[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60328-60330]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0690; Product Identifier 2018-CE-022-AD; Amendment
39-19761; AD 2019-20-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model G-IV and
Model GIV-X airplanes. This AD was prompted by a revision to the
airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the aircraft maintenance
manual (AMM) based on fatigue and damage tolerance testing and updated
analysis. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection
program to incorporate updated inspection requirements and life limits
that address fatigue cracking of principal structural elements. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 13, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 13,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept.,
P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(912) 965-3520; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: https://www.gulfstream.com/en/contact/support/#form. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0690.

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-2018-
0690; 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, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald ``Ron'' Wissing, Airframe
Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain
Gulfstream Model G-IV and Model GIV-X airplanes. The SNPRM published in
the Federal Register on April 2, 2019 (84 FR 12530). The FAA preceded
the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in
the Federal Register on August 2, 2018 (83 FR 37771). The NPRM proposed
to require revising the ALS in the AMM to incorporate new inspections
and life limits contained in Gulfstream Document No. GIV-GER-0008,
Summary of Changes to the GIV Series and GIV-X Series Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision B, dated March 12, 2018. The NPRM was prompted by
a revision to the ALS of the AMM based on fatigue and damage tolerance
testing and updated analysis.
    After the FAA issued the NPRM, Gulfstream updated the life limits
in the ALS and issued Gulfstream Document No. GIV-GER-0008, Summary of
Changes to the GIV Series and GIV-X Series Airworthiness Limitations,
Revision D, dated August 20, 2018. Revision D differs from Revision B
in that the part number (P/N) for the rudder for Model GIV airplanes
has been corrected to reflect P/N 1159CS30004, and new life limits for
fuselage cockpit side post P/N 1159BM50025-5 and P/N 1159BM50025-6 have
been added per Revision C. The SNPRM proposed to require the later
revision of the service information. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the SNPRM
or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Gulfstream Document No. GIV-GER-0008, Summary of
Changes to the GIV Series and GIV-X Series Airworthiness Limitations,
Revision D, dated August 20, 2018. This document contains new and
revised inspections and life limits pertaining to fatigue cracking of
principal structural elements. 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 711 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise ALS and AMM................  20 work-hours x $85   Not applicable......          $1,700       $1,208,700
                                     per hour = $1,700.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The extent of damage found during the inspection may vary from
airplane to airplane. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
airplanes that might need repairs or the cost of such repairs for each
airplane.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders,
balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and
associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation
Division.

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):

2019-20-08 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation: Amendment 39-19761;
Docket No. FAA-2018-0690; Product Identifier 2018-CE-022-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 13, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model G-IV
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 1000 through
1535; and Model GIV-X airplanes, certificated in any category,
serial numbers 4001 through 4363.
    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Model G-IV airplanes are
also referred to by the marketing designations G300 and G400. Model
GIV-X airplanes are also referred to by the marketing designations
G350 and G450.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls; 32, Landing Gear; 52,
Doors; 53, Fuselage; 55, Stabilizers; 57, Wings; 71, Power Plant-
General; and 78, Engine Exhaust.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a revision to the airworthiness
limitations section (ALS) of the Model G-IV and Model GIV-X aircraft
maintenance manuals based on fatigue and damage tolerance testing
and updated analysis. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking of principal structural elements (PSEs).
This unsafe condition, if unaddressed, could result in reduced
structural integrity of a PSE or critical component and lead to loss
of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Airplane Maintenance Manual Revisions

    Within 12 months after December 13, 2019 (the effective date of
this AD), revise the ALS of your maintenance or inspection program
(e.g., maintenance manual) to incorporate the airworthiness
limitations specified in Gulfstream Document No. GIV-GER-0008,
Summary of Changes to the GIV Series and GIV-X Series Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision D, dated August 20, 2018, as applicable to
your model and serial number airplane.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program (e.g., maintenance
manual) has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no
alternative inspections or intervals may be used unless approved as
an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta 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 (j)(1) of this AD.
    (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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Ronald ``Ron''
Wissing, Airframe Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, Georgia

30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) 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) Gulfstream Document No. GIV-GER-0008, Summary of Changes to
the GIV Series and GIV-X Series Airworthiness Limitations, Revision
D, dated August 20, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation service information
identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation,
Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-
2206; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: https://www.gulfstream.com/en/contact/support/#form.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Policy and
Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (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 in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 29, 2019.
Pat Mullen,
Aircraft Certification Service Manager, Small Airplane Standards
Branch, AIR-690.
[FR Doc. 2019-24324 Filed 11-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 70898-70901]
[DOCID:fr23no05-145]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52781; File No. SR-Amex-2005-069]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed
Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 Relating to Listing
Standards for Broad-Based Index Options and Concentration Limits for
Narrow-Based Index Option Listing Standards

November 16, 2005.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 24, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Amex. On August 17,
2005, the Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ On
September 13, 2005, the Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ On September 28, 2005, the Amex filed Amendment No. 3 to the
proposed rule change.\5\ On September 30, 2005, the Amex filed
Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as amended, from interested persons and is approving the proposal on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its
entirety.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 2, the Amex made minor revisions to the
proposed rule text and clarified that the request for expedited
review and accelerated effectiveness set forth in Amendment No. 1
includes the revision to concentration limits for narrow-based index
options.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 3, the Amex set forth its interpretation of
the term ``major market data vendor'' in proposed Commentary
.02(a)(11) to Rule 901C to include the Options Price Reporting
Authority (OPRA) and the Consolidated Tape Association (CTA), as
well as other securities information processors. The Exchange also
set forth how the term ``vendor'' is defined in Rule 600(b)(83) of
Regulation NMS under the Act.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 4, the Amex made minor revisions to the
proposed rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Commentary .02 to Amex Rule 901C
and amend Amex Rule 904C to adopt generic listing standards and
position and exercise limits for broad-based index options. The
Exchange also proposes to revise the concentration limitation for
narrow-based index option generic listing standards in Commentary .03
to Amex Rule 901C. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Amex's Web site (http://www.amex.com), at the Amex's Office of the

Secretary 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 Amex 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 III below. The Amex 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
Listing and Maintenance Standards and Position and Exercise Limits for
Broad-Based Index Options
    The Amex proposes to adopt new Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule 901C
to establish initial listing standards for broad-based index options.
The proposal will allow the Amex to list, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e)
under the

Act,\7\ broad-based index options that meet the ``generic'' listing
standards in new Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule 901C. The listing
standards require, among other things, that the underlying index be a
broad stock index group, as defined in Amex Rule 900C(b)(1); that
options on the index be a.m.-settled; that the index be capitalization-
weighted, modified capitalization-weighted, price-weighted, or equal
dollar-weighted; and that the index be comprised of at least 50
securities, all of which must be ``NMS stocks,'' as defined in Rule 600
of Regulation NMS.\8\ In addition, new Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule
901C requires that the index's component securities meet certain
minimum market capitalization and average daily trading volume
requirements; that no single component account for more than 10% of the
weight of the index and that the five highest weighted components
represent no more than 33% of the weight of the index; that the index
value be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds; and that the
Amex have written surveillance procedures in place with respect to the
index options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \8\ See Amendment No. 4, supra note 6. Rule 600 of Regulation
NMS defines an ``NMS stock'' to mean ``any NMS security other than
an option.'' An ``NMS security'' is ``any security or class of
securities for which transaction reports are collected, processed,
and made available pursuant to an effective transaction reporting
plan, or an effective national market system plan for reporting
transactions in listed options.'' See 17 CFR 242.600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Amex also proposes to adopt new Commentary .02(b) to Amex Rule
901C, which establishes maintenance standards for broad-based index
options listed pursuant to new Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule 901C. In
addition, the Amex proposes to amend Amex Rule 904C to establish
position limit and exercise limits of 25,000 contracts on the same side
of the market for broad-based index options listed pursuant to new
Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule 901C.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Amendment No. 4, supra note 6. Amex Rule 905C
establishes exercise limits for index options at the same levels as
the corresponding index option's position limits. The Exchange also
proposes to make minor technical changes to the rule text of Amex
Rule 904C. Telephone conversation between Jeffrey Burns, Associate
General Counsel, Amex, and Kate Robbins, Attorney, Division of
Market Regulation, Commission, on August 30, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Narrow-Based Index Options ``Generic'' Listing Standards
    Commentary .02(a)(7) (redesignated as Commentary .03(a)(7)) to Amex
Rule 901C provides that no single component security may represent more
than 25% of the weight of the index, and that the five highest weighted
component securities in the index may not, in the aggregate, account
for more than 50% (60% for an index consisting of fewer than 25
component securities) of the weight of the index. The Exchange proposes
to amend Commentary .02(a)(7) to increase the 25% concentration limit
for the highest weighted component stock to 30%, and to increase the
concentration limit for the five most highly weighted stocks in an
index consisting of fewer than 25 component securities from 60% to 65%.
In addition, the continuing listing standard found in Commentary
.02(d)(1) (redesignated as Commentary .03(d)(1)) to Amex Rule 901C will
be similarly revised to reflect the proposed increase in percentage
weights of a single issuer to 30% and the five most highly weighted
stocks in an index consisting of fewer than 25 component securities to
65%. The Exchange believes that the proposed revision to Commentary .02
to Amex Rule 901C should provide additional flexibility in the listing
and trading of narrow-based index options while continuing to serve the
intended purpose of preventing a single security or small number of
securities from dominating an index.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51267 (February 25,
2005), 70 FR 10715 (March 4, 2005) (approving an identical proposal
by the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (``ISE'') to increase
the concentration limits for narrow-based index option generic
listing standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6 of the Act \11\ in general and furthers the objectives
of section 6(b)(5) \12\ in particular in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    The Exchange did not receive any written comments on the proposed
rule change.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2005-069 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-069. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Amex. 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-Amex-2005-069 and should be submitted on or before
December 14, 2005.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\13\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\14\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To list options on a particular broad-based index, the Amex
currently must file a proposed rule change with the Commission pursuant
to section 19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. However, Rule
19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative
securities product by a self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') will not
be deemed a proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4(c)(1) if the
Commission has approved, pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act, the
SRO's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product
class that would include the new derivative securities product, and the
SRO has a surveillance program for the product class.
    As described more fully above, the Amex proposes to establish
listing standards for broad-based index options. The Commission's
approval of the Amex's listing standards for broad-based index options
will allow options that satisfy the listing standards to begin trading
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e), without constituting a proposed rule change
within the meaning of section 19(b) of the Act and Rule 19b-4, for
which notice and comment and Commission approval is necessary.\15\ The
Amex's ability to rely on Rule 19b-4(e) to list broad-based index
options that meet the requirements of Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule
901C potentially reduces the time frame for bringing these securities
to the market, thereby promoting competition and making new broad-based
index options available to investors more quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ When relying on Rule 19b-4(e), the SRO must submit Form
19b-4(e) to the Commission within five business days after the SRO
begins trading the new derivative securities product. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 40761 (December 8, 1998), 63 FR 70952
(December 22, 1998) (File No. S7-13-98).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Amex has represented that it has
adequate trading rules, procedures, listing standards, and surveillance
program for broad-based index options. Amex's existing index option
trading rules and procedures will apply to broad-based index options
listed pursuant to Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule 901C. Other existing
Amex rules, including provisions addressing sales practices and margin
requirements, also will apply to these options. In addition, the Amex
proposes to establish position and exercise limits of 25,000 contracts
on the same side of the market for broad-based index options listed
pursuant to Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule 901C.\16\ The Commission
believes that the proposed position and exercise limits should serve to
minimize potential manipulation concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Amendment No. 4, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Amex represents that it has adequate surveillance procedures
for broad-based index options and that it intends to apply its existing
surveillance procedures for index options to monitor trading in broad-
based index options listed pursuant to Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule
901C. In addition, because Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule 901C requires
that each component of an index be an ``NMS stock,'' as defined in Rule
600 of Regulation NMS under the Act, each index component must trade on
a registered national securities exchange or through Nasdaq.
Accordingly, the Amex will have access to information concerning
trading activity in the component securities of an underlying index
through the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'').\17\ Commentary
.02(a) to Amex Rule 901C also provides that non-U.S. index components
that are not subject to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement
between the Amex and the primary market(s) trading the index components
may comprise no more than 20% of the weight of the index.\18\ The
Commission believes that these requirements will help to ensure that
the Amex has the ability to monitor trading in broad-based index
options listed pursuant to Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule 901C and in
the component securities of the underlying indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The ISG was formed on July 14, 1983, to, among other
things, coordinate more effectively surveillance and investigative
information sharing arrangements in the stock and options markets.
All of the registered national securities exchanges and the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., are members of the ISG. In
addition, futures exchanges and non-U.S. exchanges and associations
are affiliate members of the ISG.
    \18\ However, such non-U.S. index components, as ``NMS stocks,''
would be registered under Section 12 of the Act and listed and
traded on a national securities exchange or Nasdaq, where there is
last sale reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the requirements in Commentary .02(a)
to Amex Rule 901C regarding, among other things, the minimum market
capitalization, trading volume, and relative weightings of an
underlying index's component stocks are designed to ensure that the
markets for the index's component stocks are adequately capitalized and
sufficiently liquid, and that no one stock dominates the index. In
addition, Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule 901C requires that the
underlying index be a ``broad stock index group,'' as defined in Amex
Rule 900C(b)(1).\19\ The Commission believes that these requirements
minimize the potential for manipulating the underlying index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Amex Rule 900C(b)(1) defines ``broad stock index group'' to
mean a stock index group relating to a stock index which reflects
representative stock market values or prices of a broad segment of
the stock market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the requirement in Commentary .02(a)
to Amex Rule 901C that the current index value be widely disseminated
at least once every 15 seconds by the one or more major market data
vendors \20\ during the time an index option trades on the Amex should
provide transparency with respect to current index values and
contribute to the transparency of the market for broad-based index
options. In addition, the Commission believes, as it has noted in other
contexts, that the requirement in Commentary .02(a) to Amex Rule 901C
that an index option be settled based on the opening prices of the
index's component securities, rather than on closing prices, could help
to reduce the potential impact of expiring index options on the market
for the index's component securities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Amex has set forth its interpretation of the term
``major market data vendor'' for the purposes of Commentary
.02(a)(11) to Amex Rule 901C to include the OPRA and the CTA, as
well as other securities information processors. See Amendment No.
3, supra note 5.
    \21\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 30944 (July
21, 1992), 57 FR 33376 (July 28, 1992) (order approving a Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated proposal to establish opening
price settlement for S&P 500 Index options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that increasing the concentration limits
for narrow-based index options listed pursuant to Commentary .03 to
Amex

Rule 901C should provide additional flexibility to the Exchange in
listing and trading narrow-based index options and reduce the instances
in which the addition of a new series is restricted. The proposed rule
change should also reduce instances where an index option listed on the
Exchange is temporarily out of compliance with the concentration limits
set forth under Commentary .03 to Amex Rule 901C because of changes in
the market value of the underlying index components. Lastly, the
Commission believes that that the concentration limit listing standards
should continue to serve the purpose for which they were originally
intended of not permitting a single security or a small number of
securities to dominate an index.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change, as amended, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication
of the notice of filing in the Federal Register. The Exchange has
requested accelerated approval of the proposed rule change. The
proposal implements listing and maintenance standards and position and
exercise limits for broad-based index options substantially identical
to those recently approved for the ISE.\22\ In addition, the proposal
implements concentration limits for narrow-based index options
substantially identical to those previously approved for the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., which were subject to the full
comment period with no comments received,\23\ and for the ISE, which
were approved by the Commission on an accelerated basis.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52578 (October 7,
2005); 70 FR 60590 (October 18, 2005).
    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50945 (December 29,
2004), 70 FR 1498 (January 7, 2005).
    \24\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe that the Exchange's proposal raises
any novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission finds good
cause, consistent with section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\25\ to approve the
proposed rule change, as amended, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\26\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2005-069), as amended,
is hereby approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6447 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 237 (Thursday, December 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76701-76702]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31099]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-E-1573]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; VERAFLOX

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for VERAFLOX and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the
extension of a patent which claims that animal drug product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either
electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by
February 8, 2016. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA
for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted
with due diligence during the regulatory review period by June 7, 2016.
See ``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions''.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2013-E-1573 for ``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for
Purposes of Patent Extension; VERAFLOX''. Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION''. The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For animal drug products, the
testing phase begins on the earlier date when either a major
environmental effects test was initiated for the drug or when an
exemption under section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(j)) became effective and runs until
the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the animal drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for an animal
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(4)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the animal drug product VERAFLOX
(pradofloxacin). VERAFLOX is indicated for treatment of skin infections
in cats caused by susceptible strains of Pasteurella multocide,
Streptococcus canis, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus felis, and
Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO
received a patent term restoration application for VERAFLOX (U.S.
Patent No. 6,323,213) from Bayer Animal Health GmbH, and the USPTO
requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for
patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 26, 2014, FDA advised
the USPTO that this animal drug product had undergone a regulatory
review period and that the approval of VERAFLOX represented the first
permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the
USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review
period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
VERAFLOX is 3,285 days. Of this time, 3,235 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 50 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: November 12, 2003. The applicant
claims July 31, 2002, as the date the investigational new animal drug
application (INAD) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that
the INAD effective date was November 12, 2003, which was the date on
which the agency acknowledges the filing of a notice of claimed
investigational exemption for a new animal drug.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the animal drug product under section 512 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360b): September 19, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that
the new animal drug Application (NADA) for VERAFLOX (NADA 141-344) was
submitted on September 19, 2012.
    3. The date the application was approved: November 7, 2012. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NADA 141-344 was approved on
November 7, 2012.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 1,901 days of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for
a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must be timely (see DATES) and contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: December 4, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-31099 Filed 12-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 182 (Friday, September 18, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58320-58321]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19866]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0116; FRL-10013-83-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Removal of Variance for Illinois
Power Holdings and AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted on January 23, 2020, by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA). The revision removes the variance for coal-fired
electrical generating units (EGUs) owned by the Illinois Power
Holdings, LLC (IPH) and the AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC
(Medina Valley) from the Illinois SIP, and will reimpose tighter limits
on all facilities currently in operation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2020-0116 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-
19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What is the background for this action?

    On November 21, 2013, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board)
granted IPH and Medina Valley a variance (PCB 14-10) from the
applicable requirements for EGUs in the Ameren MPS Group (MPS Group) of
35 Illinois Administrative Code (IAC) Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iii) for
a period beginning January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019, and for
EGUs in the MPS Group from 35 IAC Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iv) for a
period beginning January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019, subject to
certain conditions. The five IPH facilities subject to the variance
included: Coffeen Energy Center (Montgomery County), Duck Creek Energy
Center (Fulton County), E.D. Edwards Energy Center (Peoria County),
Joppa Energy Center (Massac County), and Newton Energy Center (Jasper
County). The two Medina Valley facilities subject to the variance were
the Meredosia Energy Center (Morgan County) and the Hutsonville Energy
Center (Crawford County).
    The variance granted by the Board established an overall
SO2 annual emission rate of 0.35 pounds per million British
Thermal Units (lbs/mmBtu) from January 1, 2015 through December 31,
2019. On December 21, 2015, EPA approved the variance granted to IPH

and Medina Valley as a revision to the Illinois SIP. See 80 FR 79261.
EPA determined that the variance would not interfere with the
attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable
requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and thus, was approvable under
CAA section 110(l).
    While the variance was in place, the MPS Group's annual reports
provided by IEPA showed that the MPS Group's actual tons of
SO2 emissions emitted (using the base line heat inputs) were
substantially lower than the tons of SO2 emissions allowed
by the variance (173,478-100,881 = 72,597 tons of benefit) from October
1, 2013 through August 31, 2016. Also, several EGUs were permanently
retired in 2016. IPH permanently retired the operation of E.D. Edwards
Unit 1 and Newton Unit 2, and Medina Valley permanently retired the
Hutsonville Energy Center (Units 5 and 6) and the Meredosia Energy
Center (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5).
    On September 2, 2016, IPH and Medina Valley filed a ``Joint Motion
to Terminate the Variance'' with the Board. On October 27, 2016, the
Board granted the ``Joint Motion to Terminate the Variance,'' and
terminated the variance immediately. On January 23, 2020, Illinois
submitted a request to EPA to remove the variance from the Illinois
SIP.

II. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?

    EPA has analyzed the historical emissions data from the subject
facilities and assessed the impacts from the removal of the variance.
Absent the variance, SO2 emissions will be reduced by
reimposing the more stringent limits in section 225.233. These
reductions coupled with the permanent retirement of several EGUs will
continue to reduce regional haze forming emissions in Illinois and
regional haze impacts downwind.
    EPA has also evaluated the potential air quality impacts of the
removal of the variance from the Illinois SIP to ensure that the
revision meets section 110(l) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410. To be
approved, a SIP must not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment, RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA. Currently, all the facilities owned by IPH that were subject to
the variance are in areas attaining the 2010 SO2 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). No emission increases from the
facilities will result from the removal of the variance and will not
adversely impact any nonattainment areas or air quality. Therefore, EPA
finds that the SIP revision meets the CAA section 110(l) requirement as
it will not interfere with attainment, RFP, or any other applicable CAA
requirement. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve the removal of the
variance from the Illinois SIP.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve IEPA's January 23, 2020, request to
remove PCB 14-10 from the Illinois SIP, for IPH and Medina Valley.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. As described in section III of
this preamble, EPA is proposing to remove provisions of the EPA-
Approved Illinois Source-Specific Requirements from the Illinois SIP,
which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements
of 1 CFR part 51. EPA has made and will continue to make the Illinois
SIP generally available through www.epa.gov/sips-il and at the EPA
Region 5 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

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, and Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: September 2, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2020-19866 Filed 9-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P