[Federal Register: May 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 104)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30765-30767]
[DOCID:fr29my08-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28748; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-115-AD;
Amendment 39-15537; AD 2008-11-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10F, DC-
10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, and MD-10-30F
Airplanes; and Model MD-11 and MD-11F Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10F, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-
10-40F, MD-10-10F, and MD-10-30F airplanes; and Model MD-11 and MD-11F
airplanes. This AD requires installation of control cable freeze
protection by making certain changes. This AD results from reports of
standing water on the horizontal pressure panel above the main and
center landing gear wheel wells. We are issuing this AD to prevent the
accumulation of ice on the flight control cables in the wheel wells.
When the landing gear doors open or vibration in this area occurs, such
ice accumulation could break off and can cause injury to people or
damage to property on the ground, can affect landing gear controls and
rear spar flight control systems, can cause damage to other control
systems, and might cause loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective July 3, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, 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: Ken Sujishi, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin
Safety/Mechanical and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (562)
627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-30F (KC-10A
and KDC-10), DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, and MD-10-30F airplanes; and Model
MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on July 23, 2007 (72 FR 40094). That NPRM proposed to require
installation of control cable freeze protection by making certain
changes.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received from the two commenters.

Request To Delay Issuance of Final Rule

    FedEx and Boeing request that we delay issuance of the final rule
until Boeing releases a revision to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-
27A237, dated January 9, 2007 (referred to as an appropriate source of
service information for accomplishing the actions specified in the
NPRM), and to Drawing SR11530052, and necessary parts are available.
FedEx notes that Boeing released Information Notice DC10-27A237 IN 01,
dated August 8, 2007, which indicates that the procedures specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-27A237 for Model DC-10-10F and MD-
10-10F airplanes cannot be done. Boeing states that the engineering
provided in Drawing SR11530052, which is referred to in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin DC10-27A237, does not reflect the existing structural
configuration used on Model DC-10-10F and MD-10-10F airplanes.
    Since issuance of the NPRM, we have reviewed Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin DC10-27A237, Revision 1, dated December 20, 2007. Revision 1
revises Drawing SR11530052 to account for different panel
configurations on Model DC-10-10F and MD-10-10F airplanes and adds
airplane groups for those affected airplanes. Revision 1 also removes
Model DC-10-10 airplanes, which are not subject to the identified
unsafe condition of this AD. No more work is necessary on Model DC-10-
30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, and MD-10-30F airplanes
changed in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-27A237,
dated January 9, 2007.
    Therefore, we have revised this AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin DC10-27A237, Revision 1, as an appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the required actions and identifying the
affected airplanes. We also have added a new paragraph (g) of this AD
to give credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD
according to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-27A237, dated January
9, 2007, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs of the AD accordingly.
In addition, we have removed Model DC-10-10

airplanes from the applicability of this AD.
    In addition, according to Boeing, an ample number of required parts
will be available to modify the U.S. fleet within the compliance time.
However, according to the provisions of paragraph (h) of the final
rule, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the
request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would
provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request To Add Repair for Damaged Seals

    FedEx requests that a repair for any damaged seal, part number
ADA3211-125, be included in the NPRM or the next revision of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin DC10-27A237, dated January 9, 2007. FedEx notes
that Boeing issued Information Notices DC10-27A237 IN 01 and MD11-
27A084 IN 02, both dated August 8, 2007, which indicate that a fix for
damaged seals is forthcoming.
    We do not agree. Since issuance of Information Notices DC10-27A237
IN 01 and MD11-27A084 IN 02, Boeing issued MD11-27A084 IN 03, dated
December 14, 2007, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-27A237,
Revision 1, as described previously. Both of these documents state that
repairs for damaged seals will be included in the DC10/MD10 Structural
Repair Manuals (SRM). In addition, Boeing has received reports that, in
certain cases, the seal, which is installed in accordance with Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin DC10-27A237, is being damaged after installation
as a result of being stepped on during maintenance. Therefore, there is
no effect on accomplishing the requirements of this AD. We have not
revised the AD in this regard.

Request To Provide Blanket Approval

    FedEx requests that we provide blanket approval for operators who
modified the installation as shown in View L of Boeing Drawing
SR11530052 (for Model DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) and Model MD-10-30F
airplanes) to fit Model DC-10-10F and MD-10-10F airplanes. FedEx states
that blanket approval to modify the size, shape, and location of the
angles and to shim would be helpful to any operators who have already
done so.
    We do not agree. FedEx did not provide us with any data supporting
their request for such an approval. In addition, we have determined
that accomplishing the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin DC10-27A237, Revision 1, will adequately address the
identified unsafe condition of this AD. However, under the provisions
of paragraph (h) of this AD, we might consider requests for approval of
an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that such a design change would provide an
acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the AD in this
regard.

Request To Refer to Correct Drawing

    FedEx requests that the NPRM be revised to refer to Drawing
SR10270026, or that we verify that the incorrect drawing number (i.e.,
Drawing SR11270026) in Step 3 of the Work Instructions is corrected in
the next revision to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-27A237, dated
January 9, 2007.
    We do not agree to refer to the subject drawing in the AD. As
discussed previously, we have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
DC10-27A237, Revision 1, and have revised this AD to include that
service bulletin revision as an appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the required actions. The incorrect
drawing number has been corrected in the service bulletin.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 387 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 283 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions take about 40 work hours per airplane, at an average labor
rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost about $5,896 or $6,073
per airplane depending on the airplane configuration. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is between
$2,574,168 and $2,624,259, or $9,096 or $9,273 per airplane depending
on the airplane configuration.

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.
    We are 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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2008-11-14 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-15537. Docket No. FAA-
2007-28748; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-115-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 3, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to airplanes identified in Table 1 of this
AD, certificated in any category.

                         Table 1.--Applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          As identified in Boeing Alert
       McDonnell Douglas model--                Service Bulletin--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) DC-10-10F, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and     DC10-27A237, Revision 1, dated
 KDC-10), DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, and MD-   December 20, 2007.
 10-30F airplanes.
(2) MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes.........  MD11-27A084, Revision 1, dated
                                          March 26, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of standing water on the
horizontal pressure panel above the main and center landing gear
wheel wells. We are issuing this AD to prevent the accumulation of
ice on the flight control cables in the wheel wells. When the
landing gear doors open or vibration in this area occurs, such ice
accumulation could break off and can cause injury to people or
damage to property on the ground, can affect landing gear controls
and rear spar flight control systems, can cause damage to other
control systems, and might cause loss of control of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Installation of Control Cable Freeze Protection

    (f) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
install control cable freeze protection by making the changes
specified in and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD.
    (g) For Model DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40F, MD-10-
10F, and MD-10-30F airplanes: Installations done before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin DC10-27A237, dated January 9, 2007, are acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-27A237,
Revision 1, dated December 20, 2007; or Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin MD11-27A084, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007; to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 14, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-11465 Filed 5-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13093-13095]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06423]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85442; File No. SR-MIAX-2019-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC To Amend Exchange Rule 404, Series of Option
Contracts Open for Trading

March 28, 2019.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 March 21, 2019, Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 404, Series of
Option Contracts Open for Trading, to allow the addition of new series
of options on an individual stock until the close of trading on the
business day prior to expiration in unusual market conditions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/ at MIAX Options'
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 404, Series of Option
Contracts Open for Trading, to allow the addition of new series of
options on an individual stock until the close of trading on the
business day prior to expiration in unusual market conditions. This is
a competitive proposal based on a filing submitted by Cboe Exchange,
Inc. (``Cboe'') to the Commission.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85205 (February 27,
2019), 84 FR 7949 (March 5, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, under Exchange Rule 404(e), when faced with unusual
market conditions, the Exchange may add new series of options on an
individual stock until the close of trading on the second business day
prior to expiration. In 2013, the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') implemented a transition for standard option monthly
expiration processing from Saturday to Friday. Accordingly, the
Exchange, along with other exchanges, updated its rules to reflect the
OCC change, referencing Friday expiration dates to replace Saturday
expiration dates for all options expiring on or after February 1,
2015.\4\ The Exchange also replaced any historic references to
expiration dates with Friday expiration. At that time, other exchanges
amended their rules to differentiate between Friday and Saturday or
non-business day expirations during the transitional period. Other
exchanges specified that additional series of individual stock options
may be added during unusual market conditions until the close of
trading on the business day prior to expiration in the case of an
option contract expiring on a business day (i.e., Thursday for Friday
expirations), or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a day
that is not a business day until the close of trading on the second
business day prior to expiration (i.e., Thursday for Saturday
expirations).\5\ Consistent with the OCC initiative and industry-wide
definition, the Exchange currently no longer lists series of option
contracts with Saturday or non-business day expirations. The Exchange
thus proposes to amend Rule 404 to allow specifically for the addition
of new series of options on an individual stock until the close of
trading on the business day prior to expiration in unusual market
conditions in line with other exchanges' timing requirements for
listing series of options prior to expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69996 (July 17,
2013), 78 FR 44183
    (July 23, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-32).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70900 (November 19,
2013), 78 FR 70382 (November 25, 2013) (SR-ISE-2013-58); 70746
(October 23, 2013), 78 FR 64563 (October 29, 2013)(SR-BX-2013-055);
and 69659 (May 29, 2013), 78 FR 33461 (June 4, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-
22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange seeks to introduce this proposed change to Exchange
Rule 404 to create a uniform expiration date across exchanges for
standard options on listed classes. The Exchange believes that keeping
its rules consistent with those of the industry will protect all
participants in the market by eliminating confusion, reducing the
likelihood of rule violations due to discrepant industry rules, and by
allowing for a more orderly market. In addition, the Exchange believes
that keeping the proposed rule consistent with other exchange rules
will foster better cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities by aligning a pivotal part
of the options processing to be consistent industry-wide.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market

and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the
rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes that keeping its rules
consistent with those of other exchanges and industry practices will
protect all participants in the market by eliminating confusion, thus,
preventing investor vulnerability to violating different exchange
rules. Additionally, the proposed change will foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities by aligning the timing of series of options listing
during unusual market conditions to be consistent industry-wide.
Further, as the industry-wide transition from Saturday (and non-
business day) expiration dates to Friday (or other business days)
expiration dates was successful, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change will remove a discrepant industry impediment and allow for
a more orderly market by permitting all options markets, including the
clearing agencies, to have the same expiration date for series of
options listed during periods of unusual market conditions. The
proposed rule change also perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market by allowing for the Exchange to list additional series of
options on an individual stock closer to expiration during unusual
market conditions thus better aligning the listed series of options
with prices near expiration. Finally, the proposed rule change does not
permit unfair discrimination between any Member as it is applies to all
Members equally.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as
indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being
proposed as a competitive response to the proposal previously filed by
Cboe with the Commission.\8\ The proposed rule change will allow for
the Exchange to list additional series of options on an individual
stock closer to expiration during unusual market conditions thus better
aligning the listed series of options with prices near expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will not impose
any significant burden on competition. The proposed rule change has no
impact on intramarket competition, as it will apply equally to all
Members. Moreover, the proposed rule has no impact on intermarket
competition, as it is a competitive response to the proposal previously
filed by Cboe with the Commission.\9\ The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote,
competition by allowing the Exchange to better align listed series of
options with prices near expiration, and with expiration dates of other
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and 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 satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \12\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because it is
substantially similar in all material respects to a previous CBOE
filing,\14\ and does not raise any new or novel issues. For this
reason, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposal as operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ See supra note 3.
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has 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 change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please
include File Number SR-MIAX-2019-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2019-15. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2019-15 and should be
submitted on or before April 24, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06423 Filed 4-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51986-51988]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20982]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0426; FRL-9999-11-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress
Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Governor of Arkansas through
the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on June 2,
2015. The SIP submittal addresses requirements of the federal
regulations that direct the State to submit a periodic report assessing
progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the existing
implementation plan.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 31, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0426. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at EPA Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Grady, EPA Region 6 Office,
Regional Haze and SO2 Section, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500,
Dallas TX 72570,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Mr. Grady or Mr.
Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' each mean ``the EPA.''

I. Background

    Each state is required to submit to the EPA an implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility impairment for the first
implementation period under 40 CFR 51.308. Under 40 CFR 51.308(g),\1\
each state is then required to submit a progress report that evaluates
visibility progress toward the RPGs for each Class I area within the
state \2\ and

each Class I area outside the state \3\ which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires
states to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a
determination of adequacy of the existing regional haze implementation
plan.\4\ The progress report for the first planning period is due five
years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP and must take
the form of a SIP revision. Arkansas submitted its regional haze SIP
for the first implementation period on September 9, 2008,\5\ and the
EPA partially approved and partially disapproved portions of it on
March 12, 2012.\6\ On June 2, 2015, Arkansas submitted its progress
report regarding the initial 2008 regional haze SIP to the EPA in the
form of a SIP revision under 40 CFR 51.308. The EPA promulgated a FIP
(the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP) on September 27, 2016 to address the
disapproved portions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP and then
approved successive SIP revisions (the 2017 Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision and the 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision) \7\ that replaced a portion of
those FIP elements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To address the progress report requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(g), the State provided: (1) A description of the status of
measures in the approved regional haze implementation plan; (2) a
summary of emission reductions achieved; (3) an assessment of
visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state (and for
two Class I areas in Missouri); (4) an analysis tracking the changes
in emissions from sources and activities within the state; (5) an
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions
within or outside the state that have limited or impeded progress in
reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility; (6) an
assessment of whether the approved regional haze SIP elements and
strategies are sufficient to enable the State (and other states with
Class I areas affected by emissions from the state) to meet all
established RPGs; and (7) a review of the State's visibility
monitoring strategy.
    \2\ Arkansas has two Class I areas within its borders that are
addressed in the progress report: Upper Buffalo and Caney Creek
Wilderness areas. Upper Buffalo Wilderness area, located in Newton
County, Arkansas, is an oak-hickory forest with intermittent
portions of shortleaf pine located in the Ozark National Forest and
offers 12,108 acres of boulder strewn and rugged scenery along the
Buffalo River. Caney Creek Wilderness is located in Polk County,
Arkansas, and covers 14,460 acres on the southern edge of the
Ouachita National Forest and protects a rugged portion of the
Ouachita Mountains.
    \3\ Two Class I areas outside Arkansas' borders at Hercules
Glades and Mingo Wilderness areas in Missouri were found to be
impacted by emissions from within Arkansas.
    \4\ The Regional Haze Rule requires states to provide in the
progress report an assessment of whether the current
``implementation plan'' is sufficient to enable the states to meet
all established RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term
``implementation plan'' is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze
Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or Tribal Implementation Plan. As such,
the Agency may consider measures in any issued FIP as well as those
in a state's regional haze plan in assessing the adequacy of the
``existing implementation plan'' under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
    \5\ In addition to the initial September 2008 submittal, the
State submitted a SIP revision on August 3, 2010, with mostly non-
substantive changes that addressed Arkansas Pollution Control and
Ecology Commission (APCEC) Regulation 19 Chapter 15. On September
27, 2011, the State submitted supplemental information to address
the regional haze requirements. The EPA collectively refers to the
original 2008 submittal and these revisions together as the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.
    \6\ See the final action on March 12, 2012 (77 FR 14604).
    \7\ See final action approving the Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5927). The
EPA's final action approving the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision was signed by the Regional
Administrator on August 28, 2019 and has yet to be published.
    \8\ The remaining part of the FIP which addresses the BART and
associated long-term strategy requirements for Domtar will be
addressed in a future SIP action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 28, 2019, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing to approve Arkansas' regional haze five-year progress
report SIP, submitted by ADEQ on June 2, 2015.\9\ In that document we
proposed to approve Arkansas' regional haze progress report SIP since
it meets the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g) and meeting the determination of adequacy provision under 40
CFR 51.308(h) for the first implementation period. We also proposed to
find that the State of Arkansas fulfilled its requirement in 40 CFR
51.308(i) regarding state coordination with Federal Land Managers
(FLMs). The published proposal provides a detailed description of
Arkansas' progress report SIP submittal and the rationale for our
proposed approval of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 84 FR 11697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The public comment period for the proposal closed on April 29,
2019. We received two public comments concerning our proposed action.
The comments are included in the publicly posted docket associated with
this action at https://www.regulations.gov. We received an anonymous
comment regarding the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards which is outside
the scope of this action. We also received a comment letter dated April
29, 2019, from the Arkansas Affordable Energy Coalition (AAEC)
regarding our proposal. The AAEC expressed general support for the
proposed approval but also submitted a copy of the comments it
previously submitted on December 31, 2018 on our proposed approval
action on the August 8, 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and
PM SIP revision (located in Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189). We have
responded to those submitted comments as part of our final action on
that SIP revision.\10\ Our detailed responses can be found in the
response-to-comment (RTC) documents for the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP Revision.\11\ After careful consideration, we
have determined that the comments received do not raise any issues
specific to the progress report. We are approving the Arkansas regional
haze progress report SIP submittal, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The EPA's final action approving the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision was signed by the Regional
Administrator on August 28, 2019.
    \11\ See ``Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP Revision Response
to Comments,'' in Docket ID EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Action

    We are approving Arkansas' regional haze progress report SIP
revision (submitted on June 2, 2015) since we have found that it meets
the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g)
and the determination of adequacy provision under 40 CFR 51.308(h). We
also find that the State of Arkansas fulfilled its requirement in 40
CFR 51.308(i) regarding state coordination with Federal Land Managers
(FLMs). This action is being taken under section 110 of the Act.

III. 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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves a state's determination that their current
regional haze plan is 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, 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).
    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 December 2, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best Available
Retrofit Technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 23, 2019.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    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 E--Arkansas

0
2. In Sec.  52.170 paragraph (e), the third table titled ``EPA-Approved
Non-Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas
SIP'' is amended by adding a new entry ``Arkansas SIP Review for the
Five-Year Regional Haze Progress Report'' at the end of the table to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

            EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or       State submittal/    EPA approval date     Explanation
                                    nonattainment area     effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Arkansas SIP Review for the Five-  Statewide..........  June 2, 2015.......  October 1, 2019,
 Year Regional Haze Progress                                                  [Insert Federal
 Report.                                                                      Register citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-20982 Filed 9-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50758-50760]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20551]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0813; FRL-10000-25-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate
Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of Georgia's August 15, 2018, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires each
state's implementation plan to address the interstate transport of air
pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this
action, EPA is finalizing the determination that Georgia will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is
approving Georgia's August 15, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective October 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0813. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Adams can also be reached
via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> and via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS
that revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone
standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR
16436 (March 27, 2008). Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA
prescribes), states must submit SIPs that meet the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2). EPA has historically referred to
these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure
SIP'' submissions. One of the structural requirements of section
110(a)(2) is section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which generally requires SIPs to
contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities
from having certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states
due to interstate transport of air pollution.
    There are four sub-elements, or ``prongs,'' within section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known
as the ``good neighbor'' provision, requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. The two provisions of this section are referred
to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interference with maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires
SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will
interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other state under part C to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect
visibility (prong 4).
    On August 15, 2018, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
provided a SIP submittal to EPA to address the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, containing a certification that the State's SIP meets the
requirements of prongs 1 and 2. Georgia's certification is based on
available emissions data, air quality monitoring and modeling data,
SIP-approved \1\ provisions regulating emissions of ozone precursors
within the State, and an analysis of recent trends in emissions of
ozone precursors (VOCs and NOX) from Georgia sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although not relied upon for purposes of approval, GA EPD
also identified state-only provisions of the Georgia Rules for Air
Quality Control 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss)--Multipollutant Control for
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 11,
2019 (84 FR 33027), EPA proposed to determine that Georgia will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state and to approve
Georgia's August 15, 2018, SIP submission as meeting the CAA
requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ In that notice, EPA discussed the final
determination made in the update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
ozone season program, which addresses good neighbor obligations for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (known at the ``CSAPR Update''),\3\ that
emissions activities within Georgia will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of that NAAQS in any
other state. The NPRM provides additional detail regarding the
background and rationale for EPA's action. Comments on the NPRM were
due on or before August 12, 2019. EPA received no comments on the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This action addresses only prongs 1 and 2 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). All other infrastructure SIP elements for Georgia
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS were addressed in separate
rulemakings. See 83 FR 19637 (May 4, 2018); 80 FR 61109 (October 9,
2015); and 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015).
    \3\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The CSAPR Update
establishes statewide nitrogen oxide (NOX) budgets for
certain affected electricity generating units in 22 eastern states
for the May-September ozone season to reduce the interstate
transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States, and
thereby help downwind states and communities meet and maintain the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The rule also determined that emissions
from 14 states (including Georgia) will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in downwind states. Accordingly, EPA determined that it need
not require further emission reductions from sources in those states
to address the good neighbor provision with regard to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to determine that Georgia will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is
finalizing approval of Georgia's August 15, 2018, SIP submission as
meeting the CAA requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is taking final
action to approve the SIP submission because it is consistent with
section 110 of the CAA.

III. 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. 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).
    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 November 25, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 11, 2019.
 Mary S. Walker,
 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 L-Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570(e) is amended by adding an entry for ``110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' at
the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
  Name of nonregulatory SIP     Applicable geographic or  submittal date/   EPA approval         Explanation
          provision                nonattainment area     effective date        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2)              Georgia..................       8/15/2018  9/26/2019,        Addressing prongs 1
 Infrastructure Requirements                                               [Insert           and 2 of section
 for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone                                                 citation of       110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
 NAAQS.                                                                    publication].     only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-20551 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 36641]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16163]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83694; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Continued Listing Criteria Applicable to the
Indexes Underlying the iShares California AMT Free Muni Bond ETF and
iShares New York AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF

July 24, 2018.
    On May 21, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to the
index methodology applicable to the indexes underlying shares of the
following series of Investment Company Units that are currently listed
and traded on NYSE Arca under NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3): iShares
California AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF and iShares New York AMT-Free Muni
Bond ETF. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 11, 2018.\3\ The Commission has received no
comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83381 (June 5,
2018), 83 FR 27042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates September 9, 2018, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No.
SR-NYSEArca-2018-38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16163 Filed 7-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P