through an air agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP
submission that it has an approved regional haze SIP that fully meets
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. As noted in the EPA's 2013
infrastructure guidance, ``[i]f the EPA determines the SIP to be
incomplete or partially disapproves an infrastructure SIP submission
for prong 4, a FIP obligation will be created. If a FIP or FIPs are
already in effect that correct all regional haze SIP deficiencies,
there will be no additional practical consequences from the partial
disapproval for the affected air agency, the sources within its
jurisdiction, or the EPA. The EPA will not be required to take further
action with respect to prong 4 because the FIP already in place would
satisfy the requirements with respect to prong 4. In addition, unless
the infrastructure SIP submission is required in response to a SIP call
under CAA section 110(k)(5), mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179
would not apply because the deficiencies are not with respect to a
submission that is required under CAA title I part D. Nevertheless, the
EPA continues to encourage all air agencies that may be subject to full
or partial FIPs for regional haze requirements to consider adopting
additional SIP provisions that would allow the EPA to fully approve the
regional haze SIP and thus to withdraw the FIP and approve the
infrastructure SIP with respect to prong 4.'' A partial FIP addressing
NOX, which is also an ozone precursor, is currently in place
for regional haze. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the
Washington SIP with respect to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
visibility sub-element for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2
NAAQS.
    110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and International transport provisions:
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions
ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections
126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution
abatement). Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified
major sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from
the source.
    State submittal: Washington's submittal notes that the state has no
pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the CAA. CAA section
126(a) obligations are met through the current PSD FIP.
    EPA analysis: The EPA agrees that Washington has no pending
interstate or international pollution obligations under CAA sections
115 and 126(b). Because Washington does not have SIP-approved
provisions addressing the requirements and instead relies on the PSD
FIP to satisfy its CAA section 126(a) obligations, the EPA is proposing
to partially disapprove the SIP for this element. However, as
previously noted, the EPA anticipates that there would be no adverse
consequences to Washington or to sources resulting from this proposed
partial disapproval of the infrastructure SIP.

110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary
assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited
by any provision of Federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or
portion thereof), (ii) requires that the state comply with the
requirements respecting state boards

under CAA section 128 and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the
state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or
instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the state
has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such SIP
provision.
    State submittal: Chapter 43.21A RCW Department of Ecology provides
authority for the director to employ personnel necessary for
administration of this chapter. Chapters 43.21A and 70.94 RCW provide
the rule-making authority for Ecology. Ecology's Air Quality Program is
funded through the following funding sources: The state general fund,
section 105 of the CAA grant program, Air Operating Permit Account
(permit fees from large industrial sources), and Air Pollution Control
Account (permit fees for burning and annual fees for small industrial
air pollution sources).
    The EPA-approved provisions of the Washington SIP under WACs 173-
400-220 Requirements for Board Members and 173-400-260 Conflict of
Interest provide that no state board or body which approves operating
permits or enforcement orders, either in the first instance or upon
appeal, shall be constituted of less than a majority of members who
represent the public interest and who do not derive a significant
portion of their income from persons subject to operating permits.
State law also provides that any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of any executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed. See RCW 34.05.425
Administrative Procedure Act; RCW 42.17 Public Disclosure Act; RCW
70.94.100 Composition of Local Air Authorities' Board; Conflict of
Interest Requirements.
    Ecology works with other organizations and agencies and may enter
into agreements allowing for implementation of the air pollution
controls by another agency. However, RCW 70.94.370 states that no
provision of this chapter or any recommendation of the state board or
of any local or regional air pollution program is a limitation on the
power of a state agency in the enforcement, or administration of any
provision of law which it is specifically permitted or required to
enforce or administer.
    EPA analysis: Regarding adequate personnel, funding and authority,
the EPA believes the Washington SIP meets the requirements of this
element. Washington receives CAA sections 103 and 105 grant funds from
the EPA and provides state matching funds necessary to carry out SIP
requirements. Regarding the state board requirements under CAA section
128, the EPA approved WAC 173-400-220 Requirements for Board Members
and WAC 173-400-260 Conflict of Interest as meeting the section 128
requirements on June 2, 1995 (60 FR 28726). On May 24, 2012, the EPA
approved the Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (77 FR 30902). Finally, regarding state responsibility
and oversight of local and regional entities, RCW 70.94.370 provides
Ecology with adequate authority to carry out oversight of SIP
obligations. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the Washington
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) for the
2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring System

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation,
maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of
other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to
monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the
nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such
sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with
any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA,
which shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    State submittal: The EPA-approved version of WAC 173-400-105
Records, Monitoring, and Reporting currently in the Washington SIP
provides the authority to monitor stationary source emissions for
compliance purposes and make the information available to the public.
The language of WAC 173-400-105(1) provides general authority to
require emission reporting. Meanwhile, WAC 173-400-105(2) allows
Ecology to require stack testing and/or ambient air monitoring, even if
not required in a permit or other enforceable requirement as part of a
continuous surveillance program to protect air quality.
    EPA analysis: The EPA-approved regulatory provisions cited by
Washington establish compliance requirements to monitor emissions, keep
and report records, and collect ambient air monitoring data in
accordance with CAA section 110(a)(2)(F). Additionally, Washington is
required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the
National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA's central
repository for air emissions data. The EPA published the Air Emissions
Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions
inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger
sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System.
States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their
associated precursors--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead,
carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds.
The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary,
and releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.
    Based on the analysis above, we are proposing to approve the
Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)
for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority
to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, including adequate contingency plans to implement the
emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
    State submittal: Ecology cited the EPA-approved Washington SIP
provisions of WAC 173-435 Emergency Episode Plan, which are consistent
with the EPA's regulations contained in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H
(51.150-51.153) reviewed as part of the EPA's approval of the 1997
ozone NAAQS infrastructure certification on May 24, 2012 (77 FR 30902).
    EPA analysis: Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA
Administrator to restrain any source from causing or contributing to
emissions which present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare, or the environment.'' We find that the EPA-
approved Washington SIP at WAC 173-435-050 Action Procedures provides
Washington with comparable authority. Specifically, WAC 173-435-050(6)
states, ``[r]egardless of whether any episode stages have previously
been declared, whenever the governor finds that emissions are causing
imminent danger to public health or safety, the governor may declare an
air pollution emergency and order the persons responsible for the
operation of sources causing the danger, to reduce or discontinue
emissions consistent with good operating practice, safe operating
procedures, and SERPs [source emission reduction plans], if any.''
Further, WAC

173-435-050(5) requires, ``[t]he broadest publicity practicable shall
be given to the declaration of any episode stage. Such declaration
shall, as soon as possible, be directly communicated to all persons
responsible for the carrying out of SERPs within the affected area.''
Washington's regulations discussed above, which were approved by the
EPA into the SIP on January 15, 1993, continue to be consistent with
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.151 (58 FR 4578). Accordingly, we are
proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2
NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of
such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of
attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph
110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of
information available to the Administrator that the SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements, or to
otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.
    State submittal: Washington's submittal referred to RCW 70.94,
which gives Ecology the authority to promulgate rules and regulations
to maintain and protect Washington's air quality and to comply with
Federal requirements, including revisions of NAAQS, SIPs, and
responding to EPA findings.
    EPA analysis: RCW 70.94.510 specifically requires Ecology to
cooperate with the Federal government in order to ensure the
coordination of the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act and the
Washington Clean Air Act. In practice, Ecology regularly submits
revisions to the EPA to revise the SIP. The EPA recently approved
revisions to the Washington SIP on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61188)
(Thurston County Second 10-Year PM10 Limited Maintenance
Plan), September 17, 2013 (78 FR 57073) (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Regulatory Updates), and May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32131) (Tacoma-Pierce
County Nonattainment Area). Accordingly, we are proposing to approve
the Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan Revision Under Part D

    There are two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) not
governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls
are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, but are rather due at the time of the nonattainment area plan
requirements pursuant to section 172 and the various pollutant specific
subparts 2-5 of part D. These elements are: (i) Submissions required by
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a
permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii)
submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a
result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment NSR or CAA
section 110(a)(2)(I).

110(a)(2)(J): Consultation With Government Officials

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments and Federal land managers carrying
out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121. CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet applicable requirements of part C,
title I of the CAA related to prevention of significant deterioration
and visibility protection.
    State submittal: Ecology's submittal cited the following regulatory
provisions contained in the Washington SIP to meet CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) obligations: WAC 173-435-050 Action Procedures, WAC 173-
400-151 Retrofit Requirements for Visibility, and WAC 173-400-171
Public Involvement. Washington also cited the following statutory
authorities: RCW 34.05 Administrative Procedures Act, RCW 42.30 Open
Public Meetings, RCW 70.94.141 Consultation, and RCW 70.94.240 Air
Pollution Control Advisory Council. In addition to these SIP measures,
Ecology uses the Washington Air Quality Advisory (WAQA) tool for
informing the public about the levels and health effects of air
pollution. The public can access up-to-date WAQA information on-line at
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/enviwa/Default.htm.
    EPA analysis: Under the EPA-approved provisions of WAC 173-400-171
Public Involvement, Ecology routinely coordinates with local
governments, states, Federal land managers and other stakeholders on
air quality issues and provides notice to appropriate agencies related
to permitting actions. Washington regularly participates in regional
planning processes including the Western Regional Air Partnership,
which is a voluntary partnership of states, tribes, Federal land
managers, local air agencies and the EPA, whose purpose is to
understand current and evolving regional air quality issues in the
West. Therefore the EPA is proposing to approve the Washington SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation
with government officials.
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the public be notified if NAAQS
are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures
that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Washington actively
participates and submits information to the EPA's AIRNOW program which
provides information to the public on the air quality in their locale.
In addition, Washington provides the state's annual network monitoring
plan, annual air quality monitoring data summaries, specific warnings
and advice to those persons who may be most susceptible, and a map of
the state air monitoring network to the public on their Web site
(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/airhome.html). Therefore, we are
proposing to find that the Washington SIP meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) for public notification.
    Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP
meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, we
have evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to PSD permitting. As discussed previously,
PSD in Washington is operated under a FIP. We are proposing to
disapprove the Washington SIP for the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(J)
with regard to PSD. Instead, the state and the EPA will continue to
rely on the existing PSD FIP.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility
and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C

do not change. Thus we find that there is no new applicable requirement
relating to visibility triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a
new NAAQS becomes effective.
    Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the
Washington SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J)
for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, except for those
elements related to PSD which we are proposing to partially disapprove.

110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/Data

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the
performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may
prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the
Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard,
and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air
quality modeling to the Administrator.
    State submittal: The Washington submittal states that air quality
modeling is conducted during development of revisions to the SIP, as
appropriate to demonstrate attainment with required air quality
standards. Modeling is also addressed in the permitting process (see
discussion at CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)). Estimates of ambient
concentrations are based on air quality models, data bases and other
requirements specified in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guidelines on Air
Quality Models) and are routinely used by Washington. Exceptions to
using Appendix W are handled under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.166
(Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) which requires
written approval from the EPA and an opportunity for public comment.
    EPA analysis: As noted in Ecology's submittal, Washington models
estimates of ambient concentrations based on 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W
(Guidelines on Air Quality Models) for both permitting and SIP
development. Any change or substitution from models specified in 40 CFR
part 51, Appendix W is subject to notice and opportunity for public
comment. Modeling was used for development of maintenance plans and
redesignation to attainment requests for the former 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas of Puget Sound and Vancouver, approved by the EPA
on September 26, 1996 (61 FR 50438) and May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27204),
respectively. More recently, modeling was used to develop control
measures for the Tacoma-Pierce County fine particulate matter
nonattainment area, although the area came into attainment before a
formal SIP submission was required (78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013). Based
on the foregoing, we are proposing to approve Washington's SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 ozone
and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major
stationary source to pay permitting fees sufficient to cover the
reasonable cost of reviewing, acting upon, implementing and enforcing a
permit.
    State submittal: The submittal stated that Washington derives its
authority to collect fees for new source review and title V sources
from RCW 70.94.151, RCW 70.94.152, and RCW 70.94.162. The EPA reviewed
Washington's fee provisions and fully approved the title V program on
August 13, 2001 (66 FR 42439), with a revision approved on January 2,
2003 (67 FR 71479). With respect to the new source review fee
requirements, the State's submittal noted that there are no
nonattainment areas for ozone or NO2 in Washington.
Therefore, all major stationary sources subject to new source review
would be covered under the PSD FIP.
    EPA analysis: As noted in the State's submittal, the EPA approved
the Washington title V permitting program on August 13, 2001, with an
effective date of September 12, 2001 (66 FR 42439). Meanwhile,
Washington does not have a SIP-approved PSD permitting program and,
therefore, is not required to have PSD permitting fees in its SIP. As
discussed earlier in this notice, PSD permitting in Washington takes
place by means of a FIP. Therefore, we are proposing to conclude that
Washington has satisfied its current obligations under CAA section
110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS by virtue
of the EPA's prior approval of Washington's title V permitting program.

110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for
consultation and participation in SIP development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    State submittal: Washington cites the following regulations and
statutes as pertinent to this infrastructure SIP requirement: WAC 173-
400-171 Public Involvement, RCW 34.05 Administrative Procedure Act, RCW
42.30 Open Public Meetings Act, and RCW 70.94.240 Air Pollution Control
Advisory Council.
    EPA analysis: As discussed in the preamble relating to CAA section
110(a)(2)(J), Ecology routinely coordinates with local governments and
other stakeholders on air quality issues. The public involvement
regulations cited in Washington's submittal were previously approved
into Washington's Federally-approved SIP on June 2, 1995 (60 FR 28726).
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to find that Washington's SIP meets the
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 ozone and 2010
NO2 NAAQS.

VI. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the September 22, 2014, submittal from Washington to demonstrate that
the SIP meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA
for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Specifically, we are
proposing to find that the current EPA-approved Washington SIP meets
the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements: (A), (B),
(C)--except for those elements covered by the PSD FIP, (D)(i)(II)--
except for those elements covered by the PSD and regional haze FIPs,
(D)(ii)--except for those elements covered by the PSD FIP, (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J)--except for those elements covered by the PSD FIP, (K),
(L), and (M). As previously noted, the EPA anticipates that there would
be no adverse consequences to Washington or to sources in the state
resulting from this proposed partial disapproval of the infrastructure
SIP with respect to the PSD and regional haze FIPs. The EPA, likewise,
anticipates no additional FIP responsibilities for PSD and regional
haze as a result of this proposed partial disapproval. Interstate
transport requirements with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS will be addressed in a
separate action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the state's 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the 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 in
Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved
to apply in any other area where the 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. Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the
exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as
the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement
Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and
local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust
lands within the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA
nonetheless provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe
in a letter dated September 3, 2013. The EPA did not receive a request
for consultation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: October 8, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-24742 Filed 10-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37873-37875]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16526]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83730; File No. SR-MRX-2018-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Codify the
Definitions of the Protocols That Members Can Use To Enter Quotes and
Orders

July 27, 2018.
    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 July 16, 2018, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' 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 proposes to codify the definitions of the protocols
that Members can use to enter quotes and orders on the Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to codify the
definitions of the protocols that Members use to enter quotes and
orders on the Exchange, specifically, the Specialized Quote Feed
(``SQF''), Ouch to Trade Options (``OTTO''), and Financial Information
eXchange (``FIX''). On July 20, 2017, the Exchange filed a proposed
rule change that established the ports that Members use to connect to
the Exchange, including ports used for quote and order entry--i.e.,
SQF, OTTO and FIX.\3\ The protocols used by Members to submit quotes
and orders play an important role in the operation of the trading
system as critical Exchange functionality used by Members to transact
in options is offered through

these protocols. The Exchange therefore believes that codifying
definitions of these protocols in its rules will increase transparency
around its operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81312 (August 3,
2017), 82 FR 37253 (August 9, 2017) (SR-MRX-2017-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed language is substantially similar to the language
included in SR-MRX-2017-13 with changes to more clearly and accurately
reflect the certain information included on each protocol, such as by
separating out different categories of messages (e.g., auction orders,
auction notifications, and auction responses). Furthermore, the
proposed definitions will be harmonized where appropriate with
definitions to be included in the rules of the Exchange's affiliated
options markets, including by using consistent terms to define the
buckets of information transmitted, or the features available, on each
protocol.\4\ Although the Exchange is changing how it categorizes
various features included on FIX, OTTO, and SQF as part of its
harmonization effort, the list of features included in the proposed
definitions are intended to be exhaustive with respect to the buckets
of information provided on each protocol. The Exchange believes that
the proposed changes will allow Members to more easily understand what
information is available on which protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange's affiliates--i.e., Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE''),
Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX''), Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), Nasdaq
Options Market (``NOM''), and Nasdaq BX, LLC (``BX'')--intend to
file similar rule changes as part of this exercise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 715 (i.e., Types of
Orders) will provide that the Exchange offers Members the following
protocols for entering orders and quotes respectively:
A. Financial Information eXchange Ports
    When the Exchange initially filed to adopt order and quote entry
protocols, it described the FIX protocol as follows: ``FIX is an
interface that allows market participants to connect and send orders
and auction orders into the Exchange. Data includes the following: (1)
Options Symbol Directory Messages; (2) System Event Messages (e.g.,
start of messages, start of system hours, start of quoting, start of
opening); (3) Option Trading Action Messages (e.g., halts, resumes);
(4) Execution Messages; (5) Order Messages (order messages, risk
protection triggers or purge notifications).''
    The Exchange now proposes to codify the following definition of FIX
in its rulebook: ``Financial Information eXchange'' or ``FIX'' is an
interface that allows Members and their Sponsored Customers \5\ to
connect, send, and receive messages related to orders and auction
orders to the Exchange. Features include the following: (1) Execution
messages; (2) order messages; (3) risk protection triggers and cancel
notifications; and (4) post trade allocation messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``Sponsored Customer'' is a non-member of the Exchange
that trades under a sponsoring member's execution and clearing
identity pursuant to a sponsorship arrangement between such non-
member and sponsoring member, as set forth in Supplementary Material
to Rule 706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Ouch To Trade Options Ports

    When the Exchange initially filed to adopt order and quote entry
protocols, it described the OTTO protocol as follows: ``OTTO is an
interface that allows market participants to connect and send orders,
auction orders and auction responses into the Exchange. Data includes
the following: (1) Options Auction Notifications (e.g., Flash, PIM,
Solicitation and Facilitation or other information); (2) Options Symbol
Directory Messages; (3) System Event Messages (e.g., start of messages,
start of system hours, start of quoting, start of opening); (5) Option
Trading Action Messages (e.g., halts, resumes); (6) Execution Messages;
(7) Order Messages (order messages, risk protection triggers or purge
notifications).''
    The Exchange now proposes to codify the following definition of
OTTO in its rulebook: ``Ouch to Trade Options'' or ``OTTO'' is an
interface that allows Members and their Sponsored Customers to connect,
send, and receive messages related to orders, auction orders, and
auction responses to the Exchange. Features include the following: (1)
Options symbol directory messages (e.g., underlying instruments); (2)
system event messages (e.g., start of trading hours messages and start
of opening); (3) trading action messages (e.g., halts and resumes); (4)
execution messages; (5) order messages; (6) risk protection triggers
and cancel notifications; (7) auction notifications; (8) auction
responses; and (9) post trade allocation messages.

C. Specialized Quote Feed Ports

    When the Exchange initially filed to adopt order and quote entry
protocols, it described the SQF protocol as follows: ``SQF is an
interface that allows market makers to connect and send quotes, sweeps
and auction responses into the Exchange. Data includes the following:
(1) Options Auction Notifications (e.g., opening imbalance, Flash, PIM,
Solicitation and Facilitation or other information); (2) Options Symbol
Directory Messages; (3) System Event Messages (e.g., start of messages,
start of system hours, start of quoting, start of opening); (4) Option
Trading Action Messages (e.g., halts, resumes); (5) Execution Messages;
(6) Quote Messages (quote/sweep messages, risk protection triggers or
purge notifications).''
    The Exchange now proposes to codify the following definition of SQF
in its rulebook: ``Specialized Quote Feed'' or ``SQF'' is an interface
that allows market makers to connect, send, and receive messages
related to quotes, Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, and auction responses to
the Exchange. Features include the following: (1) Options symbol
directory messages (e.g., underlying instruments); (2) system event
messages (e.g., start of trading hours messages and start of opening);
(3) trading action messages (e.g., halts and resumes); (4) execution
messages; (5) quote messages; (6) Immediate-or-Cancel Order messages;
(7) risk protection triggers and purge notifications; (8) opening
imbalance messages; (9) auction notifications; and (10) auction
responses. The SQF Purge Interface only receives and notifies of purge
requests from the market maker.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ All of the notification messages available on SQF ports as
described above (i.e., options symbol directory messages, system
event messages, trading action messages, etc.) are configurable in
that market makers can select the specific types of notifications
they wish to receive on their SQF ports. As such, SQF Purge
Interface ports are a subpart of SQF ports that have been configured
to only receive and notify of purge requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest as it codifies
the protocols used to connect to the Exchange's trading system. As
discussed above, the Exchange previously filed to establish FIX, OTTO,
and SQF in SR-MRX-2017-13. These protocols will now be codified in the
Exchange's rulebook.
    While no functional changes to the protocols are proposed in this
filing, the Exchange believes that including a description of the
protocols in its

rulebook will benefit Members by increasing transparency around the
operation of the Exchange. Furthermore, the proposed definitions being
included in the rulebook will more clearly and accurately reflect the
information included on the protocols, and will be harmonized with
language to be included in the rules of its affiliated exchanges to the
extent that the protocols operate in the same manner. The protocols
described in this filing provide a range of important features to
Members, including the ability to submit quotes and orders, and perform
other functions necessary to manage trading on the Exchange. The
Exchange believes codifying the quote and order entry protocols will
increase transparency to the Members that use these protocols to
connect to the Exchange.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\9\ the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As explained
above, the Exchange is codifying the quote and order entry protocols
that Members use to connect to the Exchange's trading system. The
Exchange does not believe that codifying these protocols in the
rulebook will have any competitive impact. FIX, OTTO, and SQF were
established in SR-MRX-2017-13, and are already available to Members,
who use these protocols to connect and manage their trading activity on
the Exchange. Adding rule language that describes these Exchange
offerings will increase transparency around the operation of the
Exchange without having any impact on intermarket or intramarket
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
In this case, the Commission waives the five-day pre-filing
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2018-25 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-MRX-2018-25. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2018-25 and should be submitted on
or before August 23, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16526 Filed 8-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P