[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67834-67835]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21629]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98541; File No. SR-MIAX-2023-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission
Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 307, Position
Limits

September 26, 2023.
    On April 21, 2023, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 307,
Position Limits, to establish a process for adjusting option position
limits following a stock split or reverse stock split in the underlying
security. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 8, 2023.\3\ On June 14, 2023, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission has
received one comment regarding the proposal.\6\ On August 2, 2023, the
Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
\7\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97421 (May 2, 2023),
88 FR 29725 (May 8, 2023).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97727 (June 14,
2023), 88 FR 40366 (June 21, 2023). The Commission designated August
6, 2023, as the date by which the Commission shall approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove, the proposed rule change.
    \6\ See letter from Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Equities &
Options Market Structure, SIFMA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated July 5, 2023 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98045 (August 2,
2023), 88 FR 53555 (August 8, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \9\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on May 8, 2023.\10\ The 180th day after the date of the publication of
the proposed rule is November 4, 2023. The Commission is extending the
time period for approving or disapproving the proposed rule change for
an additional 60 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change and the issues raised therein, as well as the
comment received. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\11\ designates January 3, 2024, as the date by
which the Commission shall either approve or

disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-MIAX-2023-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21629 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 25, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16918-16919]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05988]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0111; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-23]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Restricted Area R-5306F; Cherry Point,
NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish restricted area R-5306F at
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point, NC. R-5306F would extend
from flight level (FL) 180 to FL 290. The proposed restricted area
would overlie the existing restricted area R-5306A, and the adjacent
Core Military Operations Area (MOA). Due to altitude constraints, the
existing restricted airspace structure around MCAS Cherry Point cannot
fully support the training requirements for current legacy aircraft as
well as 4th and 5th generation aircraft such as the F-35. In
conjunction with R-5306A, the proposed restricted area would provide
realistic training to enable pilots and aircrews to counter evolving
threat nation warfare anti-aircraft capabilities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-
0111; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-23, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments on environmental and land use aspects to should be
directed to: Carmen Lombardo, Natural Resource Manager, MCAS Cherry
Point, NC 28533; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Hook, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish restricted area airspace at Cherry Point, NC, to
enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential U.S. Marine Corps
training activities.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2019-0111; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-23) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and

phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2019-0111; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-23.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person at the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA
30337.

Background

    The U.S. Marine Corps submitted a proposal to the FAA to expand the
existing restricted airspace at MCAS Cherry Point, NC, because the
altitude constraints of the current airspace structure cannot fully
support U.S. Marine Corps training and readiness requirements. The
training shortfall applies to current legacy aircraft but is more
pronounced for 4th and 5th generation aircraft, such as the F-35.
Specifically, the existing restricted area R-5306A extends from the
surface up to, but not including, FL 180. This altitude constraint
limits the ability to conduct realistic training in a variety of
tactics at the higher altitudes that would be present in ``real world''
situations. Additional high-altitude restricted airspace up to FL 290
is needed to provide the realistic training environment that pilots and
aircrews need to in order to qualify and remain proficient in tactics
for the employment of Precision Guided Munitions (PGM). PGMs are weapon
systems that are released from higher altitudes and greater distances
from the target than conventional unguided weapons.
    In conjunction with existing restricted area R-5306A, the proposed
R-5306F would also provide the airspace needed to contain actual and
simulated deliveries of ordnance for training in tactics such as Close
Air Support, Deep Air Support, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, etc.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing to amend 14 CFR part 73 to establish
restricted area R-5306F, Cherry Point, NC, to overlie the existing
restricted area R-5306A, and the adjacent Core Military Operations Area
(MOA). R-5306F would extend from FL 180 to FL 290. The time of
designation would be Monday through Friday, 0800 to 0000 hours, local
time; other times by NOTAM.
    In conjunction with R-5306A, R-5306F would provide the low-altitude
to high-altitude restricted airspace needed to train in the variety of
tactics as discussed above.
    There are no current Air Traffic Service routes (i.e., jet routes
or Q-routes) or preferential instrument flight rules (IFR) routes that
would be impacted by the proposed restricted area. R-5306F would be
joint-use special use airspace; meaning that the restricted area would
be returned to the controlling agency (FAA, Washington ARTCC) on a
real-time basis when not in use by the using agency. Supersonic flight
would not be conducted in R-5306F.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subjected to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited Areas, Restricted Areas.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  73.53   North Carolina [Amended]

0
 2. Amend Sec.  73.53 to read as follows:
* * * * *

R-5306F Cherry Point, NC [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]23'16'' N, long.
76[deg]34'39'' W; to lat. 35[deg]18'16'' N, long. 76[deg]16'39'' W;
to lat. 35[deg]04'31'' N, long. 76[deg]04'29'' W; to lat.
35[deg]00'31'' N, long. 76[deg]00'59'' W; to lat. 35[deg]00'22'' N,
long. 76[deg]00'51'' W; thence southwest 3 NM from and parallel to
the shoreline to lat. 34[deg]40'16'' N, long. 76[deg]24'45'' W; to
lat. 34[deg]40'41'' N, long. 76[deg]25'08'' W; to lat.
34[deg]46'01'' N, long. 76[deg]29'59'' W; to lat. 35[deg]08'01'' N,
long. 76[deg]51'19'' W; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. FL 180 to FL 290.
    Time of designation. Monday through Friday, 0800-0000L; other
times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Washington ARTCC.
    Using agency. USMC, Commanding Officer, U.S. Marine Corps Air
Station Cherry Point, NC.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 16, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-05988 Filed 3-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3742-3744]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02213]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0764; FRL-9989-45-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Allegheny County Reasonable Available Control Technology
for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) on behalf
of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) for the purpose of
satisfying the volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonably available
control technology (RACT) requirements for source categories covered by
control technique guidelines (CTGs) under the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2018-0764 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Goold,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 24, 2018, PADEP submitted, on behalf
of ACHD, a SIP revision addressing the VOC CTG RACT requirements set
forth by the CAA for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Allegheny County
(the 2018 VOC CTG RACT Submission for Allegheny County).

I. Background

A. General

    Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions
between VOCs and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of
sunlight. In order to reduce ozone concentrations, the CAA requires
control of VOC and NOX emission sources to achieve emission
reductions in moderate or more serious ozone nonattainment areas. Among
effective control measures, RACT controls significantly reduce VOC and
NOX emissions from major stationary sources.
    RACT is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.\1\ CAA section 172(c)(1) provides that SIPs for
nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures
(RACM) for attainment of the NAAQS, including emissions reductions from
existing sources through adoption of RACT. A major source in a
nonattainment area is defined as any stationary source that emits or
has the potential to emit NOX or VOC emissions above a
certain applicability threshold that is based on the ozone
nonattainment classification of the area: Marginal, Moderate, Serious,
or Severe. See ``major stationary source'' in CAA sections 182(b),
184(b) and 302. CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)(1) of the CAA require
states with moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas to implement
RACT controls on all stationary sources and source categories covered
by a CTG document issued by EPA and on all major sources of VOC and
NOX emissions located in the area. EPA's CTGs establish
presumptive RACT control requirements for various VOC source
categories. The CTGs typically identify a particular control level that
EPA recommends as being RACT. In some cases, EPA has issued Alternative
Control Techniques guidelines (ACTs) primarily for NOX
source categories, which in contrast to the CTGs, only present a range
for possible control options but do not identify any particular option
as the presumptive norm for what is RACT. CAA section 183(c) requires
EPA to revise and update CTGs and ACTs as the Administrator determines
necessary. EPA issued eleven new CTGs from 2006 through 2008. A list of
CTGs issued by EPA can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/control-techniques-guidelines-and-alternative-control-techniques. States are required to implement RACT for the source
categories covered by CTGs through the SIP. Source categories that are
not covered by the CTGs are termed non-CTG sources (non-CTG sources are
not covered by this SIP revision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas.'' See also 44 FR 53761, 53762
(September 17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 184(a) of the CAA established a single ozone transport
region (OTR), comprising all or part of 12 eastern states and the
District of Columbia.\2\ The entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is
part of the OTR and, therefore, must comply with the RACT requirements
in CAA section 184(b)(1)(B) and (2). Specifically, section 184(b)(1)(B)
requires the implementation of RACT in OTR states with respect to all
sources of VOC covered by a CTG. Additionally, section 184(b)(2) states
that any stationary source with the potential to emit 50 tons per year
(tpy) of VOCs shall be considered a major source and requires the
implementation of major stationary source requirements in the OTR
states as if the area were a moderate nonattainment area. A major
source in a nonattainment area is defined as any stationary source that
emits or has the potential to emit NOX or VOC emissions
above a certain applicability threshold

that is based on the ozone nonattainment classification of the area:
Marginal, Moderate, Serious, or Severe. See ``major stationary source''
in CAA sections 182(b) and 184(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Only a portion of the Commonwealth of Virginia is included
in the OTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania's Ozone RACT History

    Allegheny County, Pennsylvania has been subject to the CAA RACT
requirements because of previous ozone nonattainment designations. The
Pittsburgh-Beaver Area (which included Allegheny County) was designated
as a moderate 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Allegheny County has
implemented numerous RACT controls throughout the County to meet the
CAA's RACT requirements under the 1-hour ozone standard.
    Under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
area (which included Allegheny County) was designated as a moderate
nonattainment area. As a result, Allegheny County continued to be
subject to the CAA RACT requirements. See 69 FR 23858, 23931 (April 30,
2004). Allegheny County revised and promulgated its RACT regulations
and demonstrated that it complied with the 1997 CAA RACT requirements
in a SIP revision approved by EPA on June 10, 2013 (78 FR 34584).
    Under CAA section 109(d), EPA is required to periodically review
and promulgate, as necessary, revisions to the NAAQS to continue to
protect human health and the environment. On March 27, 2008, EPA
revised the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by lowering the 8-hour standard
to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). On May 21, 2012, EPA finalized attainment/
nonattainment designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (77 FR
30087). Under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, EPA designated 17
counties in Pennsylvania as marginal nonattainment including Allegheny
County. The entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is in the OTR, and
pursuant to CAA section 184(b)(1)(B), it is required to address the CAA
RACT requirements by submitting to EPA a SIP revision that demonstrates
how it meets RACT requirements under the revised 2008 ozone standard.
Pennsylvania is required to implement RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on
all VOC sources covered by a CTG issued by EPA, see CAA sections
182(b)(2)(A), (B), 184(b)(1)(B), as well as all other major stationary
sources located within the state boundaries, see CAA section
182(b)(2)(C).

C. EPA Guidance and Requirements

    EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through final
implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS, as well as guidance. On
March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule). See 80 FR 12264.
This rule addressed, among other things, control and planning
obligations as they apply to nonattainment areas under the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, including RACT and RACM. In this rule, EPA specifically
required that states meet the RACT requirements either (1) through a
certification that previously adopted RACT controls in their SIP
revisions approved by EPA under a prior ozone NAAQS continue to
represent adequate RACT control levels for attainment of the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, or (2) through the adoption of new or more stringent
regulations or controls that represent RACT control levels. A
certification must be accompanied by appropriate supporting information
such as consideration of information received during the public comment
period and consideration of new data. Adoption of new RACT regulations
will occur when states have new stationary sources not covered by
existing RACT regulations, or when new data or technical information
indicates that a previously adopted RACT measure does not represent a
newly available RACT control level. Additionally, states are required
to submit a negative declaration if there are no CTG sources of VOC
emissions within the nonattainment area in lieu of, or in addition to,
a certification.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On July 24, 2018, PADEP submitted a SIP revision for Allegheny
County to address the VOC CTG RACT requirements set forth by the CAA
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the 2018 VOC CTG RACT Submission for
Allegheny County). Specifically, the 2018 VOC CTG RACT Submission for
Allegheny County includes: (1) A certification that for certain
categories of sources, previously-adopted VOC RACT controls in the
Allegheny County portion of Pennsylvania's SIP that were approved by
EPA under the 1979 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS continue to be
based on the currently available technically and economically feasible
controls, and continue to represent RACT for implementation of the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS; and (2) a negative declaration that certain CTG
sources of VOC do not exist in Allegheny County, PA. This SIP revision
does not cover non-CTG sources in Allegheny County. PADEP will address
RACT for major sources of NOX and for major non-CTG VOC
sources for Allegheny County in another SIP submission.
    Allegheny County's Regulations and Statutes, under Allegheny County
Article XXI 2105.10, 2105.11, 2105.12, 2105.13, 2105.15, 2105.16,
2105.19, 2105.70, 2105.71, 2105.72., 2105.74, 2105.76, 2105.77,
2105.78, 2105.79, 2105.80, 2105.81, 2105.82, 2105.83, 2015.84, 2105.85,
and 2105.86 contain the VOC CTG RACT controls that were implemented and
approved into Pennsylvania's SIP under the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. PADEP is certifying that these regulations, all previously
approved by EPA into the SIP, continue to meet the RACT requirements
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for CTG-covered sources of VOCs in
Allegheny County, PA. PADEP also submitted a negative declaration for
the CTGs that have not been adopted due to no affected facilities in
Allegheny County. More detailed information on these provisions as well
as a detailed summary of EPA's review can be found in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) for this action which is available on line at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0764.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA has reviewed Pennsylvania's 2018 VOC CTG RACT Submission for
Allegheny County and is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP
revision to the Allegheny County portion of the SIP on the basis that
Allegheny County, PA has met the VOC RACT requirements for all sources
of CTGs (issued prior to July 20, 2014) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
as set forth by CAA sections 182(b) and 184(b)(2). EPA is proposing to
find that Pennsylvania's SIP revision satisfies the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS VOC RACT requirements for CTGs for Allegheny County, PA through
(1) certification that previously adopted RACT controls in the
Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP that were approved by
EPA under the 1979 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS continue to
be based on the currently available technically and economically
feasible controls, and that they continue to represent RACT; and (2) a
negative declaration demonstrating that no facilities exist in
Allegheny County for certain applicable VOC CTG categories.
    EPA is proposing to find that Pennsylvania's 2018 VOC CTG RACT
Submission for Allegheny County demonstrates that Allegheny County has
adopted air pollution control strategies that represent RACT for the
purposes of compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for all
stationary sources of VOCs covered by a CTG issued prior to

July 20, 2014. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document relevant to VOC CTG RACT requirements for
the Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, Pennsylvania's 2018 VOC CTG RACT
submission for Allegheny County 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: January 30, 2019.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2019-02213 Filed 2-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9591-9594]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03582]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0521; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-11-AD;
Amendment 39-18104; AD 2015-04-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM International S.A. Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all CFM
International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-7B series turbofan engines. This AD was
prompted by a dual engine thrust instability event that resulted in the
overspeed and in-flight shutdown (IFSD) of one engine. This AD requires
modification of the engine by removing

full authority digital engine control (FADEC) software, version 7.B.V4
or earlier, installed in the electronic engine controls (EECs) on
CFM56-7B engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent a thrust
instability event, which could lead to overspeed and IFSD of one or
more engines, loss of thrust control, damage to the engine, and damage
to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective March 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact CFM
International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room
285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this service information at the
FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2014-0521.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0521; 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 (phone: 800-647-
5527) is 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: Kyle Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all CFM CFM56-7B series
turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October
2, 2014 (79 FR 59467). The NPRM was prompted by reports of dual-engine
thrust instability events on CFM56-7B turbofan engines that resulted in
overspeed and IFSD of one engine. These resulted from water-borne
contamination of the fuel being supplied to the engine which had an
adverse effect on the response of the fuel metering valve (FMV) in the
hydro-mechanical unit (HMU). CFM has modified its FADEC software to
compensate for compromised fuel within the HMU and improved the
response of the FMV, thereby mitigating these thrust instability
events. The NPRM proposed to require modification of the engine by
removing FADEC software, version 7.B.V4 or earlier, installed in the
EECs on CFM56-7B engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent a thrust
instability event, which could lead to overspeed and IFSD of one or
more engines, loss of thrust control, damage to the engine, and damage
to the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 59467, October 2, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Change Emphasis From Software Removal to Software
Installation

    Delta Air Lines (DAL) and American Air Lines (AAL) requested that
we change wording in the AD to emphasize installation of an eligible
software standard rather than removal of the ineligible software
standard. They suggested that we add this sentence to compliance
paragraph (e): ``Within 6 months of the effective date of this AD,
modify the engine by installing FADEC software version 7.B.W, released
by CFM Service Bulletins 73-0203 and 73-0204, or later approved
software versions.'' DAL and AAL state that the Boeing 737NG Aircraft
Maintenance Manual does not contain a removal step but rather guides
how to overwrite previous software with eligible software.
    We disagree. The purpose of this AD is to require removal of
software standard 7.B.V4, or earlier, to correct the unsafe condition.
Overwriting a previously installed software standard with a software
standard eligible for installation is an acceptable method for removing
an affected software standard. We did not change this AD.

Request To Require Use of Software EEC Software Standard 7.B.W or Later

    DAL and AAL requested that we revise paragraph (h)(2) of FAA AD
2012-05-02 (77 FR 20511, April 5, 2012) (``AD 2012-05-02'') to state
that EEC software standard 7.B.W or later is required. AD 2012-05-02
requires inspection and modification to the Boeing 737NG thrust
reversers, and also requires, in paragraph (h)(2), installation of
software standard 7.B.R3 on affected engines. Since AD 2012-05-02 was
issued, new versions of software have been released, requiring
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) to allow installation of
versions later than software standard 7.B.R3. The requested change to
AD 2012-05-02 would bring AD 2012-05-02 and this AD into agreement on
the required airplane configuration.
    We disagree. The current version of the software standard, 7.B.W,
also addresses the thrust reverser unsafe condition and is approved as
an AMOC for AD 2012-05-02. We did not change this AD.

Request To Change Description of the Unsafe Condition

    The Boeing Company (Boeing) and CFM requested that we change the
wording of the unsafe condition to ``We are proposing this AD to
mitigate characteristics of a thrust instability event; without
mitigation, thrust instability events could potentially lead to engine
overspeed and IFSD of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and
damage to the airplane.'' The commenters state that the EEC cannot
prevent the occurrence of the events, but it can effectively mitigate
the characteristics of the events.
    We disagree. While the work to prevent the root cause of fuel
contamination continues, the purpose of the FADEC software and this AD
is to prevent the events described in the unsafe condition. We did not
change this AD.

Request To Change Wording in the Description Paragraph

    CFM and Boeing requested that we change the wording of two
sentences in the Description paragraph to ``These resulted from water-
borne contamination of the fuel being supplied to the engine which had
an adverse effect on the response of the FMV in the HMU. CFM has
modified its FADEC software to compensate for compromised fuel within
the HMU and improve the response of the fuel control valve, thereby
mitigating these thrust instability events.''
    We agree. We changed the wording of the two sentences in the
Description paragraph to be more correct and accurate.

Request To Clarify a Sentence in the Relevant Service Information
Paragraph

    Boeing requested, for clarity, that in the Relevant Service
Information paragraph of the preamble we add the words ``post 7.B.V4''
to describe the FADEC software. Boeing requested that the changed
sentence read: ``The SBs describe the procedures for the introduction
of new FADEC software, post 7.B.V4, for the EECs.''
    We disagree. The information in this AD provides the necessary
information for compliance. No additional clarification is required.
Furthermore, the Relevant Service Information paragraph, which appeared
in the preamble of the NPRM (79 FR 59467, October 2, 2014), does not
appear in this AD. We did not change this AD.

Request That We Correct Our References to the FADEC Software Standard

    CFM requested that we change all references to the software
standard throughout this AD from ``7BV4'' to ``7.B.V4'' because that is
the correct way to reference the software standard.
    We agree. We changed all references to the software standard
throughout this AD to the correct nomenclature.

Request To Add a Table Specifying the Software Versions To Remove

    Boeing requested that for clarity we include in this AD a table
that would show the software versions, by part number, that should be
removed as a result of this AD.
    We disagree. The information in this AD provides the necessary
information for compliance. No additional clarification is required. We
did not change this AD.

Additional Changes

    In our review of the NPRM, we found that we failed to include the
prohibition against operating any aircraft configured with one engine
with FADEC software version 7.B.V4 or earlier, installed, and the other
engine with an eligible FADEC software version installed. This
prohibition is in SB CFM Service Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56-7B S/B 73-
0203, dated June 9, 2014 and CFM No. SB CFM56-7B S/B 73-0204, dated
June 9, 2014. We added the prohibition to this AD.

Agreement With the Proposed AD

    One anonymous commenter expressed agreement with this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that
these minor changes:
     [Agr]re consistent with the intent that was proposed in
the NPRM (79 FR 59467, October 2, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 59467, October 2, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD would affect about 2,921 engines installed
on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take
about 1 hour per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per hour. Parts cost is zero. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $248,285.

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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2015-04-02 CFM International S.A.: Amendment 39-18104; Docket No.
FAA-2014-0521; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-11-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 31, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-7B
series turbofan engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a dual engine thrust instability event
that resulted in the overspeed and in-flight shutdown (IFSD) of one
engine. We are issuing this AD to prevent a thrust instability
event, which could lead to overspeed and IFSD of one or more
engines, loss of thrust control, damage to the engine, and damage to
the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    (1) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (2) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the engine by removing full authority digital engine control (FADEC)
software, version 7.B.V4 or earlier, installed in the electronic
engine control (EEC).
    (3) Do not return to service any aircraft configured with one
engine with FADEC software, version 7.B.V4 or earlier, installed,
and the other engine with an eligible FADEC software version,
installed.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kyle Gustafson,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) CFM Service Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56-7B S/B 73-0203, dated
June 9, 2014, and CFM No. SB CFM56-7B S/B 73-0204, dated June 9,
2014, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be
obtained from CFM using the contact information in paragraph (g)(3)
of this AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact CFM
International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D
Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 877-432-
3329; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 10, 2015.
Ann C. Mollica,
Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-03582 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P