[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30767-30770]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13862]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0166; FRL-9964-35-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; FL: Revisions to New Source Review,
Definitions and Small Business Assistance Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve changes to the Florida State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to update definitions and make administrative edits to
regulations for the Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) and Florida's
Small Business Assistance program (SBA). EPA is proposing to approve
portions of a SIP revision submitted by the State of Florida, through
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on July 1,
2011, to update definitions and make administrative edits to PALs and
the SBA. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective September 1, 2017 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 2, 2017.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0166 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at
(404) 562-9089 or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA taking?

    On July 1, 2011, FDEP submitted to EPA for approval a SIP revision
that involves changes to Florida's regulations related to permitting
and administrative procedures, among other changes. In this action, EPA
is approving the portions of the Florida submission that make changes
to definitions affecting the major New Source Review (NSR) program,
changes to other miscellaneous definitions, and administrative changes
to Florida's NSR PAL provisions and SBA program. Florida's NSR program,
which applies to the construction and modification of any major
stationary source in areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable
as required by part C and part D of title I of the CAA, is modified
with this direct final action at Rule 62-210.200, Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.), ``Definitions,'' and 62-212.720,
``Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs).'' EPA is also
approving miscellaneous changes to definitions. Finally, EPA is
approving the portion of the July 1, 2011, submission that revises Rule
62-210.220, ``Small Business Assistance Program,'' which provides for
compliance assistance for qualifying small business stationary sources.
    Changes in the July 1, 2011, submission made to Rule 62-212.400,
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,'' were approved on June 15,
2012 (77 FR 35862). The June 15, 2012, final rule also approved the NSR
definition of ``major modification,'' at Rule 62-210.200(186) included
in the July 1, 2011, SIP submission.
    At this time, the Agency is not acting on the following changes
included in the July 1, 2011, submission at Rule 62-210.200,
``Definitions'': (28), ``animal crematory,'' (41), ``biological
waste,'' (42), ``biological waste incinerator,'' (44), ``biomedical
waste,'' and (158), ``human crematory.'' EPA is also not acting on the
changes made to rules in Chapter 62-296, ``Stationary Sources--Emission
Standards,'' included in the July 1, 2011, submission. EPA will
consider these remaining portions of the July 1, 2011, submission in a
separate action.

II. Background

    This direct final action will update Florida's definitions and make
changes to rules approved into the SIP. Changes made to definitions are
related to basic definitions of criteria air pollutants and their
precursors and minor edits to permitting and NSR terms. Definitions are
also partly renumbered with the July 1, 2011, submission. The changes
made to the regulations, other than definitions, are administrative in
nature, including updating internal references.

III. Analysis of Florida's SIP Revision

A. Rule 62-210.200--Definitions

    Florida's July 1, 2011, SIP revision makes changes to definitions
for criteria air pollutants and their precursors. Florida adds a
definition at Rule 62-210.200(211) for ``nitrogen oxides'' to be
consistent with EPA regulations, referencing test methods at 40 Code of
Federal Regulations part 60 (40 CFR part 60). The July 1, 2011, SIP
submittal revises the definition of ``PM10,'' or
``particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to
a nominal 10 micrometers,'' at Rule 62-210.200(235), renumbered from
(221), correcting a typographical error to reference EPA test methods
at 40 CFR part 51, subpart M. Finally, the July 1, 2011, SIP revision
changes the definition of ``Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)'' at Rule
62-210.200(326), renumbered from (306). This change for VOC
incorporates the federal definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) by
reference rather than requiring the State to periodically incorporate
individual changes to the federal definition. These changes to
definitions became state effective on October 12, 2008.
    The July 1, 2011, SIP revision made changes to definitions related
to NSR to correct typographical errors, to make internal references
consistent, renumber definitions, and make minor administrative edits.
Florida changed the definition of ``best available control
technology,'' at Rule 62-210.200(40), by correcting a typographical
error carried over from a previous revision. No substantive change was
made to the SIP-approved definition, and the minor edits became state
effective on October 12, 2008. The July 1, 2011, SIP revision also
changed the definition of ``federally enforceable,'' at Rule 62-
210.200(136), renumbered from (124), to clarify citations to rules
under which federally enforceable permits are issued or were
historically issued. This change to ``federally enforceable'' became
state effective on February 11, 1999. Florida also revised the
definition of ``modification'' at Rule 62-210.200(199), renumbered from
(183), to remove references to non-SIP related uses of the term. In
addition to removing references to 40 CFR part 60 (New Source
Performance Standards), 40 CFR part 61 (National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants), and CAA section 112 (Hazardous Air
Pollutants), a reference to 40 CFR part 52 (Approval and Promulgation
of Implementation Plans) is removed from this definition. However, the
remaining portion of the SIP-approved definition is nonetheless
consistent with the definition as used under 40 CFR part 52. This
change became state effective on February 11, 1999. The Florida
submittal revises the definition of ``net emissions increase'' at Rule
62-210.200(204), renumbered from (179) and state effective on October
12, 2008, to correct typographical errors and to remove numbered
citations to other definitions within Rule 62-210.200, adding explicit
references for ``actual emissions'' and ``baseline actual emissions''
within the definition instead. No substantive changes are made to the
definition of ``net emissions increase.'' Florida also modifies the
definition of ``regulated air pollutant'' at Rule 62-210.200(255),
renumbered from (237), to make an administrative edit that corrected
``any volatile organic compound'' to ``volatile organic compounds'' to
be consistent with EPA use of the collective term. This change to
``regulated air pollutant'' became state effective on October 12, 2008.
Finally, the July 1, 2011, submittal revises the definition of
``significant impact'' at Rule 62-210.200(275), renumbered from (253)
and state effective on November 13, 1997, to correct a typographical
error. Florida's definition of ``significant impact'' largely
corresponds with EPA's provisions for significant impact levels (SILs)
for pollutants impacting nonattainment areas at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2),
but Florida includes a SIL for lead, which has never been included in
the federal provision. With this SIP revision, Florida is removing SILs
under lead for 1-hour periods and 8-hour periods, which were carried
over in error from the carbon monoxide SIL, as well as an additional
typographical error. No substantive change is made to the SIP-approved
definition.
    EPA is approving these changes to definitions in the Florida SIP,
which became state effective at the following dates as described above:
November 13, 1997, February 11, 1999, and October 12, 2008. The
renumbering of definitions, which is the final change to Rule 62-
210.200 included in the SIP revision, became state effective on March
11, 2010.

B. Rule 62-210.220--Small Business Assistance Program

    The July 1, 2011, submittal makes changes to Florida's SBA program
at Rule 62-210.220(2)(c) by updating

obsolete references to State rules and updating the reference to
Chapter 28-106, F.A.C. The SBA program previously referenced Florida
Chapter 62-103, ``Rules of Administrative Procedure,'' for sources
responding to determinations or petitioning for determinations to be
included in the SBA program. The State adopted new rules at Chapter 28-
106, ``Decisions Determining Substantial Interests,'' on April 1, 1997.
The new Chapter repealed Rule 62-103 and made these types of
administrative procedures standard across all Florida state agencies.
The SIP revision is administrative in nature and became state effective
on February 11, 1999. EPA is approving this change to make references
to State rules consistent in the SIP.

C. Rule 62-212.720--Plantwide Applicability Limits

    The July 1, 2011, submittal revises the PAL provisions only to
correct an error at Rule 62-212.720(1). The introductory paragraph
affected previously referenced a non-existent definition at Rule 62-
210.200, and the reference was deleted. This revision is administrative
in nature and became state effective on October 6, 2008. EPA is
approving this change into the Florida SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Florida Rule
62-210.200, F.A.C. entitled ``Definitions,'' effective March 11, 2010,
to add definitions and make administrative updates, Rule 62-210.220,
F.A.C., entitled ``Small Business Assistance Program,'' effective
October 6, 2008, to correct internal references, and Rule 62-210.720,
F.A.C., entitled ``Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs),''
which corrects an error effective December 17, 2013.\1\ Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP,
have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\2\ EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The state effective date of the change to Rule 62-210.720,
F.A.C. made in Florida's July 1, 2011, SIP revision is October 6,
2008. However, for purposes of the state effective date included at
40 CFR 52.520(c), that change to Florida's rule is captured and
superseded by Florida's update in a December 19, 2013, SIP revision,
state effective on December 17, 2013, which EPA previously approved
on May 19, 2014. See 78 FR 28607.
    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP because they
are consistent with the CFR and the CAA. Because these changes are
administrative and insignificant in nature, they are in accordance with
section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA is
publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse
comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 1, 2017
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
August 2, 2017.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on September 1, 2017 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, the Agency may adopt as final those provisions of the rule
that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these
actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, these actions:
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this action and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 1, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 15, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.520(c) is amended under Chapter 62-210 and 62-212 by
revising entries for ``62-210.200,'' ``62-210.220,'' and ``62-212.720''
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.520   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Florida Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State
    State citation (section)       Title/subject     effective   EPA approval date           Explanation
                                                        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Chapter 62-210 Stationary Sources--General Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
62-210.200.....................  Definitions......      3/11/10  7/3/2017 [Insert   ............................
                                                                  citation of
                                                                  publication].
62-210.220.....................  Small Business         10/6/08  7/3/2017 [Insert   ............................
                                  Assistance                      citation of
                                  Program.                        publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Chapter 62-212 Stationary Sources--Preconstruction Review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
62-212.720.....................  Actuals Plantwide     12/17/13  7/3/2017 [Insert   ............................
                                  Applicability                   citation of
                                  Limits (PALs).                  publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-13862 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18519-18520]
[DOCID:fr12ap10-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1890-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

District of Columbia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the District of Columbia (FEMA-1890-DR), dated March 24,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 24, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 24, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in the District of Columbia
resulting from severe winter storms and snowstorms during the period
of February 5-11, 2010, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the District of Columbia.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance and Hazard
Mitigation in the designated area. You are further authorized to
provide emergency protective measures, including snow assistance,
under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour
period during or proximate to the incident period. You may extend
the period of assistance, as warranted. This assistance excludes
regular time costs for the sub-grantees' regular employees.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Regis Leo Phelan, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the District of Columbia have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster.

    The District of Columbia for Public Assistance.
    The District of Columbia for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance
program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the
incident period.
    The District of Columbia is eligible to apply for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-8287 Filed 4-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: July 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39680-39681]
[DOCID:fr12jy10-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12574-002]

Santiam Water Control District; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Terms, Conditions, and
Recommendations

July 2, 2010.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Exemption from Licensing.
    b. Project No.: 12574-002.
    c. Date Filed: June 18, 2007 and supplemented on July 18, 2007,
pursuant to Order Denying Rehearing (119 FERC ] 61,159).
    d. Applicant: Santiam Water Control District.
    e. Name of Project: Stayton Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Stayton Ditch near the Town of Stayton, Marion
County, Oregon. The project would not occupy United States land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705 and 2708.
    h. Applicant Contact: Brent Stevenson, Santiam Water Control
District, 284 East Water Street, Stayton, OR 97383,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Joseph Hassell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply
comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person whose name appears on the official service list for the project.
Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov)
under the ``eFiling'' link.
    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. Description of Project: The Stayton Hydropower Project would
consist of the existing: (1) Power canal headgate structure and fish
ladder, fish screen, and 28-inch-diameter, 600-foot-long juvenile fish
bypassed return pipe located near the upstream end of Stayton Ditch;
(2) the 0.5-mile-long Stayton Ditch; (3) 24-foot-long by 12-foot-high
intake structure equipped with 24.6-foot-long by 12-foot-high and 3-
inch bar spacing trashracks located just upstream of the powerhouse;
(4) the 40-foot-long V-type spillway weir and integral powerhouse
containing a single 600-kilowatt generating unit; (5) the 24-foot-long
by 12-foot-high outlet structure located just downstream of the
powerhouse; (6) the 0.5-mile-long tailrace channel and tailrace fish
barrier; (7) the 100-foot-long, 2,400-kilovolt transmission line; and
(8) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an average annual
generation of 4,320 megawatt-hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h. above.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' or ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant
and the project number of the application to which the filing responds;
(3) furnish the name, address, and telephone

number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on
all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Procedural schedule: The Commission staff proposes to issue a
single Environmental Assessment (EA) rather than issuing a draft and
final EA. Staff intends to allow 30 days for entities to comment on the
EA, and will take into consideration all comments received on the EA
before final action is taken on the exemption application. The
application will be processed according to the schedule, but revisions
to the schedule may be made as appropriate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Acceptance and Ready for          June 18, 2010.
 Environmental Analysis.
Filing comments, recommendations, terms     August 17, 2010.
 and conditions.
Reply comments............................  October 1, 2010.
Notice of availability of Final EA........  December 1, 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary. .
[FR Doc. 2010-16839 Filed 7-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 123 (Thursday, June 25, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38055-38059]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13481]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0091; Product Identifier 2020-NM-012-AD; Amendment
39-19916; AD 2020-11-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report that certain exterior fairing panels on the top of
the engine nacelle and strut (the thumbnail fairing and mid strut
fairing panels) may not have the quality of electrical bonding
necessary to ensure adequate shielding of the underlying wiring from
the electromagnetic effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF),
which could potentially lead to a dual-engine power loss event and/or
display of hazardously misleading primary propulsion parameters. This
AD requires a detailed inspection of the thumbnail fairing panels and
mid strut fairing panels for excessive rework of the metallic (aluminum
foil) inner surface layer, replacement of any excessively reworked
panels, and modification of the thumbnail fairing assembly to ensure
adequate bonding. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 30, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 30,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0091.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0091; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing
Company Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on February 26, 2020 (85 FR 11000). The NPRM was
prompted by a report that certain exterior fairing panels on the top of
the engine nacelle and strut (the thumbnail fairing and mid strut
fairing panels) may not have the quality of electrical bonding
necessary to ensure adequate shielding of the underlying wiring from
the electromagnetic effects of HIRF, which could potentially lead to a
dual-engine power loss event and/or display of hazardously misleading
primary propulsion parameters. The NPRM proposed to require a detailed
inspection of the thumbnail fairing panels and mid strut fairing panels
for excessive rework of the metallic (aluminum foil) inner surface
layer, replacement of any excessively reworked panels, and modification
of the thumbnail fairing assembly to ensure adequate bonding.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which could
result in a forced off-airport landing or excessive flightcrew
workload.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received comments from several
organizations and individuals. The following discussion presents the
comments

received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and three
individuals expressed support for the NPRM.

Request To Exclude Certain Airplanes From the AD's Applicability

    United Airlines (UAL) requested that the proposed AD be revised to
exclude airplanes that have not been delivered. UAL noted that the
proposed AD would apply to all Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes included
in line numbers 5602 through 7901, which is beyond the effectivity of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated December
11, 2019. UAL reasoned that for airplanes that have not been delivered,
Boeing would incorporate the intent of the service bulletin at the
factory, which would provide an equivalent level of safety. UAL
suggested that if those airplanes are not excluded from the proposed
AD's applicability, the FAA should provide credit to prevent the need
for future alternative method of compliance (AMOC) requests.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter, for the reasons the commenter
provided. The FAA has revised paragraph (c) of this AD to limit the
applicability to those airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated December 11, 2019.

Request To Refer To Correct Part Numbers

    American Airlines (AAL) and UAL requested that the proposed AD be
revised to correct the part number for the thumbnail fairing. UAL noted
that Figure 2 and Figure 8 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-54-1056, dated December 11, 2019, specify certain thumbnail
fairings, but those figures specify the incorrect part numbers. The
commenters noted that Boeing issued Information Notice 737-54-1056 IN
01, dated January 29, 2020, to correct the part numbers. This
Information Notice is in the docket for this rulemaking, attached to
the comment of Hainan Airlines Aviation Technic (Hainan). UAL added
that, although the Information Notice specifies the correct ``IS'' part
numbers, it specifies the wrong ``WAS'' part numbers, and noted that
Boeing plans to address this in a future Information Notice or service
bulletin revision. UAL asked that the final rule include an exception
to allow inspection and installation of thumbnail fairings having the
correct part number.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters' requests. The FAA has added
paragraph (h) of this AD to include exceptions to the service
information; this includes paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, which
identifies the correct part numbers to be used when accomplishing the
service instructions. Operators must use part number 313A6110-5,
313A6110-7, or 313A6110-9 in lieu of part number 311A6111-5, 311A6111-
7, or 311A6111-9 when inspecting or installing affected thumbnail
fairings. The FAA has also redesignated subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.

Request To Clarify Rivet Hole Size

    AAL suggested to the FAA that the proposed AD be revised to clarify
the rivet hole size called out for installing a nutplate. AAL stated
that note (d) to Figure 4 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-54-1056, dated December 11, 2019, specifies to drill a hole with a
diameter of ``0.192--0.196.'' AAL stated that Boeing confirmed the
rivet hole size will be corrected with a revised service bulletin.
    The FAA agrees that the rivet hole size specified in note (d) to
Figure 4 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1056,
dated December 11, 2019, is incorrect. SB 737-54-1056 Revision 1,
corrects this hole size diameter with the following language: ``(d)
Drill through Thumbnail Land Assembly with a hole Diameter of 0.097--
0.101.'' The FAA has added paragraph (h)(2) to this AD to clarify the
correct rivet hole size to use when installing a nutplate.

Request To Clarify the Inspection and Replacement Criteria for Critical
and Non-Critical Bonding Zones

    Hainan requested that the proposed AD be revised to provide
clarification regarding the inspection and replacement criteria for
critical and non-critical bonding zones (which are specified in Step 4
of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated
December 11, 2019). Hainan noted that Boeing Information Notice 737-54-
1056 IN 01, dated January 29, 2020, provides clarity regarding the
inspection and the conditions that require replacement of the panels.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has added
paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to clarify the inspection and replacement
criteria for critical bonding zones. The FAA has also added paragraph
(h)(4) of this AD to clarify the inspection and replacement criteria
for non-critical bonding zones.

Request To Revise Certain Background Information

    Boeing requested that paragraph (e) of the proposed AD as well as
the SUMMARY and the Discussion section in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of
the NPRM be revised to be consistent with the potential aircraft system
impacts Boeing communicated in reporting this issue to the FAA prior to
issuance of the NPRM, and to remove any references to an unsafe
condition resulting from lightning strikes. Boeing stated that the
descriptions of the potential unsafe conditions in the proposed AD are
inconsistent with its subject matter expert's evaluation of the safety
issue. Boeing added that there is not a safety concern in the event of
a lightning strike, because all of the electrical and electronic
systems with wiring in the affected area retain sufficient margin
between their design and qualification levels and the lightning-induced
transient levels, even with the loss of electrical bonding of the foil-
lined panels in the engine strut. Boeing further noted that the
proposed AD does not mention the potential for displays of misleading
primary propulsion parameters on the flight deck displays. Boeing
stated that the proposed AD inaccurately describes a scenario where
HIRF or lightning induced on one engine's wiring could cross-couple to
the opposite engine's wiring via the common avionics system's
connections. Boeing provided suggestions for revised wording.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request for the reasons
provided. Based on further analysis done after issuance of the NPRM,
the FAA has determined that lightning strikes are not a safety concern
for the unsafe condition identified in this AD. The FAA has revised the
SUMMARY and the Discussion section in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this
final rule as well as paragraph (e) of this AD to incorporate the
changes requested by Boeing.

Request To Revise Special Flight Permit Conditions

    Boeing requested that the special flight permit language in
paragraph (i) of the proposed AD be revised to provide guidance on the
HIRF spectrum of concern to operators. Boeing noted that the potential
for aircraft systems' exposure to HIRF levels higher than their
original qualification levels is limited to the frequency range between
1 MHz and 100 MHz. Boeing stated that operators do not need to consider
potential HIRF sources outside this frequency spectrum when assessing
routes for special flight permit requests.

Boeing added that providing clarification on the frequency range of
concern would reduce the burden on both operators and the FAA in
submitting and reviewing special flight permit requests.
    The FAA agrees with the request because the agency has determined
that only the HIRF frequency range between 1 MHz and 100 MHz is of
concern. The FAA has revised paragraph (i) of this AD to clarify the
HIRF frequency range that must be identified when submitting a request
for a special flight permit.

Request To Change Compliance Time to Before Revenue Flight

    Boeing requested that the compliance time in the proposed AD be
changed from ``before further flight'' to ``before revenue flight.''
Boeing noted that the compliance time in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated December 11, 2019, is six months.
Boeing added that it is revising the service bulletin and plans to
change the compliance time to ``prior to revenue flight'' in the
revised service bulletin. Boeing noted that ``prior to revenue flight''
aligns with the Boeing safety review board recommendation.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Without the safety
features installed during the modification required by this AD,
airplanes are exposed to potentially unsafe electromagnetic effects.
The FAA has included provisions in paragraph (i) of this AD (paragraph
(h) of the proposed AD) for operators who may need to relocate an
airplane prior to accomplishing the actions required by this AD. The
FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Compliance Time To Include Options

    Hainan requested that the compliance time for the proposed AD be
revised to ``within six months after the effective date of this AD or
before further flight, whichever occurs first.'' Hainan noted that
Boeing recommended a compliance time of within six months after the
original issue date of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
54-1056, dated December 11, 2019. Hainan suggested that, due to the
unknown return-to-service dates for the affected airplanes, a revised
compliance time would allow airlines to plan for the actions required
by this AD. Hainan pointed out that another recent AD on these same
airplane models has a compliance time of 24 months.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Without the safety
features installed during the modification required by this AD,
airplanes are exposed to potentially unsafe electromagnetic effects.
The FAA notes that the compliance time is designed to ensure the
actions required by this AD are done before further flight (i.e.,
before the affected airplanes are returned to service), and operators
may do these actions at any time before further flight. The FAA has not
changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Include a Grace Period

    Hainan requested that the proposed AD be revised to provide a grace
period for the required modification. Hainan stated that Boeing can
only provide new panels based on the results of required inspections.
Hainan suggested that due to the international transportation impacts
caused by the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, new panels may not be available
to operators in a timely manner.
    As a result of Hainan's comment, the FAA confirmed in June 2020
that a sufficient number of required parts will be available from the
manufacturer to modify the worldwide fleet within the compliance time
of the NPRM, which is adopted as proposed. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests
for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data
are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would
provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD
regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Certain Requirements

    Hainan requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be revised
to specify ``replacement and modification'' rather than
``modification.'' Hainan noted that the actions in the proposed AD
include both modification and replacement.
    Paragraph (g) of the proposed AD specified a detailed inspection
and the modification as applicable. Replacement is one part of the
modification, and is required only if excessive rework is found during
that inspection. Thus, the FAA has determined that specifying
``replacement and modification'' in paragraph (g) of this AD is not
necessary, and the agency has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Wording Regarding Required Steps

    Hainan requested that the wording in paragraph (g) of the proposed
AD be revised to specify ``Steps 4., 6. or 7. through 9., . . .''
instead of ``Steps 4., 6. through 9., inclusive . . . .'' Hainan noted
that Steps 6. and 7. of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
54-1056, dated December 11, 2019, are two different options for one
action.
    The FAA acknowledges that Steps 6. and 7. of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated December 11, 2019, are
two options for the same action. However, the FAA notes that this is
clearly stated in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-
1056, dated December 11, 2019, which labels Step 6. as ``ACTION 2
(OPTION 1)'' and Step 7. as ``ACTION 2 (OPTION 2).'' Operators are
required to do only one of these options to show compliance with this
AD. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Provide Steps for Deactivating Certain Slats

    AAL suggested to the FAA that the proposed AD be revised to include
steps to deactivate the slats. AAL noted that Boeing recommended
deactivating the slats and thrust reversers using the Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM) as an accepted procedure and stated such
instructions would be included in a revision of the service
information.
    The FAA agrees that deactivating the slats prior to accomplishing
the actions specified in the service bulletin would help to protect any
maintenance personnel working on that area, and that the AMM provides
acceptable procedures for deactivating the slats. However, the FAA does
not agree with making slat deactivation a requirement of this AD, since
this procedure is not needed to address the unsafe condition. The FAA
has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Account for Possible Service Information Revision in the
Final Rule

    AAL suggested to the FAA that the proposed AD be updated to account
for a revision of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-
1056, dated December 11, 2019, if one exists. AAL noted that Boeing
stated that such a revision is in process and AAL asked if the FAA is
aware of such a revision.
    The FAA acknowledges that Boeing has informed the agency of its
intent to issue revised service information. However, that revision has
not yet been published by Boeing. As stated earlier, the FAA has added
several exceptions to this AD to correct errors in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated December 11, 2019. With
these exceptions, operators will be able to comply with this AD using
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated December
11, 2019.

Explanation of Additional Change to This AD

    The FAA clarifies that where the AD specifies to perform certain
``Steps'' of the Boeing service bulletin, such steps refer to the
numbered actions specified within the Procedures section of the
Accomplishment Instructions. The FAA has revised paragraph (g) of this
AD to change the required procedures by not including steps 9 and 12 of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated December
11, 2019. The FAA has determined that these steps, while expected to be
accomplished, are not required to address the unsafe condition
identified in this AD and this change makes this AD consistent with
revision 1 of the Boeing service information.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add more burden upon the public than was already
proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-
1056, dated December 11, 2019. This service information describes
procedures for a detailed inspection of the thumbnail fairing panels
and mid strut fairing panels for excessive rework of the metallic
(aluminum foil) inner surface layer (resulting in foil cuts),
replacement of any excessively reworked panels, and modification of the
thumbnail fairing assembly to ensure adequate bonding. Modification
actions include doing a form-in-place gasket of the thumbnail land
assemblies; preparing the mating surfaces between the thumbnail fairing
panel and the left and right thumbnail land assemblies; and doing a
bond check of the thumbnail fairing panel and the thumbnail land
assemblies on the left and right side of the thumbnail fairing panel on
both engines. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 128 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.........................  5 work-hours x $85 per hour              $0            $425         $54,400
                                      = $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
modifications that would be required based on the results of the
required inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these modifications:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                           Labor cost             Parts cost         Cost per  product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification.........................  Up to 7 work-hours x $85 per              (*)  Up to $595.*
                                        hour = Up to $595.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to provide parts cost estimates for the
  on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD will be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected
operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the
cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2020-11-12 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19916; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0091; Product Identifier 2020-NM-012-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 30, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated December 11,
2019.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/
pylons.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that certain exterior fairing
panels on the top of the engine nacelle and strut (the thumbnail
fairing and mid strut fairing panels) may not have the quality of
electrical bonding necessary to ensure adequate shielding of the
underlying wiring from the electromagnetic effects of high intensity
radiated fields (HIRF), which could potentially lead to a dual-
engine power loss event and/or display of hazardously misleading
primary propulsion parameters. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
this condition, which could result in a forced off-airport landing
or excessive flightcrew workload.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Detailed Inspection and Modification

    Before further flight, do a detailed inspection of the thumbnail
fairing panels and mid strut fairing panels for excessive rework of
the metallic (aluminum foil) inner surface layer, and, before
further flight, do the modification as applicable in accordance with
Steps 4., 6. through 8. inclusive, and 11. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-
1056, dated December 11, 2019.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1056,
dated December 11, 2019, specifies thumbnail fairings having part
number ``311A6111-5 or 311A6111-7 or 311A6111-9,'' for this AD use
part number ``313A6110-5 or 313A6110-7 or 313A6110-9.''
    (2) Where note (d) to Figure 4 of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated December 11, 2019, specifies to
drill a hole with a diameter of ``0.192-0.196,'' for this AD the
hole diameter must be ``0.097-0.101.''
    (3) For inspections of critical bonding areas, as specified in
Step 4.a. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated December 11, 2019, any
panel with cumulative foil cut lengths greater than 4.0 inches
within any 12.0 inches in length must be replaced; any panel with a
foil cut gap greater than 0.25 inch also must be replaced.
    (4) For inspections of non-critical bonding areas, as specified
in Step 4.b. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated December 11, 2019, any
panel with cumulative foil cut lengths greater than 12.0 inches
within a 12.0-inch by 12.0-inch area must be replaced; any panel
with a foil cut gap greater than 0.25 inch also must be replaced.

(i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and
21.199, may be issued to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished, but concurrence by
the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, is required before issuance of
the special flight permit. Requests for a special flight permit must
be submitted to the FAA with a description of the electromagnetic
field radiation sources (type, location, frequency, and power level)
along the planned route. Only electromagnetic field radiation
sources operating in the frequency spectrum between 1 MHz and 100
MHz need to be identified when submitting a special flight permit
request (common examples of such sources include, but are not
limited to, short wave radio towers, FM radio towers, and some TV
broadcast transmitters). Send requests for a special flight permit
to the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Christopher Baker,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3552; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-54-1056, dated
December 11, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 11, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-13481 Filed 6-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 193 (Thursday, October 4, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50010-50012]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21471]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DC105-2053; FRL-9983-57-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; administrative change.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the
materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the District of
Columbia State implementation plan (SIP). The regulations affected by
this update have been previously submitted by the District of Columbia
Department of Energy and Environment (DoEE) and approved by EPA. This
update affects the SIP materials that are available for public
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
and the EPA Regional Office.

DATES: This action is effective October 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40
CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations:
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. EPA requests that you email the contact listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Trouba,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Each State has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies
used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air
pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring
networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.
    Each State must formally adopt the control measures and strategies
in the SIP after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them
and then submit the proposed SIP revisions to EPA. Once these control
measures and strategies are approved by EPA, and after notice and
comment, they are incorporated into the federally-approved SIP and are
identified in part 52 ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans,'' title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52).
The full text of the State regulation approved by EPA is not reproduced
in its entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but is ``incorporated by
reference.'' This means that EPA has approved a given State regulation
with a specific effective date. The public is referred to the location
of the full text version should they want to know which measures are
contained in a given SIP. The information provided allows EPA and the
public to monitor the extent to which a State implements a SIP to
attain and maintain the NAAQS and to take enforcement action if
necessary.
    The SIP is a living document which a State revises as necessary to
address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to
time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised
regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968),
EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-

approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office
of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP
document, IBR procedures and ``Identification of plan'' format are
discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 Federal Register
document. On December 7, 1998 (63 FR 67407), EPA published a document
in the Federal Register beginning the new IBR procedure for the
District of Columbia. On August 6, 2004 (69 FR 47773), September 6,
2005 (70 FR 52919), March 19, 2009 (74 FR 11647), February 22, 2011 (76
FR 9652), and March 21, 2017 (82 FR 14458), EPA published updates to
the IBR material for the District of Columbia. Since the publication of
the last IBR update, EPA has approved into the SIP the following
regulatory changes to the following District of Columbia regulations:

A. Added Regulations

    None.

B. Revised Regulations

    1. Chapter 1 Section 199 (Definitions and Abbreviations).
    2. Chapter 5 Section 502.1 through 502.15 (Sampling, Tests, and
Measurements).
    3. Chapter 8 Section 801 (Sulfur Content of Fuel Oils).
    4. Chapter 8 Section 899 (Definitions and Abbreviations).

C. Removed Regulations

    None.

II. EPA Action

    In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as
of May 14, 2018 and revising the text within 40 CFR 52.470(b).

III. Good Cause Exemption

    EPA has determined that this rule falls under the ``good cause''
exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes agencies to
dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows
an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the
30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This
rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter
of law in Federal and approved State programs. Under section 553 of the
APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are ``impractical,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Public comment is
``unnecessary'' and ``contrary to the public interest'' since the
codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR
benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table
entries.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of previously
EPA approved regulations promulgated by the District of Columbia and
federally effective prior to May 14, 2018. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact
the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act (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, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of
the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable
to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual
component of the District of Columbia SIP compilations had previously
afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for
judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA
sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such
petitions for judicial review for this ``Identification of

plan'' update action for the District of Columbia.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 27, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart J--District of Columbia

0
2. Section 52.470 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (b) Incorporation by reference. (1) Material listed in paragraphs
(c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date prior to May 14,
2018, was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of approval, and
notice of any change in the material will be published in the Federal
Register. Entries in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with the
EPA approval dates after May 14, 2018 for the District of Columbia,
will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.
    (2) EPA Region III certifies that the materials provided by EPA at
the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact
duplicate of the officially promulgated State rules/regulations which
have been approved as part of the State implementation plan as of the
dates referenced in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. No additional
revisions were made to paragraph (d) of this section between July 1,
2016 and May 14, 2018.
    (3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference into the
State implementation plan may be inspected at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. To obtain the material, please call the Regional
Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may also inspect the material with an EPA
approval date prior to July 1, 2016 for the District of Columbia at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-21471 Filed 10-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26274-26277]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10386]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72070; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Regarding
the Quarterly Options Series Program

May 1, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on April 25, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Rule
1012 (Series of Options Open for Trading) in order to modify the
Quarterly Options Series (``QOS'') Program to eliminate the cap on the
number of additional series that may be listed per expiration month for
each QOS in exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') options.
    The text of the amended Exchange rule is set forth in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.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 this filing is to amend Commentary .08 to Rule 1012
in order to modify the QOS Program to eliminate the cap on the number
of additional series that may be listed per expiration month for each
QOS in ETF options. This filing does not propose any substantive
changes to the QOS Program.
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Commentary .08 to Rule 1012 to
align its rules with those of other options exchanges that do not have
a cap on the number of additional series that may be listed per
expiration month for each QOS in ETF options.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71080 (December 16,
2013), 78 FR 77191 (December 20, 2013) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of SR-CBOE-2013-125) (the ``CBOE Filing'').
See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70854 (November 13,
2013), 78 FR 69465 (November 19, 2013) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of SR-NYSEMKT-2013-90); and 70855 (November
13, 2013), 78 FR 69493 (November 19, 2013) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of SR-NYSEArca-2013-120) (collectively, the
``NYSE Filings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set out in Commentary .08, the Exchange may list QOS up to five
currently listed options classes that are either index options or
options on ETFs. The Exchange may also list QOS on any option classes
that are selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar
program under their respective rules. Currently, for each QOS in ETF
options that has been initially listed on the Exchange, the Exchange
may list up to 60 additional series per expiration month. The Exchange
now proposes to delete the 60 additional series cap.
    The Exchange notes that its proposal would also make the treatment
of additional QOS series in ETF options consistent with the treatment
of additional QOS series in stock index options.\4\ While these QOS
Programs are similar, the QOS Program in stock index options does not
place a cap on the number of additional series that the Exchange may
list per expiration month for each QOS in index options. Elimination of
the cap set forth in Commentary .08(d), therefore, would result in
similar regulatory treatment in respect of additional series in ETF
options and additional series in index options. The Exchange also notes
that it is not subject to the same series limitations for other
programs including options series with weekly expirations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 1101A(b)(v), which governs the QOS for index
options.
    \5\ Commentary .11 to Rule 1012, for example, governs the
Exchange's Short Term Options (``STOs'', which are also known as
``Weeklys'') Series Program. Commentary .11 sets a maximum of fifty
(50) currently listed option classes on which Short Term Option
Series may be opened. The Exchange also may list Short Term Option
Series on any option classes that are selected by other securities
exchanges that employ a similar program under their respective
rules. If the Exchange opens less than thirty (30) Short Term Option
Series for a Short Term Option Expiration Date, additional series
may be opened for trading on the Exchange when the Exchange deems it
necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand or
when the market price of the underlying security moves substantially
from the exercise price or prices of the series already opened. Any
additional strike prices listed by the Exchange shall be reasonably
close to the price of the underlying equity security and within the
following parameters: (i) If the price of the underlying security is
less than or equal to $20, additional strike prices shall be not
more than one hundred percent (100%) above or below the price of the
underlying security; and (ii) if the price of the underlying
security is greater than $20, additional strike prices shall be not
more than fifty percent (50%) above or below the price of the
underlying security. The Exchange may also open additional strike
prices of Short Term Option Series that are more than 50% above or
below the current price of the underlying security (if the price is
greater than $20); provided that demonstrated customer interest
exists for such series, as expressed by institutional, corporate or
individual customers or their brokers. Market-Makers trading for
their own account shall not be considered when determining customer
interest under this provision. In the event that the underlying
security has moved such that there are no series that are at least
10% above or below the current price of the underlying security, the
Exchange will delist any series with no open interest in both the
call and the put series according to parameters set forth in
Commentary .11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the elimination of the cap would also help
market participants meet their investment objective by providing
expanded opportunities to roll ETF options into later quarters. Because
of the current cap, however, the Exchange may not be able to list the
appropriate series to do so. Elimination of the cap would allow the
Exchange to meet the investment needs of market participants in such
situations. Elimination of the cap would also allow the Exchange to
react to moving markets by adding appropriate strike prices closer to
the underlying security. The Exchange believes that the proposed change
would provide market participants with the ability to better tailor
their trading to meet their investment objectives, including hedging
securities positions, by permitting the Exchange to list additional QOS
in ETF options that meet such objectives. With regard to the impact of
this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange represents that it and
the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary
systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated
with this current amendment to the QOS Program. The Exchange believes
that its members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this
proposal. The Exchange also represents that it does not believe this
expansion will cause fragmentation to liquidity.
    To help ensure that only active options series are listed, the
Exchange has in place procedures to delist inactive series. Commentary
.08 requires the Exchange to review, on a monthly basis, the QOS
Program series that are outside a range of five (5) strikes above and
five (5) strikes below the current price of the underlying ETF, and
delist series with no open interest in both the put and the call series
having: (a) A strike higher than the highest strike price with open
interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month; or
(b) a strike lower than the lowest strike price with open interest in
the put and/or call series for a given expiration month.\6\ The
Exchange believes this provision helps to maintain capacity to handle
quote traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Commentary .08(g) to Rule 1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of housekeeping changes, the Exchange is proposing to
delete obsolete language in Commentary .08(h) that refers to a years-
old timeframe that is no longer relevant (e.g., the last quarter of
2008).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged

in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market because it will expand the investment options
available to investors and will allow for more efficient risk
management. The Exchange believes that removing the cap on the number
of QOS in ETF options permitted to be listed on the Exchange will
result in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more
flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions to
their needs, and, therefore, the proposal is designed to protect
investors and the public interest. In addition, the elimination of the
cap will, as discussed, make the treatment of additional QOS series in
ETF options consistent with most options exchanges, and consistent with
the treatment of additional QOS series in index options on the
Exchange, thus resulting in similar regulatory treatment for similar
option products.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange is also making a housekeeping change to delete
obsolete language, which is designed to clarify the QOS Program rule
and reduce potential confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has noted that it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity
to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this current
amendment to the QOS Program. The Exchange believes that its members
will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. The
Exchange also represents that it does not believe this expansion will
cause fragmentation to liquidity.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will relieve any burden on, and
in fact will promote, competition. The elimination of the cap on
additional series in the QOS program will benefit investors by
providing more flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and
hedging decisions.

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

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement will allow
the Exchange to compete with other options exchanges proposing similar
changes without putting the Exchange at a competitive disadvantage. The
Exchange also stated that the proposal protects investors and is in the
public interest because it fosters competition by allowing the QOS
Program to increase on more than one exchange. For these reasons, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change presents no novel
issues and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest; and will allow the
Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-30 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-Phlx-2014-30. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-30 and should be
submitted on or before May 28, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10386 Filed 5-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P