[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23571-23573]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08933]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88721; File No. SR-C2-2020-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Remove Its Optional Daily Risk Limits Pursuant to Rule 6.14

April 22, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 13, 2020, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') proposes to
remove its optional daily risk limits pursuant to Rule 6.14. The text
of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), at the Exchange'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 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 remove the optional daily risk limit
settings for Users in Rule 6.14(c)(4).\5\ The daily risk limits are
voluntary functionality. Pursuant to current Rule 6.14(c)(4), if a User
enables this functionality they may establish one or more of the
following values for each of its ports, which the System aggregates
(for simple and complex orders) across all of a User's ports (i.e.,
applies on a firm basis): (i) Cumulative notional booked bid value
(``CBB''); (ii) cumulative notional booked offer value (``CBO''); (iii)
cumulative notional executed bid value (``CEB''); and (iv) cumulative
notional executed offer value (``CEO''). The User may then establish a
limit order notional cutoff, a market order notional cutoff, or both,
each of which it may establish on a net basis, gross basis, or both. If
a User exceeds a cutoff value, the System cancels or rejects all
incoming limit orders or market orders, respectively. If a User
establishes a limit order notional cutoff but does not establish (or
sets as zero) the market order notional cutoff, the System cancels or
rejects all market orders. The System calculates a notional cutoff on a
gross basis by summing CBB, CBO, CEB, and CEO. The System calculates a
notional cutoff on a net basis by summing CEO and CBO, then subtracting
the sum of CEB and CBB, and then taking the absolute value of the
resulting amount. This functionality does not apply to bulk messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As a result of the proposed rule change, the Exchange also
updates the subsequent paragraph numbering in current subparagraphs
(c)(5) through (c)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to remove the daily limit risk mechanism
because use of this mechanism on Users' ports is infrequent. Indeed, no
Users currently have the daily risk limit enabled on a port connected
to the Exchange. Because so few Users enable this functionality for
their ports, the Exchange believes the current demand does not warrant
the Exchange resources necessary for ongoing System support for the
risk mechanism (e.g., the System must maintain and apply algorithms
that track and calculate gross and net notional exposure). The Exchange
again notes that the use of the daily risk limit is voluntary. The
Exchange will continue to offer to Users

a full suite of price protection mechanisms and risk controls which
sufficiently mitigate risks associated with Users entering orders and
quotes at unintended prices, and risks associated with orders and
quotes trading at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous, as
a likely result of human or operational error. This includes other
price protections and risk controls associated with notional value of a
User's orders and quotes. For example, Rule 6.14(c)(3) provides for a
voluntary functionality in which the System cancels or rejects an
incoming order or quote with a notional value that exceeds the maximum
notional value a User establishes for each of its ports, and Rule
6.14(c)(5) \6\ provides for a voluntary functionality in which a User
may establish risk limits within a class or across classes \7\ defined
by certain parameters, of which the notional value of executions is an
parameter option. Once a risk parameter is reached, no new trades are
executed and any orders or quotes in route are System-rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that as a result of the proposed removal
of Rule 6.14(c)(4), current Rule 6.14(c)(5) will become new Rule
6.14(c)(4).
    \7\ And for one Executing Firm ID (``EFID'') or a group of
EFIDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change will remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system and benefit investors, because it will delete from the Rules a
risk control that the Exchange will no longer offer, thereby promoting
transparency in its Rules. The Exchange notes, too, that other options
exchange do not offer daily risk limits, or other risk controls,
associated with notional value of their users' order or quotes.\11\ The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will affect the
protection of investors or the public interest or the maintenance of a
fair and orderly market because this risk control is so infrequently
implemented, and currently, no User has this risk control established
in any port connected to the Exchange. In addition to this, the
Exchange notes that the use of this risk control is voluntary and the
Exchange will continue to offer a full suite of price protection
mechanisms and risk controls, including those associated with notional
value of a Users' orders and quotes, which sufficiently mitigate risks
associated with Users entering orders and quotes at unintended prices,
and risks associated with orders and quotes trading at prices that are
extreme and potentially erroneous, as a likely result of human or
operational error. Also, the Exchange believes the low usage rate for
the daily risk limits does not warrant the continued resources
necessary for System support of such controls. As a result, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change will also remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national
market system by allowing the Exchange to reallocate System capacity
and resources to more frequently elected System functionality,
including other price protection and risk control functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NYSE CGW FIX Gateway Specification for NYSE American
Options and NYSE Arca Options (last updated February 27, 2020)
available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/FIX_Specification_and_API.pdf, which provides for various User-
defined risk controls, like those of the Exchange, but does not
offer parameter settings in connection with aggregate notional
values. NYSE American Options and NYSE Arca Options also do not
offer such settings in their rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The proposed rule change is
not competitive in nature, but rather is intended to remove a risk
control that is rarely used on the Exchange. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change would impose a burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it will remove the
option to use this risk control for all Users on the Exchange. In
addition to this, and as stated above, the use of the daily risk limit
is voluntary and the Exchange will continue to offer various other
price protections and risk controls that sufficiently mitigate risks
associated with market participants entering and/or trading orders and
quotes at unintended or extreme prices. Further, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change would impose a burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change
reflects the current risk control offerings on other options
exchanges.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\14\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay.\15\ The Commission finds that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange represents that generally the Daily Risk Limits are
utilized infrequently by its Users and that currently the functionality
is not being used at all. The Exchange also indicates that eliminating
Daily Risk Limits will enable the efficient allocation of

technical resources and the Exchange will continue to offer an
effective suite of risk management options to its Users pursuant to
Rule 6.14. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2020-004 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-C2-2020-004. 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; 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-C2-2020-004 and should be
submitted on or before May 19, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08933 Filed 4-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 106)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31366-31368]
[DOCID:fr02jn08-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1132; FRL-8573-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota; Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Minnesota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone and particulate matter (PM) which
address the ``good neighbor'' provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
These provisions require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits
emissions that adversely affect another state's air quality. The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has adequately addressed the
four distinct elements related to the impact of interstate transport of
air pollutants. These include prohibiting significant contribution to
nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in
another state, interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state, interference with plans in another state to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality, and interference with plans in another
state to protect visibility.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 1, 2008, unless EPA receives
adverse written comments by July 2, 2008. If EPA receives adverse
comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-1132 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Douglas Aburano, Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Acting Chief, Criteria
Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2007-1132. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated revised NAAQS for ozone and PM.
For ozone, EPA adopted a standard of 0.08 ppm over an 8-hour averaging
period (62 FR 38856). For PM, EPA added new 24-hour and annual
standards for particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in
diameter (PM2.5) (62 FR 38652). Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
requires states to submit new SIPs that provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised standard within three
years after promulgation of such standard, or within such shorter
period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that
such new SIPs must address, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which
applies to interstate transport of certain emissions. While section
110(a)(1) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission
for a new or revised NAAQS, the contents of that submission may vary
depending upon the facts and circumstances related to the specific
NAAQS.
    On April 25, 2005, EPA made a finding that states had failed to
submit SIPs to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the CAA for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR
21147. This finding started a 2-year clock for promulgation by EPA of a

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), in accordance with section
110(c)(1), for any state that did not submit a SIP meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for both the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. If, prior to that time, a state made a
submission to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA
approved the submission, EPA would not be required to promulgate a FIP
for that state.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by MPCA on October 23,
2007, to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the
CAA. This section requires each state to submit a SIP which prohibits
emissions that could adversely affect the air quality in another state.
The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in
amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the NAAQS in another state, (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in another state, (3) interfere with the plans in another state to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and (4) interfere
with the plans of another state to protect visibility.
    EPA issued a guidance memorandum (Interstate Transport Guidance) on
August 15, 2006, relating to SIP submissions to meet the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS.\1\ As discussed below, Minnesota's analysis of its SIP with
respect to the statutory requirements is consistent with this guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air
Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' dated August 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MPCA addressed the first two elements, relating to monitor
interference with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, by asserting
that Minnesota is covered by the FIP for the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR). In the CAIR, EPA concluded that states meet their section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations to address the ``significant contribution''
and ``interference with the maintenance'' requirements by complying
with the CAIR requirements, either by submitting an approvable CAIR SIP
or relying on the CAIR FIP.\2\ Consequently, Minnesota will not need to
submit a separate SIP revision to satisfy the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
since they are relying on the CAIR FIP. Minnesota is covered by the
CAIR due solely to its influence on PM2.5 nonattainment in
Chicago (Illinois), and was not determined by EPA to impact ozone
nonattainment in any area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See page 4 in EPA's Interstate Transport Guidance,
referenced in Footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third element MPCA addressed was prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another state. All new sources in
Minnesota are subject to the federal PSD permitting program. Minnesota
has a delegated PSD program and therefore has been given the authority
by EPA to implement and enforce the federal PSD program. The PSD
program satisfies the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
prohibiting interference with measures required to meet the
implementation plan for any other state related to PSD. It should be
noted that the entire state of Minnesota is attaining both the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The fourth required element, relating to Minnesota's impact on
visibility impairment in another state, will be addressed by
Minnesota's regional haze SIP. MPCA concurs with EPA in concluding that
it is currently premature to determine whether or not SIPs for 8-hour
ozone or PM2.5 contain adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that interfere with measures in SIPS developed by other
states to address visibility impairment.\3\ MPCA is currently accepting
comments on a separate SIP revision that will fulfill Minnesota's
requirements under EPA's regional haze rule and address the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement with respect to visibility. The State is on
a schedule to submit this revision to EPA in July of 2008. Until this
SIP is submitted, an accurate assessment regarding the impact of
emissions and control measures on other states' SIPs cannot be made.
When EPA takes action on Minnesota's regional haze SIP, EPA will also
make a determination regarding the adequacy of the SIP in addressing
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to visiblilty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See pages 9 and 10 in EPA's Interstate Transport Guidance,
referenced in Footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minnesota placed the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP on notice on
September 4, 2007, and offered the opportunity for a public hearing. No
public hearing was requested and no comments were received.
    With this action, the non-regulatory text in 40 CFR 52.1220(e) is
revised to reflect that MPCA addressed the elements of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) submittal.

III. What action is EPA taking today?

    EPA is approving this revision submitted by Minnesota and is
revising 40 CFR 52.1220(e) to reflect that the MPCA has adequately
addressed the required elements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comments on part of this rule,
and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may
adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective August 1, 2008
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by July 2, 2008. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw
this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent
document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be
effective August 1, 2008.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a

substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 1, 2008. 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, Ozone, Particulate matter, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 21, 2008.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart Y--Minnesota

0
2. In Section 52.1220 the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
an entry in alphabetical order for ``CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP-Interstate
Transport'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable       State submittal
    Name of Nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      date/effective    EPA approved date        Comments
            Provision             nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP-          Statewide.........           10/23/07  06/02/08 [insert
 Interstate Transport.                                                    FR page number
                                                                          where the
                                                                          document begins].

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

[FR Doc. E8-12222 Filed 5-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P