[Federal Register: June 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 111)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32486-32488]
[DOCID:fr09jn08-8]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0623; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-089-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional
Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series
705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards * * *.
    [A]ssessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks [for the
fuel tank wiring harness installation, and the hydraulic system No.
3 temperature transducer, among other items] are required to prevent
potential ignition sources inside the fuel system, which could
result in a fuel tank explosion. * * *

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rocco Viselli, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0623;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-089-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On February 28, 2008, we issued AD 2008-06-01, Amendment 39-15413
(73 FR 13098, March 12, 2008). That AD required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2008-06-01, we have determined that the initial
compliance times for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (f)(1) of
that AD must be reduced. AD 2008-06-01 resulted from Canadian
Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-28, dated November 22, 2007 (referred
to after this as ``the MCAI'').
    The MCAI does not provide an initial compliance time for doing the
tasks. In AD 2008-06-01, we required an initial compliance time that
started from the effective date of the AD, or the date of issuance of
the original Canadian standard airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness,
whichever occurs later. Although the initial compliance time for doing
the tasks is unstated in the MCAI, we have determined that the intent
of the MCAI is for the initial compliance time to start from the
initial delivery date of the airplane in order to address the
identified unsafe condition in a timely manner.
    This proposed AD would require reduced thresholds for the initial
compliance times. We have also revised the initial compliance times by
providing a threshold and grace period for the tasks. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 289 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $23,120, or $80 per product.

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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15413 (73 FR
13098, March 12, 2008) and adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Docket No. FAA-2008-0623;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-089-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 9, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) The proposed AD supersedes AD 2008-06-01, Amendment 39-
15413.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional
Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900)
airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank standards introduced in
Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed
Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances were then
assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001, to
determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks [for
the fuel tank wiring harness installation, and the hydraulic system
No. 3 temperature transducer, among other items] are required to
prevent potential ignition sources inside the fuel system, which
could result in a fuel tank explosion. Revision has been made to
Canadair Regional Jet Models CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-
2D24 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP B-053, Part 2, Section 3
``Fuel System Limitations'' to introduce the required maintenance
tasks.
    The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.

Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2008-06-01

    (f) Unless already done, within 60 days after April 16, 2008
(the effective date of AD 2008-06-01), revise the ALS of the
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the
inspection requirements in Section 3, ``Fuel System Limitations,''
of Part 2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, and CL-600-2D24
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053, Revision 9, dated July
20, 2007 (``the MRM''). Accomplishing the revision in accordance
with a later revision of the MRM is an acceptable method of
compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, New York
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA) (or its delegated agent).

New Requirements of This AD: Actions and Compliance

    (g) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) For task numbers 24-90-00-601, 24-90-00-602, 28-00-00-601,
28-11-23-601, 28-11-23-602, 28-12-13-601, 29-30-00-601, and 29-30-
00-602 identified in the MRM, the initial compliance times start at
the later of the applicable ``Threshold'' and ``Grace Period'' times
specified in Table 1 of this AD, and the repetitive limitation tasks
must be accomplished thereafter at the applicable interval specified
in the MRM, except as provided by paragraphs (g)(2) and (h)(1) of
this AD.

                      Table 1.--Initial Inspections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Compliance time  (whichever occurs
                                                  later)
           Description           ---------------------------------------
                                       Threshold         Grace period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tasks with limiting intervals of  Before the          Within 2,000
 8,000 flight hours.               accumulation of     flight hours
                                   8,000 total         after the
                                   flight hours.       effective date of
                                                       this AD.
Tasks with limiting intervals of  Before the          Within 6,000
 20,000 flight hours.              accumulation of     flight hours
                                   20,000 total        after the
                                   flight hours.       effective date of
                                                       this AD.
Tasks with limiting intervals of  Before the          Within 6,000
 30,000 flight hours.              accumulation of     flight hours
                                   30,000 total        after the
                                   flight hours.       effective date of
                                                       this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD, no alternative inspections/limitation tasks or
inspection/limitation task intervals may be used unless the
inspections/limitation tasks or inspection/limitation task intervals
are part of a later revision of the MRM, that is approved by the
Manager, New York ACO, FAA; or TCCA (or its delegated agent); or
unless the inspection/limitation task or inspection/limitation task
interval is approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Rocco Viselli, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516) 794-
5531. 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.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-28, dated
November 22, 2007; and Section 3, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of
Part 2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, and CL-600-2D24
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053, Revision 9, dated July
20, 2007; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 29, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-12819 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2011)] [Notices] [Page 64403] [FR Doc No: C1-2011-24868]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65381; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-128]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;  Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change  Relating to Customer Rebates To Add Liquidity

September 22, 2011.

Correction

    In notice document 2011-24868 appearing on pages 60103-60106 in the  issue of September 28, 2011, make the following correction:     On page 60106, in the first column, in the first paragraph, in the  last line, ``September 28, 2011'' should read ``October 19, 2011''.

[FR Doc. C1-2011-24868 Filed 10-17-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3038-3043]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00975]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82504; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.31-
E Relating to Mid-Point Liquidity Orders and the Minimum Trade Size
Modifier and Rule 7.36-E To Add a Definition of ``Aggressing Order''

January 16, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on January 3, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31-E relating to Mid-Point
Liquidity Orders and the Minimum Trade Size modifier and Rule 7.36-E to
add a definition of ``Aggressing Order.'' The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Mid-Point Liquidity (``MPL'') Orders and the Minimum Trade Size
(``MTS'') modifier and Rule 7.36-E (Order Ranking and Display) to add a
definition of ``Aggressing Order.'' [sic] For MPL Orders, the Exchange
proposes to amend the price at which a marketable MPL Order would trade
when there are resting orders priced better than the midpoint. The
Exchange further proposes to amend functionality related to MPL-ALO
Orders to describe how orders would trade if an MPL-ALO Order locks
contra-side same-priced interest on the NYSE Arca Book. For MTS, the
Exchange proposes to move all discussion relating to the MTS modifier
to new sub-paragraph (i)(3) of Rule 7.31-E and in so doing, amend how
resting orders with an MTS modifier would trade in specified
circumstances.
Background
    As provided for in current Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C), on arrival, an MPL
Order to buy (sell) that is eligible to trade will trade with resting
orders to sell (buy) with a working price at or below (above) the
midpoint of the PBBO (i.e., priced better than the midpoint of the
PBBO). The rule further provides that resting MPL Orders to buy (sell)
will trade at the midpoint of the PBBO against all incoming orders to
sell (buy) priced at or below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO (i.e.,
priced better than the midpoint of the PBBO).
    Current Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(F) provides that an MPL Order may be
designated with an ALO Modifier (an ``MPL-ALO Order'') and that on
arrival, an MPL-ALO Order to buy (sell) will trade with resting orders
to sell (buy) with a working price below (above) the midpoint of the
PBBO, but will not trade with resting orders to sell (buy) priced at
the midpoint of the PBBO. The rule further provides that a resting MPL-
ALO Order to buy (sell) will trade with an arriving order to sell (buy)
that is eligible to trade at the midpoint of the PBBO.
    The MTS modifier is currently available for Limit IOC Orders,\4\
MPL Orders,\5\ and Tracking Orders.\6\ As such, the MTS modifier is
currently available only for orders that are not displayed and do not
route. On arrival, both Limit IOC Orders and MPL Orders with an MTS
modifier will trade against contra-side orders in the NYSE Arca Book
that in the aggregate, meet the MTS.\7\ Once resting, MPL Orders and
Tracking Orders with an MTS modifier function similarly: If a contra-
side order does not meet the MTS, the incoming order will not trade
with and may trade through the resting order with the MTS modifier. In
addition, both MPL Orders and Tracking Orders with an MTS modifier will
be cancelled if such orders are traded in part or reduced in size and
the remaining quantity is less than the MTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 7.31-E(b)(2)(A) (``A Limit IOC Order to buy (sell)
may be designated with a minimum trade size (``MTS''), which will
trade against sell (buy) orders in the NYSE Arca Book that in the
aggregate, meets its MTS. On entry, a Limit IOC Order with an MTS
must have a minimum of one round lot and will be rejected on arrival
if the MTS is larger than the size of the Limit IOC Order. A Limit
IOC Order with an MTS that cannot be immediately traded at its
minimum size will be cancelled in its entirety.'')
    \5\ See Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(D) (``An MPL Order may be designated
with an MTS of a minimum of one round lot and will be rejected on
arrival if the MTS is larger than the size of the MPL Order. On
arrival, an MPL Order to buy (sell) with an MTS will trade with sell
(buy) orders in the NYSE Arca Book that in the aggregate, meets its
MTS. If the sell (buy) orders do not meet the MTS, the MPL Order to
buy (sell) will not trade on arrival and will be ranked in the NYSE
Arca Book. Once resting, an MPL Order to buy (sell) with an MTS will
trade with an order to sell (buy) that meets the MTS and is priced
at or below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO. If an order does not
meet an MPL Order's MTS, the order will not trade with and may trade
through such MPL Order. If an MPL Order with an MTS is traded in
part or reduced in size and the remaining quantity of the order is
less than the MTS, the MPL Order will be cancelled.'')
    \6\ See Rule 7.31-E(d)(4)(C) (``A Tracking Order may be
designated with an MTS of one round lot or more. If an incoming
order cannot meet the MTS, a Tracking Order with a later working
time will trade ahead of the Tracking Order designated with an MTS
with an earlier working time. If a Tracking Order with an MTS is
traded in part or reduced in size and the remaining quantity is less
than the MTS, the Tracking Order will be cancelled.'')
    \7\ Tracking Orders, including Tracking Orders with an MTS
modifier, are passive orders that do not trade on arrival. See Rule
7.31-E(d)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Definition of ``Aggressing Order''
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.36-E to add a definition that
would be used for purposes of Rule 7-E. Proposed Rule 7.36-E(a)(5)
would define the term ``Aggressing Order'' to mean a buy (sell) order
that is or becomes marketable against sell (buy) interest on the NYSE
Arca Book.\8\ This term would therefore refer to orders that are
marketable against other orders on the NYSE Arca Book, such as incoming
orders and orders that have returned unexecuted after routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``marketable'' is defined in Rule 1.1(y) to mean
for a Limit Order, an order than [sic] can be immediately executed
or routed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This term would also be applicable to resting orders that become
marketable due to one or more events. For the most part, resting orders
will have already traded with contra-side orders against which they are
marketable. However, there are circumstances when a resting order may
become marketable, such as orders that become eligible to trade when a
PBBO unlocks or uncrosses (e.g., MPL and Pegged Orders) or orders that
have a trading restriction at specified prices (e.g., as discussed in
greater detail below, MPL-ALO Orders or orders with an MTS Modifier).
To maximize the potential for orders to trade, the Exchange continually
evaluates whether resting orders may become marketable. Events that
could trigger a resting order to become marketable include updates to
the working price of such order, updates to the PBBO or NBBO, changes
to other orders on the NYSE Arca Book, or processing of inbound
messages (e.g., an update to Price Bands under the Regulation NMS Plan
to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility). To address such
circumstances, the Exchange proposes to include in proposed Rule 7.36-
E(a)(5) that a resting order may become an Aggressing Order if its
working price changes, if the PBBO or NBBO is updated, because of
changes to other orders on the NYSE Arca Book, or when processing
inbound messages.
    The order that becomes the Aggressing Order is the liquidity-taking
order. Generally, if resting orders on both sides are determined to be
an Aggressing Order, e.g., a locked PBBO becomes unlocked and as a
result, MPL Orders are repriced, the later-arriving order will be the
liquidity-taking order.\9\ However, if the evaluation results in only
one side becoming an Aggressing Order, e.g., an order with an MTS
Modifier becomes eligible to trade and the contra-side order(s) have no
working price changes, the order with the MTS Modifier would become the
liquidity-taking Aggressing Order. As described below, the Exchange
proposes to use the term ``Aggressing Order'' in the rule text relating
to the MTS Modifier and the MPL-ALO Order. Because an Aggressing Order
becomes a liquidity taker, such term could be applicable to other
circumstances. For example, an order with a Non-Display Remove Modifier
that trades as a liquidity taker would also be considered an Aggressing
Order. However, at this time, the Exchange does not propose to amend
its rules to use the term ``Aggressing Order'' because the rule already
specifies which order is the liquidity taker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(B).

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

Proposed Amendments Relating to MPL and MPL-ALO Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend the first sentence of current Rule
7.31-E(d)(3)(C) to make this text applicable to any marketable MPL
Order, and not just an arriving MPL Order. To effect this change, the
Exchange proposes to use the term ``Aggressing Order'' and replace the
phrase ``[o]n arrival, an MPL Order to buy (sell) that is eligible to
trade'' with the phrase, ``[a]n Aggressing MPL Order to buy (sell).''
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the first sentence of current
Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C) to describe at what price an Aggressing MPL Order
would trade with contra-side resting orders that are priced better than
the midpoint. The rule currently provides that an arriving MPL Order to
buy (sell) would trade with resting orders to sell (buy) with a working
price at or below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO. The Exchange
proposes to specify that when an Aggressing MPL Order trades with
resting orders priced better than the midpoint, it will trade at the
working price of the resting orders, which is current functionality.
For example, if the PBB is 10.10 and the midpoint is 10.13, and there
are non-displayed sell orders of 100 shares with working prices of
10.11 and 10.12, an Aggressing MPL Order to buy with a limit of 10.13
for 200 shares would trade with such non-displayed sell orders at 10.11
and 10.12, respectively. The Exchange believes that this proposed
amendment would promote transparency in Exchange rules regarding at
what price an Aggressing MPL Order would trade.
    By using the term ``Aggressing Order,'' this rule would be
applicable to a resting MPL Order that becomes marketable, such as
after a PBBO unlocks or uncrosses. In the above example, if the MPL
Order to buy is ineligible to trade because of a crossed PBBO, and
while the PBBO is crossed, the Exchange receives the two non-displayed
sell orders, when the PBBO uncrosses and the new midpoint is 10.13, the
resting MPL Order would become an Aggressing Order and would trade with
the non-displayed sell orders at 10.11 and 10.12, respectively.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the second sentence of Rule
7.31-E(d)(3)(C) to replace the term ``incoming orders'' with the term
``Aggressing Orders.'' This proposed rule change would provide greater
specificity that any contra-side order that is an Aggressing Order, as
defined in proposed Rule 7.36-E(a)(5), would trade with a resting MPL
Order at the midpoint of the PBBO.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the rule governing MPL-ALO
Orders to make similar changes. Currently, MPL-ALO Orders are described
in Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(F). Because of changes described below relating to
MTS, as proposed, MPL-ALO Orders would be described in Rule 7.31-
E(d)(3)(E).
    In amending proposed Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E), the Exchange proposes to
break the current rule text into three sub-paragraphs. The first
sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(F), which provides that an MPL
Order may be designated with an ALO Modifier, would follow Rule 7.31-
E(d)(3)(E). The current second sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(F) would
be set forth in proposed Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E)(i). The Exchange proposes
to amend this rule in the same manner that it is proposing to amend the
first sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C), described above. In addition,
the Exchange proposes a non-substantive, clarifying amendment to add
that an arriving MPL-ALO Order would trade with a contra-side same-
priced order that has been designated with a Non-Display Remove
Modifier, which is current functionality. Accordingly, proposed Rule
7.31-E(d)(3)(E)(i) would provide that an Aggressing MPL-ALO Order to
buy (sell) will trade with resting orders to sell (buy) with a working
price below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO at the working price of
the resting orders, but will not trade with resting orders to sell
(buy) priced at the midpoint of the PBBO unless such resting order is
designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier pursuant to paragraph
(d)(3)(F) of this Rule (proposed new text italicized).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A resting MPL-ALO Order that becomes an Aggressing Order
would trade consistent with proposed Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E)(i) and
therefore would trade with contra-side orders priced better than the
midpoint, but would not trade at the midpoint unless such order had
a Non-Display Remove Modifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because an Aggressing MPL-ALO Order does not trade with resting
contra-side orders priced at the midpoint of the PBBO (unless the
resting order has the Non-Display Remove Modifier), the Exchange
proposes to specify the circumstances of when an MPL-ALO Order would be
eligible to trade if it locks contra-side orders, which would differ
depending on whether the contra-side order is displayed.\11\ The first
sentence of Proposed Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E)(ii) would provide that if an
MPL-ALO Order to buy (sell) cannot trade with a same-priced resting
order to sell (buy), a subsequently arriving order to sell (buy)
eligible to trade at the midpoint would trade ahead of a resting order
to sell (buy) that is not displayed at that price. Accordingly, if an
MPL-ALO Order locks a non-displayed order, such resting MPL-ALO Order
can trade at that price with a subsequent order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A displayed odd-lot order that is not included in the
calculation of the PBBO could be at the same price as an MPL Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By contrast, the second sentence of proposed Rule 7.31-
E(d)(3)(E)(ii) would provide that if such resting order to sell (buy)
is displayed, the MPL-ALO Order to buy (sell) would not be eligible to
trade at that price. Accordingly, if an MPL-ALO Order locks a displayed
order, such resting MPL-ALO Order would not be eligible to trade at
that price with any interest. The Exchange proposes to treat displayed
orders locked by an MPL-ALO Order differently to avoid having non-
displayed orders trade ahead of a same-priced, same-side displayed
order.
Proposed Amendments Relating to MTS
    The Exchange proposes to consolidate all references to MTS
modifiers in Rule 7.31-E in proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3) as a new
additional order instruction and modifier to be referred to as the
``Minimum Trade Size (`MTS') Modifier.'' As proposed, Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)
would provide that a Limit IOC Order, MPL Order, or Tracking Order may
be designated with an MTS Modifier, which is existing functionality.
Because this proposed rule would specify which orders would be eligible
for the MTS Modifier, the Exchange proposes to delete existing rule
text specifying which orders are and are not eligible for an MTS
Modifier.\12\ Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3) is based in part on NYSE
American Rule 7.31E(i)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange proposes to delete references to MTS in Rules
7.31-E(b)(2)(A), 7.31-E(b)(2)(B), 7.31-E(d)(3)(D), 7.31-E(d)(4)(C),
7.31-E(e)(3)(B), and 7.46-E(f)(1)(A). As noted above, because
current Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(D) would be deleted in its entirety, the
remaining sub-paragraphs of Rule 7.31-E(d)(3) would be renumbered
accordingly. In addition, current Rule 7.31-E(d)(4)(C) would be
deleted in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(A) would provide that an MTS must be a
minimum of a round lot and that an order with an MTS Modifier would be
rejected if the MTS is less than a round lot or if the MTS is larger
than the size of the order. This proposed rule text is based on the
next-to-last sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(b)(2)(A) and the first
sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(D), and in part on the first
sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(d)(4)(C), with non-substantive
differences to use common terminology when applying

this requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS
Modifier.\13\ Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(A) is based on NYSE American
Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(A) without any differences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Nasdaq also requires that its Minimum Quantity Order also
have a size of at least a round lot. See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(B) would provide that an order to buy
(sell) with an MTS Modifier would trade with sell (buy) orders in the
NYSE Arca Book that in the aggregate meet such order's MTS. This
proposed rule text is based on the third sentence of Rule 7.31-
E(b)(2)(A) and the second sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(D) with non-
substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this
requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
    Because Tracking Orders do not trade on arrival, this rule text
would be applicable only to MPL Orders and Limit IOC Orders with an MTS
Modifier. Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(B) is based on NYSE American Rule
7.31E(i)(3)(B)(i) without any differences.
    Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(C) would provide that an order with an
MTS Modifier that is designated Day and cannot be satisfied on arrival
would not trade and would be ranked in the NYSE Arca Book. This
proposed rule text is based on the third sentence of Rule 7.31-
E(d)(3)(D) with non-substantive differences to reference orders
designated Day, i.e., MPL Orders and MPL-ALO Orders. The first sentence
of Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(C) is based on NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(C)
without any differences.
    The Exchange further proposes to describe new functionality
relating to when an order with an MTS Modifier that is designated Day
would not be eligible to trade. In short, if a later-arriving contra-
side order can meet the MTS of a resting order with an MTS Modifier,
the two orders would trade unless the execution would be inconsistent
with either intra-market price priority or would result in a non-
displayed order trading ahead of a same-side, same-priced displayed
order.\14\ Therefore, as proposed, the Exchange would not permit an
order with an MTS Modifier that crosses other displayed or non-
displayed orders on the NYSE Arca Book to trade at prices that are
worse than the price of such contra-side orders. As further proposed,
the Exchange would not permit a resting order with an MTS Modifier to
trade at a price equal to a displayed contra-side order.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Rule 7.36-E(c) provides that the Exchange ranks all non-
marketable orders on the NYSE Arca Book according to price--time
priority.
    \15\ At this time, the only resting orders with an MTS on the
Exchange subject to this requirement would be MPL Orders. In such
case, a contra-side order that is displayed and between the PBBO
would be an odd-lot sized order; a round-lot sized displayed order
would be reflected in the PBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To reflect these changes, the second sentence of Rule 7.31-
E(i)(3)(C) would provide that when a buy (sell) order with an MTS
Modifier that is designated Day is ranked in the NYSE Arca Book, it
would not be eligible to trade:
    (i) At a price equal to or above (below) any sell (buy) orders that
are displayed and that have a working price equal to or below (above)
the working price of such order with an MTS Modifier, or
    (ii) at a price above (below) any sell (buy) orders that are not
displayed and that have a working price below (above) the working price
of such order with an MTS Modifier.
    For example,
     If the PBBO is 10.10 x 10.16, on the NYSE Arca Book there
is a sell order (``Order A'') ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders for
50 shares at 10.12 and a sell order (``Order B'') ranked Priority 2--
Display Orders for 25 shares at 10.11, and the Exchange receives a buy
MPL Order (``Order C'') with an MTS Modifier for 100 shares with a
10.16 limit, because the MTS cannot be met, Order C will not trade and
will be ranked in the NYSE Arca Book at the midpoint of 10.13. At this
point, the Exchange would have a non-displayed buy order crossing both
non-displayed and displayed sell orders on the NYSE Arca Book. If the
Exchange then receives a non-displayed sell order (``Order D'') for 100
shares at 10.11, even though Order D would be marketable against Order
C, it would not trade because a trade at 10.13 would be above the price
of resting sell orders.\16\ Order D would be added to the NYSE Arca
Book at 10.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Pursuant to Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C), an Aggressing Order will
trade with a resting MPL Order at the midpoint of the PBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If next, the Exchange receives a buy order (``Order E'')
to buy 25 shares at 10.11, it would trade with Order B. As discussed
above, this execution would trigger the Exchange to evaluate whether
Order C becomes marketable against contra-side orders.\17\ In this
scenario, because Order B has now executed, Order C is no longer
restricted from trading at 10.11. Because Order C's restriction has
been lifted and Order D does not have a working price change, Order C
would become an Aggressing Order and trade as the liquidity taker with
Order D at 10.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See discussion infra regarding the second sentence to
proposed Rule 7.36-E(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(D) would provide that an order with an
MTS Modifier that is designated IOC and cannot be immediately satisfied
would be cancelled in its entirety. This proposed rule text is based on
the last sentence of Rule 7.31-E(b)(2)(A), with non-substantive
differences to specify that this functionality would be applicable to
any orders designated IOC that have an MTS Modifier, i.e., Limit IOC
Orders and MPL-IOC Orders. Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(D) is based on
NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(D) without any differences.
    Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(E) would provide that a resting order to
buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier would trade with individual sell (buy)
orders that each meets the MTS.\18\ This proposed rule text is based on
the fourth sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(D) with a non-substantive
difference to use the same terminology as proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(B)
because a resting order with an MTS Modifier only trades if contra-side
individual orders each meets such order's MTS. The Exchange proposes
non-substantive differences to use common terminology when applying
this requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS
Modifier. Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(E) is based on NYSE American Rule
7.31E(i)(3)(E) without any differences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A resting order with an MTS Modifier that becomes an
Aggressing Order would trade consistent with proposed Rule 7.31-
E(i)(3)(E) and therefore would trade with individual orders that
each meet the MTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rules 7.31-E(i)(3)(E)(i)-(ii) would set forth additional
requirements for how a resting order with an MTS Modifier would trade.
Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(E)(i) would provide that if an Aggressing
Order to sell (buy) does not meet the MTS of the resting order to buy
(sell) with an MTS Modifier, that Aggressing Order would not trade with
and may trade through such order with an MTS Modifier. This proposed
rule text is based on the fifth sentence of current Rule 7.31-
E(d)(3)(D) and the second sentence of current Rule 7.31-E(d)(4)(C) with
non-substantive differences to use common terminology when applying
this requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS
Modifier. Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(E)(i) is based on NYSE American
Rule 7.31E(i)(3)(E)(i) with a non-substantive difference to use the
term ``Aggressing Order.''
    Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(E)(ii) would provide that if a resting
non-displayed sell (buy) order did not meet the MTS of a same-priced
resting order

to buy (sell) with an MTS Modifier, a subsequently arriving sell (buy)
order that meets the MTS would trade ahead of such resting non-
displayed sell (buy) order at that price. This proposed rule text is
based in part on the second sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(4)(C) with non-
substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this
requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
This proposed rule text is also based in part on NYSE American Rule
7.31E(i)(3)(E)(ii).
    However, the Exchange proposes a difference from current text and
the NYSE American Rule to add that the subsequently arriving order
could trade ahead of a resting non-displayed order at that price, e.g.,
at the internal locking price. This proposed behavior is consistent
with the proposed amendment to MPL-ALO Orders, described above in
proposed Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E)(ii). In addition, as discussed above,
pursuant to proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(C)(i), if an order with an MTS
Modifier is locked by a displayed order, the resting order with an MTS
Modifier would not be eligible to trade at that price. In such case,
the subsequently arriving order would not trade with the order with an
MTS Modifier.
    Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(F) would provide that a resting order
with an MTS Modifier would be cancelled if it is traded in part or
reduced in size and the remaining quantity is less than such order's
MTS. This proposed rule text is based on the last sentence of Rule
7.31-E(d)(3)(D) and the last sentence of Rule 7.31-E(d)(4)(C) with non-
substantive differences to use common terminology when applying this
requirement to all of the order types eligible for an MTS Modifier.
Proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3)(F) is based on NYSE American Rule
7.31E(i)(3)(F) without any differences
    Because of the technology changes associated with these proposed
rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date of this
proposed rule change by Trader Update. The Exchange anticipates that
the implementation date will be in the first quarter of 2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\19\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\20\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Aggressing
Order'' in Rule 7.36-E would remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest because it would
provide for a definition in Exchange rules that describes orders that
are or become marketable. The Exchange believes that the proposed
definition would promote transparency in Exchange rules by providing
detail regarding circumstances when a resting order may become
marketable, and thus would be an Aggressing Order. The Exchange further
believes that use of such definition would promote clarity in Exchange
rules, particularly in the context of the amendments to MPL Orders and
orders with an MTS Modifier.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 7.31-
E(d)(3)(C) and (E) to use the term ``Aggressing Order'' and to describe
the prices at which an Aggressing MPL Order would trade would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because it would promote clarity and transparency in
Exchange rules regarding the behavior of marketable MPL and MPL-ALO
Orders. In particular, the rule would provide greater specificity
regarding how a resting MPL Order that becomes an Aggressing Order
would trade.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 7.31-
E(d)(3)(E) regarding when a resting MPL-ALO Order that locks contra-
side, same-priced orders would be eligible to trade would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because it would describe circumstances when a
subsequently arriving order could trade with the MPL-ALO Order. The
proposed rule change would protect displayed orders by not allowing a
subsequently arriving order to trade ahead of a same-priced, same-side
displayed order.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to describe the
existing MTS Modifier in proposed Rule 7.31-E(i)(3) would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because it would promote transparency in Exchange rules
because MTS Modifiers for different order types operate in the same
manner. The Exchange believes that by consolidating such references in
a single location in Rule 7.31-E, the rule will be easier for members,
the Commission, and the public to navigate.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposal regarding when a
resting order with an MTS Modifier would be eligible to trade would
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest, because the proposed rule change would ensure
that there would not be an execution of a resting order with an MTS
Modifier that either would be inconsistent with intra-market price
priority or would result in a non-displayed order trading ahead of a
same-side, same-priced displayed order. This proposed rule change would
therefore promote just and equitable principles of trade by ensuring
that displayed interest does not get traded through by a non-displayed
order.

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 Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive
issues, but rather to add further clarity to Exchange rules by defining
the term ``Aggressing Order,'' using that term in connection with MPL
Orders, and consolidating references to MTS Modifiers in a single
location in Exchange rules. In addition, the rule is designed to ensure
that resting orders with trading restrictions, such as MPL-ALO Orders
and resting orders with an MTS Modifier, would not trade through
displayed orders or violate intra-market price priority.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \21\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 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 the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NYSEArca-2018-01 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-NYSEArca-2018-01. 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-NYSEArca-2018-01 and should be submitted
on or before February 12, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00975 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60769-60773]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25681]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0597; FRL-9986-49-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; AK: Fine Particulate Matter Infrastructure
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Whenever the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates
a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the
Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state to make a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submission establishing that the SIP provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised
NAAQS, commonly referred to as infrastructure requirements. The EPA is
approving the Alaska SIP as meeting specific infrastructure
requirements for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective December 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0597. 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 the disclosure
of which 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 at https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Response to Comments
    A. Summary of Comments
    B. EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background Information

    On March 10, 2016, Alaska submitted a SIP submission to address the
infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, in
addition to outstanding 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure elements not included in prior submissions. On January
23, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve the Alaska infrastructure SIP
submission as meeting the following CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We
also proposed to approve Alaska's March 2016 infrastructure SIP
submission as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for
the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (83 FR 3101). The
public comment period for our proposed action ended on February 22,
2018.

II. Response to Comments

A. Summary of Comments

    We received 13 adverse comments, all of which appear to be from
citizens living in North Pole, Alaska, part of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough (FNSB) nonattainment area.\1\ Commenters expressed concerns
about the local burn curtailment program and how FNSB implemented the
program in the nonattainment area this past winter. The program was
developed by FNSB, submitted to the EPA by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC), and approved by the EPA into the
Alaska SIP on September 8, 2017, as part of the FNSB Moderate 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment plan (82 FR 42457).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR 81.302. A portion of the FNSB is designated
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
entire state of Alaska is designated unclassifiable/attainment for
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of these commenters did not provide details about how their
concerns warrant approval or disapproval of specific infrastructure SIP
elements. The EPA does not consider comments on the advisability of
FNSB control measures in the existing SIP to be within the scope of
issues subject to public comment in this infrastructure SIP action. The
provisions in question were previously approved into the SIP as part of
the FNSB

Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment plan, and we
are not in this action (which approves the Alaska SIP as meeting
specific infrastructure requirements for the 1997, 2006, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS) revisiting our prior decision. Likewise,
comments on potential future control measures that have not been
submitted to the EPA for SIP approval are outside the scope of this
action.
    One commenter did include detailed information supporting their
assertion that the EPA should not approve certain infrastructure SIP
elements in this action, and we have responded to the commenter's
assertions below.

B. EPA Responses

1. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits
    One commenter stated that CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to
include enforceable emission limits, but the ``FNSB has set a standard
for home wood burning devices that is much more strict than the EPA
requires.'' The commenter included a link to the ADEC web page
comparing the EPA's 2015 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for
Residential Wood Heaters to Alaska regulations addressing solid fuel-
fired heating device emission standards, specifically, regulations set
forth in Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) at 18 AAC 50.077 and 18 AAC
50.079.\2\ The commenter alleged that the Alaska standards are more
stringent than the EPA's NSPS and concluded that the Alaska standards
are, therefore, an unenforceable emission limit under CAA section
110(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ http://burnwise.alaska.gov/standards.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA disagrees with this comment for a number of reasons. First,
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including
economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of
emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance,
as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements
of the CAA. In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission for a
new or revised NAAQS, however, the EPA is not evaluating the
substantive merit of existing control measures in the SIP, unlike the
evaluation of such measures in a nonattainment plan SIP submission. For
an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA interprets section
110(a)(2)(A) to require states to make a submission that identifies the
existing measures in their SIPs that are relevant to the NAAQS at
issue, as the first step in their planning for implementation of a new
or revised NAAQS.\3\ These infrastructure SIP submissions should
identify enforceable control measures as part of the demonstration that
the State has the available tools and authority to develop and
implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See August 14, 2015, final rule approving Indiana and Ohio
infrastructure SIPs (80 FR 48733 at pages 48737-48738).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's longstanding position is that infrastructure SIPs are
statewide planning SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce a NAAQS in
general, and are not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for an
individual area of a state.\4\ Infrastructure SIPs are due within three
years of adoption or revision of a particular NAAQS, according to CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The separate nonattainment plan SIP
submissions to address the emission limits and other control measures
needed to attain a particular NAAQS in an area designated nonattainment
are due on a separate schedule, pursuant to CAA section 172 and the
various pollutant-specific subparts 2 through 5 of part D.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See detailed discussion of the scope of infrastructure SIP
actions in the July 20, 2016, proposed rule on the Alaska SIP with
respect to infrastructure requirements (81 FR 47103, at page 47104).
    \5\ See 2013 infrastructure guidance: Stephen D. Page, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air
Division Directors, Regions 1-10, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the EPA disagrees because the comment is not germane to
this action on the State's infrastructure SIP submission. The
commenter's assertions focus on control measures already established by
the State in 18 AAC 50.077 and 18 AAC 50.079 to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the FNSB nonattainment area. On September 8,
2017, the EPA approved 18 AAC 50.077 as an appropriate control measure
for the area and we are not revisiting our prior decision.\6\ The EPA
already addressed the substance and validity of the control measures,
and the need for such measures to help reach attainment of the NAAQS in
the FNSB area in that prior action. We note that the standards in 18
AAC 50.079 have not been submitted by Alaska to the EPA and are
therefore outside the scope of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See September 8, 2017, final rule (82 FR 42457) and February
2, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 9035 at pages 9045-9046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the EPA does not agree that it is appropriate to compare the
stringency of an NSPS with the stringency of other forms of control
measures that may be necessary for a given source category. The NSPS
for woodstoves focuses on emission reductions achievable through
redesign of new woodstoves to reduce emissions. By contrast, potential
SIP control measures can, and may be required to, achieve emission
reductions by other means such as requirements to burn dry wood,
opacity standards, curtailment programs, or other mechanism to reduce
emissions from both new and existing sources, perhaps over and above
what may result from the NSPS alone. The commenter incorrectly presumes
that an NSPS is necessarily the proper point of comparison for the
validity of SIP provisions to address emissions from woodstoves.
    Fourth, the EPA disagrees with the premise that states cannot
regulate a source category more stringently than may be required in a
Federal regulation. In enacting section 110 of the CAA, Congress gave
states the lead in developing plans to implement, maintain, and enforce
the NAAQS. The EPA's role is to review and approve state choices if
they meet the minimum criteria of the CAA. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k) and 40
CFR 52.02(a). There is nothing in the CAA that prevents SIP provisions
from being more stringent than Federal NSPS standards. To the contrary,
CAA section 116 explicitly authorizes states to regulate sources more
stringently than the EPA does through Federal regulations. More
importantly, states have the obligation to regulate sources as
necessary to meet nonattainment area plan stringency requirements, such
as reasonably- and best available control measures, and the obligation
to regulate sources as necessary to attain the NAAQS in a given
nonattainment area. Thus, the fact that 18 AAC 50.077 may be more
stringent than the NSPS for home heating devices does not make it
unenforceable.
    Finally, we note that Alaska's infrastructure SIP submission
established that the State has a program for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS that
covers a range of relevant sources of emissions. As discussed in the
proposed action, Alaska regulates emissions of PM2.5 and its
precursors through the SIP-approved major and minor new source review
(NSR) permitting programs, most recently updated on August 28, 2017 (82
FR 40712). In addition to permitting requirements, Alaska's SIP
contains other rules that limit particulate matter emissions. These
rules include incinerator emission standards,

emission limits for specific industrial processes and fuel burning
equipment, open burning restrictions, visible emission limits on marine
vessel emissions, and requirements for installing and operating solid
fuel-fired devices.
    We continue to find that the Alaska infrastructure SIP submission
meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for purposes of the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and we are finalizing our proposed
approval. To the extent that additional control measures are necessary
to meet other requirements, such as control measures necessary to reach
attainment of the NAAQS in the FNSB nonattainment area in a
nonattainment plan SIP submission, Alaska and the EPA will address that
in subsequent actions.
2. CAA Sections 110(a)(2)(B) and (K)--Monitoring and Modeling
    The commenter asserted that the regulatory monitor at Hurst Road in
North Pole, Alaska ``routinely records the highest levels of
PM2.5 seen in the nation, while devices nearby record normal
levels of PM2.5.'' The commenter concluded that ``the FNSB
is using faulty air quality parameters'' that are being used to dictate
the strategy for the nonattainment area and that the State has failed
to meet CAA sections 110(a)(2)(B) and (K).
    The EPA disagrees that the relative levels of ambient
PM2.5 at monitors in the FNSB affects the approvability of
the infrastructure SIP submission. In the context of an infrastructure
SIP submission, the EPA interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) to require
states to have SIP provisions to provide for the establishment and
operation of ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing
ambient air quality data, and making these data available to the EPA
upon request. In our proposed action, we stated that Alaska has a
comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, originally approved by the
EPA into the Alaska SIP on April 15, 1981 (46 FR 21994). We also
determined that the plan includes statutory and regulatory authority to
establish and operate an air quality monitoring network, including
PM2.5 monitoring (January 23, 2018; 83 FR 3101, at page
3103). In practice, Alaska operates a comprehensive PM2.5
monitoring network, compiles and analyzes collected data, and submits
the data to the EPA's Air Quality System on a quarterly basis.
    With respect to monitor siting, Alaska regularly assesses the
adequacy of the State monitoring network and submits that assessment to
the EPA for review. The most recent Alaska network assessment is
available at http://dec.alaska.gov/air/air-monitoring/network-assessments. The fact that a single monitor records ambient
PM2.5 values higher than monitors in surrounding areas does
not establish that the monitoring data is inaccurate. The EPA's network
design criteria are found in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. The fine
particulate matter design criteria for state and local air monitors, at
paragraph 4.7 of the Appendix, directs states to appropriately monitor
the area of maximum concentration. We continue to find that Alaska has
met the infrastructure SIP monitoring requirement of CAA section
110(a)(2)(B) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and we are finalizing
our proposed approval with respect to this requirement.
    In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA
interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) to require that SIPs provide for
the performance of air quality modeling as may be prescribed by the
EPA, and the submission of that modeling data by states to the EPA as
required or upon request. In our proposed action, we stated that
Alaska's SIP meets the infrastructure SIP requirements for modeling
because, as stated in the submission, Alaska incorporates the EPA's
Guideline on Air Quality Models into the SIP at 18 AAC 50.040 and
requires its use based on 18 AAC 50.215 Ambient Air Quality Analysis
Methods.
    Beyond alleging that ``the FNSB is using faulty air quality
parameters,'' the commenter did not specify why they felt the Alaska
SIP failed to meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. We continue to find that the Alaska SIP
provides the necessary authority to perform required air quality
modeling and to submit that data to the EPA.\7\ Therefore, we are
finalizing our proposed approval of the infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 2013 infrastructure guidance at page 55: Stephen D.
Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).''
Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, September
13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)--Enforcement
    The commenter alleged that the FNSB cannot enforce wood burning
curtailment as a practical matter and pointed to public statements that
the FNSB has found ``very low compliance'' but has issued ``only one
citation.'' The commenter concluded that the program is unenforceable
and that the State has failed to meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
respect to enforcement.
    In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA
interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to require, among other things, a
program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures. As stated in the
infrastructure SIP submission, Alaska statute provides ADEC authority
to enforce air quality regulations, permits, and orders promulgated
pursuant to AS 46.03 and AS 46.14. ADEC staffs and maintains an
enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP requirements. ADEC
has emergency order authority when there is an imminent or present
danger to health or welfare or potential for irreversible or
irreparable damage to natural resources or the environment. Enforcement
cases may be referred to the State Department of Law. Therefore, we
proposed to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) related to enforcement for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The commenter asserted that the FNSB burn curtailment program is
unenforceable and that the EPA should therefore disapprove the
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).
The EPA disagrees that the amount or type of enforcement of a SIP
provision necessarily affects the approvability of an infrastructure
SIP submission. In the context of evaluating an infrastructure SIP
submission, the EPA is focused upon the facial sufficiency of the
State's SIP and does not evaluate issues related to the State's
implementation of the SIP. The EPA has other authority to take action,
in the event the State is actually failing to implement its SIP, such
as the issuance of a finding of failure to implement or a SIP call. In
this instance, the comment also relates to the State's exercise of
enforcement discretion, rather than to the facial sufficiency of the
State's SIP with respect to enforcement authority.
    As stated in our proposal, the SIP contains the required statutory
authority to enforce air quality regulations, permits, and orders.\8\
We continue to find that the Alaska SIP meets the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS and we are finalizing our proposed approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ January 23, 2018; 83 FR 3101, pages 3103-3104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. CAA section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Episodes
    The commenter stated that ``the emergency episode plan for FNSB is
not sustainable'' and specifically referred to a voter initiative to
remove wood

burning from FNSB regulatory oversight. The commenter also alleged that
the FNSB is using the SIP emergency episode plan ``as a surrogate for
its own desires to limit wood burning.'' The commenter therefore argued
that the State has failed to meet 110(a)(2)(G) infrastructure
requirements.
    In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA
interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) to require two things: (1) States
must have general emergency authority to address activities causing
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, and (2) if the
area has high ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the past, a
contingency plan in their SIPs to achieve emission reductions in the
event of an emergency episode.
    In the March 10, 2016, infrastructure submission, with respect to
general emergency authority, Alaska cited to Alaska Statute (AS)
46.03.820 Emergency powers, which provides ADEC with emergency order
authority where there is an imminent or present danger to the health or
welfare of the people of the state or would result in or be likely to
result in irreversible or irreparable damage to the natural resources
or environment. In addition, with respect to a contingency plan to
achieve emission reductions in the event of an emergency episode,
Alaska referenced State-wide emergency episode rules at 18 AAC 50.246
Air Quality Episodes and Advisories for PM2.5. These rules
authorize ADEC to declare an air alert, air warning, or air advisory to
notify the public and prescribe and publicize curtailment action,
including imposition of restrictions on open burning under 18 AAC
50.065 and limits on visible emissions from solid fuel-fired heating
devices under 18 AAC 50.075. The submission also noted that the FNSB
developed a local emergency episode plan for PM2.5
applicable in the FNSB area, and the State adopted the plan into the
Alaska SIP at 18 AAC 50.030.
    On January 23, 2018, the EPA proposed to find that AS 46.03.820
Emergency powers provides emergency order authority comparable to CAA
section 303.\9\ We also proposed to find that Alaska's State-wide
emergency episode rules are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 51 subpart H for PM2.5 (prevention of air pollution
emergency episodes, sections 51.150 through 51.153).\10\ These State-
wide, SIP-approved regulations and statute continue to meet the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) emergency episode infrastructure requirements.
Therefore, we are finalizing our proposed approval of the Alaska SIP as
meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997, 2006, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ January 23, 2018; 83 FR 3101, page 3106.
    \10\ 18 AAC 50.246 Air Quality Episodes and Advisories for
PM2.5, in conjunction with 18 AAC 50.065 Open Burning and
18 AAC 50.075 Solid Fuel-Fired Device Visible Emission Standards,
most recently approved by the EPA on September 8, 2017 (82 FR
40712).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    We are approving the Alaska SIP as meeting the following CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M). We are also approving the Alaska SIP as meeting CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 the 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 the 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 it 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. The 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 January 28, 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 2, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 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 C--Alaska

0
2. In Sec.  52.70, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by:
0
a. Revising entry III.II.D.; and
0
b. Adding entries ``Infrastructure Requirements--2012 PM2.5
NAAQS'' and ``Infrastructure Requirements--1997, 2006, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS'' after entry ``Interstate Transport
Requirements--2010 SO2 NAAQS''.
    The revision and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.70  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Alaska Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable           State
      Name of SIP provision         geographic or non-     submittal     EPA approval  date      Explanations
                                     attainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        State of Alaska Air Quality Control Plan: Volume III. Appendices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Section II State Air Quality Control Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
III.II.D. CAA Section 110          Statewide..........       3/10/2016  11/27/2018, [Insert
 Infrastructure Certification                                            Federal Register
 Documentation and Supporting                                            citation].
 Documents.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure Requirements--2012  Statewide..........       3/10/2016  11/27/2018, [Insert  Approves SIP for
 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                            Federal Register     purposes of CAA
                                                                         citation].           sections
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M) for
                                                                                the 2012 PM2.5
                                                                                NAAQS.
Infrastructure Requirements--      Statewide..........       3/10/2016  11/27/2018, [Insert  Approves SIP for
 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                       Federal Register     purposes of CAA
                                                                         citation].           sections
                                                                                110(a)(2)(G) for
                                                                                the 1997, 2006,
                                                                                and 2012 PM2.5
                                                                                NAAQS.

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

[FR Doc. 2018-25681 Filed 11-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43384-43385]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19610]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-P-1108]

Determination That TIMOPTIC (Timolol Maleate Ophthalmic
Solution), 0.25 Percent and 0.5 Percent, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale
for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has
determined that TIMOPTIC (timolol maleate ophthalmic solution), 0.25
percent and 0.5 percent, was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not
begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and it will allow
FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the product as long as
they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Fastenau, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-4510.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants
must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are
seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same
strength and dosage form as the listed drug, which is a version of the
drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the Orange Book.
Under FDA regulations, a drug is removed from the list if the Agency
withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of
safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR
314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed
drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that
does not refer to a listed drug.
    TIMOPTIC (timolol maleate ophthalmic solution), 0.25 percent and
0.5 percent, is the subject of NDA 018086, held by Aton Pharma, Inc.
and initially approved on August 17, 1978. TIMOPTIC is indicated for
the treatment of elevated intraocular pressure in patients with ocular
hypertension or open-angle glaucoma.
    TIMOPTIC (timolol maleate ophthalmic solution), 0.25 percent and
0.5 percent, is currently listed in the ``Discontinued Drug Product
List'' section of the Orange Book. Orbicular Pharmaceutical
Technologies, Pvt. Ltd., submitted a citizen petition dated February
22, 2017 (Docket No. FDA-2017-P-1108), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting
that the Agency determine whether TIMOPTIC (timolol maleate ophthalmic
solution), 0.25 percent and 0.5 percent, was withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that TIMOPTIC (timolol maleate ophthalmic
solution), 0.25 percent and 0.5 percent, was not withdrawn for reasons
of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or
other information suggesting that this drug product was

withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully
reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of TIMOPTIC
(timolol maleate ophthalmic solution), 0.25 percent and 0.5 percent,
from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and
data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no
information that would indicate that this drug product was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list TIMOPTIC (timolol
maleate ophthalmic solution), 0.25 percent and 0.5 percent, in the
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book. The
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' delineates, among other items, drug
products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other
than safety or effectiveness. FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw
approval of approved ANDAs that refer to this drug product. Additional
ANDAs for this drug product may also be approved by the Agency as long
as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the
approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug
product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will
advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: September 11, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-19610 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P