[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29938]
[FR Doc No: E9-14817]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1229; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-26]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Natchitoches, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects the legal description of the Natchitoches
Regional Airport, Natchitoches, LA, Class E airspace published in the
Federal Register, changing the term ``northeast of the airport'' to
``south of the airport''. All other legal descriptions for the
Natchitoches Regional Airport remain the same.

DATES: 0901 UTC, July 2, 2009. The Director of the Federal Register
approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone (817)
321-7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 16, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend Class E airspace at Natchitoches
Regional Airport, Natchitoches, LA (74 FR 2909). On April 15, 2009, the
FAA published in the Federal Register a final rule amending Class E
airspace at Natchitoches, LA (74 FR 17389), Docket No. FAA-2008-1229.
Subsequent to publication, the FAA found that the term ``northeast''
was incorrectly used.

Final Rule, Correction

    In Federal Register document (FR doc. E9-8574) published on April
15, 2009 (74 FR 17389), page 17390, column 2, under the title ``ASW LA
E5 Natchitoches, LA [Amended]'', in the 8th line, change the word
``northeast'' to read ``south.''

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on June 16, 2009.
Roger M. Trevino,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-14817 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2157-2160]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00524]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74022; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding
the Extranet Access Fee

January 9, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 5, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to add new Section XIII (Extranet Access Fee)
to the NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule (``Pricing Schedule''),
which includes description about the applicability of the Extranet
Access Fee. This will conform the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to that
of other markets.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to add new Section XIII (Extranet
Access Fee) to the Pricing Schedule, which includes description about
the applicability of the Extranet Access Fee. This will conform the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule to that of other markets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''), and The NASDAQ
Stock Market (``LLC'') are self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'')
that are wholly owned subsidiaries of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.
(``NASDAQ OMX''). The Exchange, NOM (a facility of the Exchange
[sic]), BX, BX Options (a facility of BX), and PSX (a facility of
Phlx) (together with the Exchange known as the ``NASDAQ Markets''),
are independently filing proposals to conform their respective
Extranet Access Fee rules to NASDAQ Rule 7025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish the Extranet
Access Fee in proposed new Section XIII of the Pricing Schedule and
indicate that certain non-Exchange Customer Premises Equipment
(``CPE'') Products shall be assessed a monthly access fee of $1,000 per
CPE.\4\ The Exchange also proposes to conform the Extranet Access Fee
to that of another market, specifically NASDAQ Rule 7025, by also
indicating that if an extranet provider uses

multiple CPE Configurations \5\ to provide market data feeds to any
recipient the monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE Configuration;
and that no Extranet Access Fee will be charged for connectivity to
market data feeds containing only consolidated data. This proposal
establishes the Extranet Access Fee in proposed new Section XIII of the
Pricing Schedule that is exactly like the equivalent fee in NASDAQ Rule
7025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Proposed Section XIII is listed in the Table of Contents
(Preface).
    \5\ As defined in proposed Section XIII of the Pricing Schedule,
a ``Customer Premises Equipment Configuration'' means any line,
circuit, router package, or other technical configuration used by an
extranet provider to provide a direct access connection to Phlx
market data feeds to a recipient's site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Extranet Access Fee was introduced a decade ago on NASDAQ Rule
7025 as an equity fee.\6\ The Extranet Access Fee was introduced about
a year ago on PSX, a facility of the Exchange, in Section VIII of the
Pricing Schedule.\7\ By this proposal, the Exchange not only introduces
the Extranet Access Fee on Phlx but also normalizes its cost and
structure to that of the equivalent decade-old NASDAQ fee.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50483 (October 1,
2004), 69 FR 60448 (October 8, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-118)
(establishing the Extranet Access Fee on NASDAQ); and 71199
(December 30, 2013), 79 FR 686 (January 6, 2014) (SR-NASD [sic]-
2013-159) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness increasing
the Extranet Access Fee to $1,000).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71236 (January 6,
2014), 79 FR 1906 (January 10, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-01) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness establishing the Extranet Access
Fee on PSX, and describing that no fee is charged at the time of the
filing). The Extranet Access Fee was also established on BX. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59615 (March 20, 2009), 74 FR
14604 (March 31, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-005) (establishing the Extranet
Access Fee on BX); and 71841 (April 1, 2014), 79 FR 19129 (April 7,
2014) (SR-BX-2014-015) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
and describing that the Extranet Access Fee is $750).
    \8\ As noted, Phlx and other NASDAQ Markets are independently
filing proposals to conform their respective Extranet Access Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Section XIII of the Pricing Schedule indicates the same
fee as NASDAQ Rule 7025, namely $1,000 per CPE Configuration, and adds
verbatim language from NASDAQ Rule 7025 that explains the application
of the fee.\9\ As proposed, Section XIII of the Pricing Schedule will
read as follows: ``Extranet providers that establish a connection with
Phlx to offer direct access connectivity to market data feeds shall be
assessed a monthly access fee of $1,000 per recipient Customer Premises
Equipment (``CPE'') Configuration. If an extranet provider uses
multiple CPE Configurations to provide market data feeds to any
recipient, the monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE Configuration.
For purposes of this Section XIII, the term ``Customer Premises
Equipment Configuration'' shall mean any line, circuit, router package,
or other technical configuration used by an extranet provider to
provide a direct access connection to Phlx market data feeds to a
recipient's site. No extranet access fee will be charged for
connectivity to market data feeds containing only consolidated data.
Extranet providers that establish a connection with Phlx pursuant to
this Section XIII of the Pricing Schedule as well as a connection with
PSX pursuant to Section VIII of the Pricing Schedule shall be assessed
a total monthly access fee of $1,000 per recipient CPE Configuration.''
The proposal conforms Section XIII of the Pricing Schedule to NASDAQ
Rule 7025, and makes them substantively identical.\10\ The proposal
also makes it clear that if an extranet provider establishes an
Extranet connection on PSX as well as on Phlx, the extranet provider
will not need to pay a double $1,000 monthly access fee per CPE, but
rather only one total monthly access fee of $1,000 per CPE. In
addition, as discussed, there is an equity market and an options market
under the Phlx SRO license. This proposal currently applies the
Extranet Access Fee located in Section VIII of the Pricing Schedule to
members transacting an equity business (PSX) and would also apply to
members transacting an options business as proposed in Section XIII of
the Pricing Schedule, conforming these rules with NASDAQ Rule 7025.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ However, the proposed Section XIII language does not,
because it deals with options, indicate that consolidated data
includes data disseminated by the UTP SIP (as noted in NASDAQ Rule
7025).
    \10\ The Exchange notes that while Section XIII of the Pricing
Schedule and NASDAQ Rule 7025 each contain some language particular
to the relevant exchange, with this proposal the language of the two
rules is substantively identical. The Exchange notes that the
statement that Extranet providers shall be assessed a total monthly
access fee of $1,000 per recipient CPE Configuration is not in
NASDAQ Rule 7025.
    \11\ The Exchange is filing to assess the $1,000 Extranet Access
Fee on PSX, which is currently free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Extranet Access Fee will, as on NASDAQ, be used to
help recoup the Exchange's costs associated with maintaining multiple
extranet connections with multiple providers. These costs include those
associated with overhead and technology infrastructure, administrative,
maintenance and operational costs. Since the inception of Extranet
Access there have been numerous network infrastructure improvements and
administrative controls enacted. Additionally, the Exchange has
implemented automated retransmission facilities for most of its data
clients that benefit extranet clients by reducing operational costs
associated with retransmissions. Also, the Exchange is currently
undergoing a technology refresh of the its options trading system,
which will deploy state-of-the-art hardware and software architecture
to achieve a more efficient and more robust infrastructure in support
of the growing needs of our customers.
    As the number of extranets has increased, the management of the
downstream customers has expanded and the Exchange has had to ensure
appropriate reporting and review processes, which has resulted in a
greater cost burden on the Exchange over time. The proposed fee will
also help to ensure that the Exchange is better able to closely review
reports and uncover reporting errors via audits thus minimizing
reporting issues.\12\ The network infrastructure has increased in order
to keep pace with the increased number of products, which, in turn, has
caused an increased administrative burden and higher operational costs
associated with delivery via extranets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange will inform extranet providers of their
reporting responsibilities via its public Web site. This will
include, as an example, reporting CPE usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, subsequent to the proposal extranet providers that establish
a connection with the Exchange to offer direct access connectivity to
market data feeds shall be assessed a monthly access fee of $1,000 per
CPE Configuration. If, as discussed below, an extranet provider uses
multiple CPE Configurations to provide market data feeds to any
recipient, the monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE Configuration.
    The Exchange proposes two new descriptions to conform the language
of Section XIII of the Pricing Schedule to that of NASDAQ Rule 7025.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to indicate that if an extranet
provider uses multiple CPE Configurations to provide market data feeds
to any recipient, the monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE
Configuration; and that no extranet access fee will be charged for
connectivity to market data feeds containing only consolidated data.
These proposed descriptions should serve to reduce any confusion as to
the applicability of the Extranet Access Fee. Moreover, the
descriptions would make the Exchange's Extranet Access Fee in Section
XIII work the same as the equivalent fee in NASDAQ Rule 7025, and
complete the effort to conform the two rules.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(4)
of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to add the Extranet Access
Fee in Section XIII of the Pricing Schedule, and to describe the
applicability of the Extranet Access Fee and thereby conform the fee
with the equivalent fee on NASDAQ, is consistent with the Act.
    All similarly situated extranet providers, including the Exchange
operating its own extranet, that establish an extranet connection with
the Exchange to access market data feeds from the Exchange are subject
to the same fee structure.\15\ The fee will help the Exchange to offset
some of the rising overhead and technology infrastructure,
administrative, maintenance and operational costs it incurs in support
of the service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, NASDAQ Technology Services, a subsidiary of
the NASDAQ, pays the applicable fee(s) to the Exchange for services
covered under the Extranet Access Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If such costs are covered, the service may provide the Exchange
with a profit. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee is
reasonable and notes that this proposal conforms similarly-situated
Extranet Access Fee rules on Phlx options, PSX equities, and NASDAQ.
The extranet costs are separate and different from the colocation
facility that is able to recoup these fees by charging for servers
within the associated data centers. Additionally, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change is equitable and not unreasonably
discriminatory. The monthly fee is assessed uniformly to all extranet
providers that establish a connection with the Exchange to offer direct
access connectivity to market data feeds, and is the same for all at
$1,000 per recipient CPE Configuration. Thus, any burden arising from
the fees is necessary in the interest of promoting the equitable
allocation of a reasonable fee. Moreover, firms make decisions on how
much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total cost
of interacting with the Exchange or other markets and, of course, the
Extranet Access Fee is but one factor in a total platform analysis.
    Additionally, proposed Section XIII of the Pricing Schedule
contains description stating that if an extranet provider uses multiple
CPE Configurations to provide market data feeds to any recipient, the
monthly fee shall apply to each such CPE Configuration; and that no
Extranet Access Fee will be charged for connectivity to market data
feeds containing only consolidated data. This description should serve
to reduce any confusion as to the applicability of this fee.
    The proposal provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other
persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or
controls, and is consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
    The proposed fees are applied uniformly among extranet providers,
which are not compelled to establish a connection with the Exchange to
offer access connectivity to market data feeds. For these reasons, any
burden arising from the fees is necessary in the interest of promoting
the equitable allocation of a reasonable fee. Additionally, firms make
decisions on how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of
the total cost of interacting with the Exchange or other exchanges and,
of course, the Extranet Access Fee is but one factor in a total
platform analysis.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange
has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2015-04 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-Phlx-2015-04. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make

available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2015-04, and should be submitted on or before February 5, 2015.

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

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

[FR Doc. 2015-00524 Filed 1-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40600-40602]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16784]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30790; Amdt. No. 3432 ]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: This establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective July 11, 2011. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City,
OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated

by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51,
and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3,
8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on
8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore---(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866;(2) is not a ``significant rule '' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2011.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 28 JUL 2011

Andalusia/Opp, AL, South Alabama Rgnl at Bill Benton Field, NDB-A,
Amdt 4
Burbank, CA, Bob Hope, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Napa, CA, Napa County, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 36L, Amdt 2
Napa, CA, Napa County, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 36L, Amdt 1
Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig
Monticello, IA, Monticello Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1
Monticello, IA, Monticello Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1
Dexter, ME, Dexter Rgnl, GPS RWY 34, Orig, CANCELLED
Dexter, ME, Dexter Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig
Dexter, ME, Dexter Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig
Corinth, MS, Roscoe Turner, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Harvey, ND, Harvey Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-A
Eastland, TX, Eastland Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-A
Houston, TX, Lone Star Executive, ILS OR LOC RWY 14, Amdt 2C

Effective 25 AUG 2011

Northway, AK, Northway, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1
Wrangell, AK, Wrangell, LEVEL ISLAND ONE Graphic DP
Wrangell, AK, Wrangell, Takeoff Minimums & Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Little Rock, AR, Adams Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1A
Hawthorne, CA, Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY
25, Orig
La Verne, CA, Brackett Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26L, Orig
Placerville, CA, Placerville, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Executive, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 24
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Mather, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L, Amdt 2
Visalia, CA, Visalia Muni, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 30, Amdt 7
Visalia, CA, Visalia Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1
Visalia, CA, Visalia Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1
Lake Wales, FL, Lake Wales Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig
Lake Wales, FL, Lake Wales Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig
Lake Wales, FL, Lake Wales Muni, VOR/DME-B, Amdt 3
Davenport, IA, Davenport Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1A
Boise, ID, Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Fld, NDB RWY 10R, Amdt 28A
Burley, ID, Burley Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig-A
Burley, ID, Burley Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 4B
Burley, ID, Burley Muni, VOR/DME-B, Amdt 4B
Chicago/Aurora, IL, Aurora Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1B
Gary, IN, Gary/Chicago Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 12, Orig-A
Gary, IN, Gary/Chicago Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 30, Orig-B
Goshen, IN, Goshen Muni, GPS RWY 9, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Goshen, IN, Goshen Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig
Campbellsville, KY, Taylor County, GPS RWY 5, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Campbellsville, KY, Taylor County, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 4
Campbellsville, KY, Taylor County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Campbellsville, KY, Taylor County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig
Campbellsville, KY, Taylor County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig

Campbellsville, KY, Taylor County, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 6
Springfield, KY, Lebanon-Springfield, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig
Springfield, KY, Lebanon-Springfield, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig
Abbeville, LA, Abbeville Chris Crusta Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16,
Amdt 1
Abbeville, LA, Abbeville Chris Crusta Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34,
Amdt 1
Abbeville, LA, Abbeville Chris Crusta Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Orig
De Ridder, LA, Beauregard Rgnl, RADAR 1, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Beverly, MA, Beverly Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1
Oakland, MD, Garrett County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1
Oakland, MD, Garrett County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1
Owosso, MI, Owosso Community, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1A
Owosso, MI, Owosso Community, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1A
Owosso, MI, Owosso Community, VOR/DME RWY 29, Amdt 1A
Sault Ste Marie, MI, Sault Ste Marie Muni/Sanderson Field, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 14, Orig
Sault Ste Marie, MI, Sault Ste Marie Muni/Sanderson Field, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 32, Orig
Sault Ste Marie, MI, Sault Ste Marie Muni/Sanderson Field, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Sault Ste Marie, MI, Sault Ste Marie Muni/Sanderson Field, VOR RWY
32, Amdt 3
Hibbing, MN, Range Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1
Hibbing, MN, Range Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Maple Lake, MN, Maple Lake Muni, GPS RWY 28, Orig, CANCELLED
Maple Lake, MN, Maple Lake Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig
Orr, MN, Orr Rgnl, GPS RWY 13, Orig, CANCELLED
Orr, MN, Orr Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig
Ortonville, MN, Ortonville Muni-Martinson Field, GPS RWY 34, Orig,
CANCELLED
Ortonville, MN, Ortonville Muni-Martinson Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34,
Orig
Sauk Centre, MN, Sauk Centre Muni, GPS RWY 32, Orig, CANCELLED
Sauk Centre, MN, Sauk Centre Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig
Sauk Centre, MN, Sauk Centre Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
Neosho, MO, Neosho Hugh Robinson, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Shelby, MT, Shelby, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1
Plymouth, NC, Plymouth Muni, GPS RWY 3, Orig, CANCELLED
Plymouth, NC, Plymouth Muni, GPS RWY 21, Orig, CANCELLED
Plymouth, NC, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig
Plymouth, NC, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig
Battle Mountain, NV, Battle Mountain, VOR-A, Amdt 5
Las Vegas, NV, Henderson Executive, RNAV (GPS)-B, Amdt 1A
Shirley, NY, Brookhaven, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 2
Cincinnati, OH, Cincinnati-Blue Ash, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 1
Stigler, OK, Stigler Rgnl, GPS RWY 17, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Stigler, OK, Stigler Rgnl, GPS RWY 35, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Stigler, OK, Stigler Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Stigler, OK, Stigler Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Lancaster, PA, Lancaster, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig
Lancaster, PA, Lancaster, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 2
Lancaster, PA, Lancaster, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Aguadilla, PR, Rafael Hernandez, VOR/DME or TACAN RWY 8, Amdt 3
College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1
College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1
College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1
College Station, TX, Easterwood Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1
Crosbyton, TX, Crosbyton Muni, GPS RWY 35, Orig-B, CANCELLED
Crosbyton, TX, Crosbyton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Crosbyton, TX, Crosbyton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Houston, TX, David Wayne Hooks Memorial, LOC RWY 17R, Amdt 2
Lockhart, TX, Lockhart Muni, GPS RWY 18, Orig, CANCELLED
Lockhart, TX, Lockhart Muni, GPS RWY 36, Orig-C, CANCELLED
Lockhart, TX, Lockhart Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig
Lockhart, TX, Lockhart Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig
Lockhart, TX, Lockhart Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Midland, TX, Midland Airpark, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig
Delta, UT, Delta Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1
Delta, UT, Delta Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1
Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Rgnl/Woodrum Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 34, Amdt 13
Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Rgnl/Woodrum Field, LDA RWY 6, Amdt 10
Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Rgnl/Woodrum Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1
Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Rgnl/Woodrum Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1
Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Rgnl/Woodrum Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1
Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Rgnl/Woodrum Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 9
Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Rgnl/Woodrum Field, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 7
Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Rgnl/Woodrum Field, VOR/NDB RWY 34, Amdt 1
Arlington, WA, Arlington Muni, LOC RWY 34, Amdt 5
Arlington, WA, Arlington Muni, NDB RWY 34, Amdt 4
Arlington, WA, Arlington Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig
Arlington, WA, Arlington Muni, Takeoff Minimums & Obstacle DP, Amdt
3
Bellingham, WA, Bellingham Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16, Amdt 5B
La Crosse, WI, La Crosse Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1
Madison, WI, Dane County Rgnl-Truax Field, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 18,
Amdt 1
Madison, WI, Dane County Rgnl-Truax Field, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 36,
Amdt 1
Madison, WI, Dane County Rgnl-Truax Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2
Madison, WI, Dane County Rgnl-Truax Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2
Milwaukee, WI, Lawrence J Timmerman, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Orig
Milwaukee, WI, Lawrence J Timmerman, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22R, Orig-A
Beckley, WV, Raleigh County Memorial, ILS OR LOC RWY 19, Amdt 6
Beckley, WV, Raleigh County Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1
Beckley, WV, Raleigh County Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1
Beckley, WV, Raleigh County Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1
Beckley, WV, Raleigh County Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1
Ravenswood, WV, Jackson County, GPS RWY 4, Orig, CANCELLED
Ravenswood, WV, Jackson County, GPS RWY 22, Orig, CANCELLED
Ravenswood, WV, Jackson County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig
Ravenswood, WV, Jackson County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig
Ravenswood, WV, Jackson County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 2

[FR Doc. 2011-16784 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 123)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35345-35347]
[DOCID:fr27jn07-36]

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

Part IV

Securities and Exchange Commission

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

17 CFR Parts 210 and 240

Definition of a Significant Deficiency; Proposed Rule

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 210 and 240

[Release Nos. 33-8811; 34-55930; File No. S7-24-06]
RIN 3235-AJ58

Definition of a Significant Deficiency

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Request for additional comment.

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

SUMMARY: We are requesting additional comment on the definition of the
term ``significant deficiency.'' Because this term is used in the
Commission's rules implementing Section 302 and Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we believe that a definition of this term should
also be in the Commission's rules, in addition to being in the auditing
standards.

DATES: Comment Date: Comments should be received on or before July 18,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number S7-24-06 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov
). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-24-06. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site at (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml).

Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not
edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N. Sean Harrison, Special Counsel,
Division of Corporation Finance, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Josh K. Jones,
Professional Accounting Fellow, Office of the Chief Accountant, at
(202) 551-5300, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting additional comment on Rule
12b-2\1\ under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') \2\ and Rule 1-02 \3\ of Regulation S-X.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 240.12b-2.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \3\ 17 CFR 210.1-02.
    \4\ 17 CFR 210.1-01 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    The Commission's rules implementing the requirements of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (``Sarbanes-Oxley'')\5\ require management
to disclose to both the audit committee and the external auditor all
``material weaknesses'' and ``significant deficiencies'' identified
based upon management's evaluation.\6\ In adopting rules to implement
these sections of Sarbanes-Oxley, the Commission indicated that these
terms had the same meaning for purposes of the Commission's rules as
they had under generally accepted auditing standards and therefore, did
not specifically define them. Subsequent to the Commission's adoption
of rules implementing Sections 302 and 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (``PCAOB'') adopted Auditing
Standard No. 2,\7\ which revised these definitions. Since the
Commission's intention in the Adopting Release was to refer to the
definition used by auditors of public companies, the Commission staff
issued an interpretation indicating that the PCAOB's definition of
these terms would apply to the Section 404 rules issued by the
Commission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 7262.
    \6\ Release No. 33-8238 (Jun. 5, 2003) [68 FR 36636, Jun. 18,
2003], referred to herein as the ``Adopting Release.''
    \7\ An Audit of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Performed in Conjunction With an Audit of Financial Statements.
    \8\ See, for example, question 13 of Office of the Chief
Accountant and Division of Corporation Finance: Management's Report
on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Certification of
Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic Reports Frequently Asked
Questions (revised Oct. 6, 2004), available at http://www.sec.gov/info/accountants/controlfaq1004.htm
.

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

    More recently, as part of the Commission's project providing more
guidance to management on completing its evaluation and assessment of
internal control over financial reporting (``ICFR'') in accordance with
Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, the Commission initially sought comment
on both the terms ``significant deficiency'' and ``material weakness''
in its concept release on ICFR requirements,\9\ and then proposed and
adopted a definition for only the term ``material weakness.'' \10\ As
part of that rulemaking process, commenters pointed out that while the
December proposing release \11\ referenced significant deficiencies,
the Commission did not include a definition of significant deficiency
within the proposal.\12\ Certain commenters indicated that the
Commission should include a definition of significant deficiency in the
Interpretive Guidance.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Release No. 34-54122 (Jul. 11, 2006) [71 FR 40866, Jul. 18,
2006] available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2006/34-54122.pdf
.

    \10\ Release No. 34-55929 (Jun. 20, 2007), and referred to
herein as the ``Interpretive Guidance.''
    \11\ Release Nos. 33-8762; 34-54976 (Dec. 20, 2006) [71 FR
77635, Dec. 27, 2006].
    \12\ See, for example, letters from Cardinal Health, Inc.
(Cardinal), Edison Electric Institute, and Protiviti.
    \13\ See, for example, letters from Cardinal and Protiviti.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    As part of the Interpretive Guidance rulemaking process, the
Commission determined that it was appropriate for the Commission to
include in its rules definitions for certain integral terms associated
with the Commission's rules implementing Sarbanes-Oxley. Further, in
light of the comments received in response to the proposed Interpretive
Guidance, and because Commission rules implementing Section 302(a) of
Sarbanes-Oxley require that management communicate significant
deficiencies to the audit committee and the external auditors, the
Commission has decided to solicit additional comment on a definition
for ``significant deficiency.'' As a result, we are soliciting
additional comment on amending Exchange Act Rule 12b-2 and Rule 1-02 of
Regulation S-X to define the term.
    The purpose of management's obligations with respect to significant
deficiencies within the Commission's rules is to disclose those matters
relating to ICFR that are of sufficient importance that they should be
reported to the external auditor and to the audit committee so that
these parties can more effectively carry out their respective
responsibilities with regard to the company's financial reporting, but
which do not require disclosure to investors. Including a definition of
significant deficiency in Commission rules, in combination with the

definition of material weakness, will provide a useful complement to
the Commission's Interpretive Guidance by enabling management to refer
to Commission rules and guidance for information on the meaning of
these terms rather than the referring to the auditing standards.
    In developing the definition, we considered comments received in
response to the PCAOB's proposed auditing standard for audits of
internal control over financial reporting. In its proposed auditing
standard, the PCAOB proposed to define significant deficiency as ``a
control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies such that
there is a reasonable possibility that a significant misstatement of
the company's annual or interim financial statements will not be
prevented or detected.'' \14\ Further, a significant misstatement was
defined as ``a misstatement that is less than material yet important
enough to merit attention by those responsible for oversight of the
company's financial reporting.'' In response to the comments received
on their proposal, the PCAOB decided to modify their proposed
definition in order to focus the auditor on the communication
requirement surrounding the term ``significant deficiency'' and to
provide clarity that auditors are not required to scope their audits to
search for deficiencies that are less severe than a material weakness.
We believe that the focus of the term ``significant deficiency'' should
be the underlying communication requirement that results between
management, audit committees and independent auditors. As such, we are
soliciting comment on a definition that focuses squarely on matters
that are important enough to merit attention by those responsible for
oversight of the company's financial reporting. Significant deficiency
would be defined as ``a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies,
in internal control over financial reporting that is less severe than a
material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those
responsible for oversight of a registrant's financial reporting.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See PCAOB Proposed Auditing Standard, An Audit of Internal
Control Over Financial Reporting that is Integrated with an Audit of
Financial Statements and Related Other Proposals (Release Number
2006-007, Dec. 19, 2006).
    \15\ This definition of ``significant deficiency'' is also used
in Auditing Standard No. 5, An Audit of Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting That is Integrated with An Audit of Financial
Statements, which was approved by the PCAOB on May 24, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The framework for the definition of significant deficiency varies
from that recently adopted for ``material weakness.'' Unlike the term
``material weakness,'' we do not believe it is necessary for the
definition of significant deficiency to explicitly include a likelihood
component (that is, reasonable possibility) and that focusing on
matters that are important enough to merit attention will allow for
sufficient and appropriate judgment for management to determine the
deficiencies that should be reported to the auditor and the audit
committee.

III. Request for Comment

    We request additional comment on defining the term ``significant
deficiency.'' In addition to general comment, we encourage comments to
address the following specific questions:
     Would the definition of a ``significant deficiency''
facilitate more effective and efficient certification of quarterly and
annual reports if it were defined as discussed above?
     Conversely, should the definition of ``significant
deficiency'' include a likelihood component or other specific criteria?
If so, should we align such a definition with the PCAOB's auditing
standard, and how?
     We do not anticipate that the definition will impact the
amount of time it takes for management to evaluate whether identified
deficiencies are significant deficiencies, nor do we anticipate that
this definition will affect any existing collection of information.
However, are there any additional costs or burdens involved in
evaluating whether identified deficiencies meet the definition of
significant deficiency? If so, what are the types of costs, and the
anticipated amounts? In what way can the definition be further modified
to mitigate such costs while still appropriately describing
deficiencies that should be disclosed to audit committees and auditors?
     We believe one of the benefits of the definition is that
it focuses on the desired result of identifying matters that are
important enough to merit attention, which will allow management to use
sufficient and appropriate judgment to determine the deficiencies that
should be reported to the auditor and the audit committee while
allowing management to use its judgment to determine what those matters
are. Are there additional potential benefits we have not considered?
Additionally, a potential consequence of the definition is that, due to
the flexibility provided in the definition, there may be less
comparability among companies in terms of what management determines is
a significant deficiency. Is this accurate? Are there other potential
costs or burdens? How should we mitigate such costs or burdens?
     Is there any special impact of the definition of
significant deficiency on smaller public companies? If so, what is that
impact and how should we address it?

    By the Commission.

     Dated: June 20, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-12300 Filed 6-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P