[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1742-1750]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00287]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1237; Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment to Class B Airspace; Atlanta, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Atlanta, GA, Class B airspace area to
ensure the containment of large turbine-powered aircraft operating to
and from the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL).
The FAA is taking this action to enhance safety and reduce the
potential for midair collision in the Atlanta, GA, terminal area.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March 7, 2013. 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: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and ATC
Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On February 3, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify the Atlanta, GA, Class B
airspace area (77 FR 5429). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal. A total of 159 commenters responded to the NPRM. The FAA
considered all comments received before making a determination on this
final rule.

Discussion of Comments

    Of the 159 responses received, 135 concerned the airspace in the
vicinity of Dekalb-Peachtree Airport (PDK). All of these commenters
opposed the Class B modification in the vicinity of PDK contending that
it would result in lower flight paths for ATL arrivals, and PDK
arrivals and departures, thus leading to various adverse impacts, such
as: increased noise, increased air pollution and health problems, lower
property values, detrimental effect on local businesses, decreased tax
revenues due to lower property value and decreased commerce, inability
to sell homes and decreased quality of life.
    The above perceived impacts appear to be based on the belief that
the Class B change would lead to IFR flights operating at lower
altitudes than they do today. This is incorrect. The Class B
modifications, including those in the PDK area, are based on the need
to contain IFR aircraft that are now operating below Class B airspace.
It is important to note that existing IFR operating altitudes will not
change.
    Noise concerns were a recurring theme in the PDK-related comments,
in that the main concern was that lowering the floor of the Class B
airspace would allow more aircraft to fly lower over residential areas.
The vast majority of the noise experienced by these residents is caused
by aircraft flying at or below 3,000 feet MSL during takeoff and/or
landing operations at the PDK airport. Those aircraft will continue to
fly at those altitudes regardless of any changes made in the Atlanta
Class B airspace. In addition, an FAA study done in response to
comments at the Informal Airspace Meetings, held in 2010, shows that
almost 98 percent of the aircraft that fly in the vicinity of PDK are
already operating below 5,000 feet MSL. Therefore, lowering the floor
of the Class B airspace will not have an appreciable effect on the
amount of noise experienced by the residents in neighborhoods
surrounding PDK.
    Further, the FAA is not changing air traffic procedures. Where IFR
aircraft fly today is where they will continue to fly after
implementation of the Class B modification. This rule addresses the
issue that these aircraft are currently operating at altitudes that are
below the floor of the existing Class B airspace. In order to minimize
the potential for midair collisions in the Atlanta terminal area, FAA
directives require that large turbine powered aircraft arriving at and
departing from the primary airport (in this case, ATL) be contained
within Class B airspace. Since the routes and altitudes that ATL IFR
arrivals and departures are currently flying will not change, there
will not be an increase of over-flights or noise from what residents in
the PDK area are already experiencing today. Aircraft operating to and
from Hartsfield will not begin flying lower over residential areas near
PDK Airport due to lowering the Class B floor.
    The commenters also contend that the Class B changes would increase
IFR delays for PDK departures and arrivals, resulting in wasted fuel
and increased operating costs as well as causing PDK IFR arrivals to
circle over the neighborhoods while waiting to land.
    The FAA does not agree. Today, PDK IFR departures are initially
cleared to climb to the highest available altitude, typically 5,000
feet MSL, but sometimes lower based on other traffic. These aircraft
climb at their normal rate until reaching their assigned altitude, so
even if an aircraft is cleared to 4,000 feet instead of 5,000 feet, its
initial rate of climb would be the same and there would be no increased
impact on the ground that might be caused by a slower climb rate.
Lowering the floor of the Class B in the vicinity of PDK will not alter
this practice, since 5,000 feet will continue to be assigned by the
satellite controller. PDK IFR arrivals operate on final approach at
minimum altitudes that are based on obstacle clearance criteria and
descent profiles defined by instrument procedure design standards.
These IFR procedure altitudes cannot be lowered. Additionally, the
established VFR traffic patterns at the satellite airports are not
changing due to this rule.
    ATL arrivals currently fly in the PDK area at 6,000 feet today and
they will continue to operate at that altitude after the Class B
change. The purpose of lowering the floor to 5,000 feet in the PDK area
is to contain, within Class B airspace, the ATL departures that are now
flying at 5,000 feet underneath the arrivals. Since arrivals and
departures at both ATL and PDK will continue to operate at the same
altitudes as they do today, none of the above listed impacts would
occur as a result of the Class B airspace modification.
    However, in view of the large number of comments received, and the
Ad Hoc Committee recommendation concerning the Class B changes near
PDK, we explored the possibility of modifying

the Class B airspace design in that area. We determined that we can
move the proposed north boundary of the 5000 foot area (Area F) to the
south of PDK, and move the proposed boundary of the 6000 foot area
(Area J--located northeast of PDK) to the east by 2 miles. This design
change will lower the Class B floor over PDK from the current 8,000
feet to 7,000 feet instead of 5,000 feet as proposed in the NPRM. We
believe that this accommodation will not compromise safety. The reduced
size of the 5,000 foot area will still contain ATL departures operating
beneath the arrivals as well as provide a higher Class B floor above
PDK.
    In addition to the PDK comments discussed above, 24 commenters
stated that lowering the floor of the Class B airspace would cause
increased IFR departure delays out of both Fulton County Airport-Brown
Field (FTY) and PDK.
    The FAA does not agree. The existence of Class B airspace has no
impact on IFR delays from these airports. The determining factors for
IFR delays are normally traffic volume and weather. Traffic volume
delays exist today from time to time. Lowering the floor of the Class B
airspace does not equate to an increase in traffic volume. The traffic
that flows through the affected airspace is already there--the only
difference is that the aircraft that are currently operating below
Class B airspace will now be contained within the Class B airspace,
which increases the margin of safety. There is also an incorrect
perception that IFR aircraft departing satellite airports are kept out
of the Class B. This is not true. With the modified Class B, aircraft
departing satellite airports will be worked within Class B airspace
more frequently. For example, a turbojet aircraft departing Runway 8 at
FTY, going eastbound, is normally assigned 5,000 feet MSL shortly after
take-off. Today, that aircraft is outside Class B airspace. With the
modified Class B floor, that same aircraft will still be assigned 5,000
feet MSL but will now be contained within Class B airspace.
    Many commenters asserted that there would be a decrease in safety
margins for flights due to compression of VFR traffic into less
airspace beneath the new Class B floors. Considering terrain and
obstacles in the area, the commenters stated that there could be a
higher risk of collision and less time for pilots to react to an in-
flight emergency. The commenters argued that compressing a significant
amount of traffic into an even smaller amount of airspace would cause
safety concerns and inefficient operation of aircraft. In addition, the
commenters contend that the lower floors could create unsafe operating
conditions for pilots transiting above the Class D airspace areas that
underlie the new Class B floor.
    The FAA acknowledges that pilots electing to fly below the floor of
Class B airspace may be compressed. However, the lower floors are
necessary to segregate those aircraft operations from the large
turbine-powered aircraft arriving and departing ATL. The Atlanta
terminal area encompasses not only the world's busiest airport (with
over 920,000 airport operations in CY 2011), but also PDK & FTY
airports in close proximity, with their combined airport operations
total that exceeded 212,000 in CY 2011. Plus, numerous other airports
are situated in and around the Atlanta terminal area. These factors
create a complex, high density airspace environment containing a highly
diverse mix of aircraft types and aviation activities. Currently, large
turbine-powered aircraft and VFR aircraft are flying simultaneously in
the same airspace. It is essential to segregate the ATL traffic from
nonparticipating aircraft that may not be in communication with ATC.
Consequently, some nonparticipating VFR aircraft may have to fly
further, or at different altitudes, in order to remain clear of the
modified Class B. Ultimately, it is the pilot's responsibility to
evaluate all factors that could affect a planned flight and determine
the safest course of action whether it is circumnavigating the Class B,
flying beneath the area, utilizing a charted VFR flyway, or requesting
Class B clearance from Atlanta TRACON.
    One commenter stated that the new 6,000 foot floor in the southern
portion of the Class B is not prudent for safe operation of small
airplanes in the area. The commenter said less maneuvering room would
be available for avoiding obstructions, clouds and turbulence, and for
training activities such as practice stalls.
    It is a pilot responsibility to determine if there is enough
altitude/airspace available to conduct training maneuvers. If a pilot
believes that there is not enough airspace to conduct a particular
maneuver, it is his/her responsibility to conduct the operation in
appropriate airspace. The FAA finds that the new 6,000-floor still
provides sufficient space for safe operations in this area. While this
may result in some inconvenience to non-participating aircraft
operating outside/under the Class B airspace, it is necessary to ensure
the safety of the system overall.
    Another commenter stated that lower Class B floors are not
necessary because airlines prefer to stay high and perform idle
descents. This commenter discussed arrivals only, even though many of
the Class B floors are being lowered due to the requirement to contain
ATL departures within the Class B airspace.
    Another commenter claimed that the FAA did not adopt any
suggestions from the Ad hoc Committee and did not consider the
Committee's proposed alternative design.
    The FAA does not agree. The FAA fully considered the Ad Hoc
Committee's recommendations and alternative design. In fact, a number
of Committee suggestions were incorporated, such as removing Covington
Municipal Airport (9A1) from beneath the proposed Class B; eliminating
the existing and proposed ``wings'' at the four corners of the Class B;
and developing T-routes and VFR reporting points at key points around
the Class B to aid VFR navigation. The NPRM also explained specific
reasons why the Committee's alternative design could not be adopted,
including that the alternative design did not ensure the containment of
large turbine powered aircraft in certain sections and/or would require
changing ATC procedures to fit the proposal instead of amending the
airspace to fit the procedures.
    Another commenter said that, although the NPRM mentioned the
possibility of new T-routes and VFR flyways, the FAA has done no work
on defining them. Additionally the commenter related that obtaining
clearance through the Class B is the exception and not the rule.
    With regard to T-Routes, the FAA is currently designing T-Routes in
the ATL terminal area. The effective date of the T-Routes will coincide
with the implementation of procedural changes that are currently being
developed as part of the Atlanta Metroplex Project. As noted in the
NPRM, the FAA will establish additional VFR reporting points and VFR
waypoints that will be depicted on the Atlanta Terminal Area Chart.
With regard to clearance into or through the Atlanta Class B airspace,
the commenter is correct; clearance into or through the Class B
airspace is the exception and not the rule. This is due to the traffic
volume surrounding the world's busiest airport. However, it remains the
policy of Atlanta TRACON to authorize aircraft to transition through
the Class B airspace to the maximum extent practical based on
operational demands.
    Some commenters stated that the Class B floors to the north and
south do not need to be lowered at all, and that the FAA instead should
consider having

jet traffic intercept the glideslope at a higher altitude. The
commenters contend that this would be more fuel efficient and would
lower the noise impact since the traffic would be higher and that
aircraft excluded from the Class B would not be as compressed into the
small remaining airspace.
    The FAA does not agree. With regard to intercepting the glide slope
at a higher altitude, the comments do not account for the fact that ATL
conducts simultaneous triple ILS approaches. As described in the NPRM,
this procedure requires that aircraft being turned onto parallel final
approach courses be separated by 3 miles longitudinally, or 1,000 feet
vertically until they are established on the final approach course. As
a result, lower floors to the north and south of ATL are required to
provide Class B airspace to contain those operations. That, combined
with the 3-degree ILS glideslope, results in a long, low final approach
course. For aircraft to intercept the glideslope higher than they do
today (e.g., 7,000 feet on the center final) would force the Class B to
be even bigger, the finals to be longer, and extend the pattern outside
of the service volume of the ILS NAVAID. Additionally, ATL utilizes
triple departure procedures which further add to the need for modifying
the Class B airspace. It should be noted that ATL is not unique in this
regard. Other locations conducting simultaneous triple ILS approaches,
such as Chicago O'Hare International and Charlotte/Douglas
International, have similar Class B airspace considerations.
    Several commenters criticized the modified Class B design
contending that it can only be identified with an RNAV-quality mapping
device. They argue that this is not practical in pleasure aircraft and
would require the purchase of additional equipment. Furthermore, they
state that the lateral limits of the airspace are best defined by
radials and distances unless landmarks clearly visible in both daylight
and darkness can be used.
    The FAA does not agree that the rule requires the purchase of
additional equipment. Some boundaries in the ATL Class B design are not
based on NAVAID radials and distances. Although that is the preferred
method, it was found that to define all boundaries based on NAVAID
references, and still achieve the required containment of ATL
operations, it would be necessary to move the new boundaries in such a
way that the Class B airspace would be expanded beyond FAA requirements
and the Class B would be larger than that defined in this rule. This
would impact nonparticipating aircraft to an unnecessary degree.
Therefore, identifying the new boundaries cannot always be accomplished
solely with reference to conventional navigation instruments. A variety
of means may be required including VORTAC, RNAV and/or by visual
reference using the sectional chart or TAC depictions. This situation
is not unique. There are other Class B airspace areas and many military
special use airspace areas depicted on sectional charts that are not
defined by NAVAID radials, and where pilots must avoid the airspace or
receive clearance for entry. As noted in the NPRM, the FAA is
establishing new VFR reporting points and waypoints to assist VFR pilot
navigation in the Atlanta terminal area. These points will be located
over areas that can be easily identified visually. The FAA is also
establishing VFR routes that can be used to circumnavigate the Class B
airspace when necessary. The VFR Flyway Planning Chart, on the back of
the Atlanta Terminal Area Chart, will be updated to reflect these new
features. In addition, the FAA has recently introduced a new product
called ``VFR Class B Enhancement Graphics.'' The new graphics show the
geographic coordinates of each Class B boundary intersection, as well
as a NAVAID radial/DME fix for each point and the length (in nautical
miles) of each straight-line Class B boundary segment. The new graphics
are designed to increase safety and aid pilots in gaining situational
awareness within or around the Class B area. A graphic will be produced
depicting the modified Atlanta Class B airspace to coincide with the
effective date of the Class B changes. This will provide pilots a way
to use the ATL VORTAC to identify the Class B boundaries. Therefore, it
is not necessary for pilots to purchase additional equipment in order
to navigate around the Atlanta Class B airspace area.
    A commenter stated that the Class B changes will not save airline
fuel. Since airlines favor longer, idle power descents and
uninterrupted climbs to more fuel efficient altitudes, lowering the
Class B floors only gives more opportunity for unwanted level segments.
    The FAA does not agree. The Atlanta Class B is designed to
accommodate both arriving and departing aircraft operations. Some Class
B airspace floors are designed to contain ATL departures, including
those aircraft that do not have a sufficient climb rate capability to
remain within the existing Class B airspace during departure. Although
these aircraft may be cleared for an unrestricted climb, their limited
climb capability is insufficient to remain within the rising Class B
floors of the current airspace configuration.
    A commenter contended that the addition of the fifth runway and new
RNAV procedures at ATL have decreased the need for expanded Class B
airspace. The commenter asserted that the fifth runway has been open
since 2006 with excellent results in the existing Class B and the new
RNAV procedures at ATL actually increase navigational accuracy and
require less airspace, not more.
    The current Class B airspace is not adequate. Atlanta TRACON has
documented hundreds of aircraft that exit the existing Class B airspace
on a daily basis. Simulations have been run to validate the proposed
Class B airspace design and virtually every aircraft that exited the
existing Class B airspace would have been contained within the new
Class B airspace design.
    Several commenters stated that the ATL Class B should not be
changed based on the reason specified in the NPRM that air traffic
controller workload is increased because they are required to notify
aircraft leaving the Class B when they exit, and again, when they
reenter the airspace. The commenters said that this requirement is
obsolete and should be eliminated rather than changing the Class B
airspace to reduce the workload.
    FAA orders require large turbine-powered aircraft to be retained
within Class B airspace to the maximum extent possible. Containment of
these aircraft within Class B airspace is a major item of interest of
the FAA's Office of Aviation Safety Oversight. The main reason for this
rulemaking action is not the advisory to aircraft that they are leaving
or re-entering the Class B, but rather that aircraft cannot routinely
be contained within the existing Class B airspace due to the existing
airspace design. This is a safety issue, and the fundamental reason for
the change. The Class B modifications will have the added benefit of
reducing controller workload because the need to issue such advisories
will be significantly reduced. This will allow controllers to devote
attention to aircraft separation responsibilities.
    One commenter suggested that the FAA publish ``ATC climb rates,''
in addition to the minimum rate required for obstacle clearance for
heavy aircraft departures during summertime operations that are unable
to climb into the existing Class B. Pilots would understand that if
they can meet the obstacle rate, but not the ATC rate, they

may notify ATC prior to takeoff and request relief. This would reduce
the number of aircraft inadvertently outside the Class B while giving
ATC sufficient time to anticipate when those situations might occur.
    Atlanta TRACON researched the possibility of implementing published
``ATC climb rates.'' Unfortunately, the current criteria for the
development of Area Navigation Standard Instrument Departures (RNAV
SIDs) does not allow a procedure to be designed that would retain all
departing aircraft within the existing Class B airspace on their
current routes. Also, this would not satisfy the requirement to contain
aircraft within Class B airspace to the maximum extent.
    Another commented that lower floors to the north and south of ATL
do not improve satellite airport safety.
    The FAA does not agree. The justification for lowering the Class B
floors is to contain all existing large turbine-powered aircraft
departing from and arriving at the primary airport (ATL) within the
Class B airspace. This enhances the safety of satellite airport
operations by segregating the large turbine-powered aircraft from other
aircraft that are not in communication with ATC.
    A commenter questioned the rationale in the NPRM regarding the need
to keep all Missed Approach Procedures (MAP) within Class B. The
commenter said it is well known that ATC rarely uses the published MAP,
and instead controllers offer vectors or alternate instructions; the
charted MAP is for emergencies or loss of communications purposes. The
commenter said that normally aircraft conducting a missed approach
would be directed to remain within Class B and the use of the published
MAP is extremely rare. The commenter objected to a major airspace
change for such infrequent occurrences.
    The FAA disagrees. The commenter interpreted statements in the NPRM
concerning MAP as meaning only the published MAPs. Although the
published MAPs are also a concern, the aircraft that are vectored
following a missed approach must remain at 3,000 feet south of the
airport. This is required procedurally to vertically separate missed
approach aircraft off of runways 10/28 from aircraft missing approach
off runways 9R/27L that are climbing to 4,000 feet on the same tracks.
This procedure has been in place since the fifth runway opened at ATL
in May 2006, and causes aircraft to exit the existing Class B airspace
configuration. Climbing aircraft higher is not an option due to the
corridor over the top of the Atlanta Airport that serves general
aviation satellite airport departures and arrivals at 5,000 and 6,000
feet.
    One commenter objected to the Class B change for cost reasons. The
commenter stated that the current airspace has served well since 2006
and increased efficiency has been gained since then with GPS and RNAV
procedures. Considering the vast number of products that would need
updating, the commenter said this project should be abandoned.
    The problems with the Class B configuration since 2006 were
addressed in a previous comment. Regarding the costs of updating
various products to reflect the airspace changes, FAA charts and
related aeronautical products are continually updated to reflect
current aeronautical, terrain and other information. Charts and other
products are published on a regular cycle to accommodate these changes.
As an example, new editions of the VFR Terminal Area Charts are
published twice a year. An average of 100 chart changes are
incorporated in each new edition. These changes are considered part of
the ordinary cost of chart revision, and therefore, the FAA will not
incur any additional costs due to the Class B changes.
    A commenter alleged that there is no need to modify the airspace in
Atlanta because there are no current conflicts between commercial
carriers and private flights and that changing the airspace would only
impact private flights, making access into and out of the ATL Class B
more difficult.
    The commenter is incorrect regarding the mix of aircraft in the
Atlanta terminal area. There are sections where Atlanta IFR large
turbine-powered aircraft and nonparticipating VFR aircraft share the
same airspace. However, incidents between these IFR and VFR aircraft do
not occur because controllers routinely take action to prevent them.
The Class B modification is required to provide Class B containment to
ensure that those operations continue to be safe without the need for
controller intervention. Regarding the comment that the change will
make access to the Class B more difficult, the FAA agrees that access
to the Atlanta Class B airspace is limited. However, such access is
based on the traffic situation. The overall size of the Class B
airspace is being reduced from a maximum of 42 miles down to 30 miles
which frees up many cubic miles of airspace and converts it from Class
B to Class E airspace. There is no permission needed from ATC to
operate in Class E airspace. As discussed above, the FAA is taking a
number of steps to enhance VFR navigation in the ATL terminal area.
    A few commenters stated that modifying the Class B would not
improve the flow of traffic into ATL, but would have the effect of
``compacting'' general aviation aircraft into lower altitudes.
    The commenters are correct, changing the Class B airspace will not,
in and of itself, improve the traffic flows into Atlanta, but it will
ensure that current traffic flows are contained within the Class B
airspace. The purpose of this change is not specifically to improve
traffic flow, but to ensure safety in the Atlanta terminal area. The
issue of compression of VFR traffic is addressed previously.
    Two pilots that fly IFR in the Atlanta area were concerned about
the amount of time they are held below the present Class B airspace,
resulting in inefficiency and added fuel costs.
    IFR flights are restricted to lower altitudes when necessary to
ensure separation from other traffic, not because of the Class B
airspace. The initial altitudes assigned IFR aircraft departing the
satellite airports around Atlanta will not change due to this Class B
change. Efforts are underway as part of the Atlanta Metroplex Project
to find ways of climbing satellite jet departures to higher altitudes
as soon as possible. Class B airspace will not affect that on-going
project.
    A commenter said there is no need to expand the Class B airspace
because the construction of the fifth runway at ATL, along with the
decreased traffic count in recent years, has reduced the need for
additional airspace.
    The FAA does not agree. Regarding the addition of the fifth runway,
the commenter did not consider the fact that ATL conducts simultaneous
triple ILS approaches. As described in an earlier response (see above),
this procedure requires that aircraft being turned onto parallel final
approach courses be separated by 3 miles longitudinally, or 1,000 feet
vertically until they are established on the final approach course.
This is one of several reasons for modifying the Class B airspace.
Regarding the decreased traffic count, the commenter is correct that
ATL's traffic count has decreased since 2008 (as has traffic system-
wide) reflecting the general U.S. economic downturn. However, ATL's
traffic figures are still 3 times more than the threshold required
qualifying for Class B airspace. In addition, the latest validated
passenger enplanements for ATL (CY 2011) are more than 8 times the
threshold requirement for Class B airspace and reflect nearly a 3
percent

rise from the previous year. As the economy improves, Atlanta traffic
volume is expected to increase to exceed the 2008 level. Even at the
current volume, containment of Atlanta traffic is the issue that needs
to be addressed for safety reasons.
    A commenter supported the FAA's plan to establish VFR waypoints,
VFR reporting points, VFR routes, and RNAV T-Routes for transitioning
through or around the Class B airspace, but is concerned that these
would not be in place and charted when the airspace changes become
effective. This commenter also suggested that the FAA develop specific
VFR arrival and departure routes for PDK.
    The FAA will publish the above-mentioned VFR points concurrent with
the publication of the new Class B charts. The RNAV T-routes will be
published once they have been developed and implemented through a
separate rulemaking action. Regarding PDK VFR routes, the FAA is
developing suggested VFR flyways to be published on the Atlanta
Terminal Area Chart.
    Several commenters argued that the 12,500-foot MSL ceiling of ATL
Class B area is unnecessarily high and prevents unpressurized VFR
aircraft from transitioning the area at higher altitudes. They cited
examples where most other Class B locations have ceilings at or below
10,000 feet MSL.
    Although other locations have Class B ceilings lower than ATL, all
Class B airspace dimensions are individually tailored to meet site-
specific requirements. The 12,500 foot Class B ceiling encompasses
ATL's transition altitudes. Within this airspace, jet aircraft
departing ATL are initially climbed to 10,000 feet; while jet aircraft
arriving ATL are initially descended to 12,000 feet. Within 30 miles of
the ATL airport is where all of these aircraft transition between
10,000 and 12,000 feet. The arrivals begin their descent to land and,
once the departures are clear of the arrivals, the departures begin
climbing to cruise altitude. Having VFR aircraft that are not in
communication with ATC operating in this airspace reduces the margin of
safety in the high volume airspace surrounding the world's busiest
airport. The current 12,500 foot ceiling has been in existence since
1975 and has provided an excellent safety record. This ceiling provides
adequate protection to arrivals and departures as they transition to
and from the en route structure. For those reasons, the FAA did not
propose a change to the existing Class B airspace ceiling.
    Lastly, a commenter submitted an alternative Class B diagram for
the FAA to consider that proposed a different altitude structure than
was contained in the NPRM. The suggested Class B floors were the same
as the FAA's proposal in areas A through E, but were significantly
higher in the other areas to the north and south of ATL. In addition, a
10,000 foot MSL ceiling was suggested to replace the existing 12,500-
foot ceiling.
    The FAA reviewed the proposal but did not adopt it because it does
not meet the requirements to contain all of ATL's existing arrival and
departure flows within Class B airspace as required by FAA directives.
Many aircraft do not have a sufficient climb capability to remain
within the Class B floors suggested in the commenter's proposal.

Differences From the NPRM

    The descriptions of subareas F, I and J have been modified from
that proposed in the NPRM. In light of public and Ad Hoc Committee
inputs, the FAA reevaluated the Class B design in the vicinity of PDK
and determined that the proposed 5,000-foot Class B floor airspace over
PDK could be raised to 7,000 feet. This is accomplished by moving the
northern boundary of Area F, and the southern boundary of Area I, to
the south of PDK; and by moving the west boundary of the section of
Area J (that lies northeast of PDK) to the east by two miles. The
revised subarea descriptions are listed in the ``Adoption of the
Amendment'' section, below. Additionally, a correction of one second of
longitude is made to the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International
Airport reference point to reflect the latest FAA database values.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) part 71 to modify the Atlanta, GA, Class B airspace area. This
action (depicted on the attached chart) reduces the overall lateral
boundaries of the airspace and expands the vertical boundaries by
lowering the floors of some subareas. These modifications are necessary
to provide the additional Class B airspace needed to contain large
turbine-powered aircraft operating to and from ATL. The modifications
to the ATL Class B airspace area are summarized below. The following
areas extend upward from the specified altitudes to 12,500 feet MSL:
    Area A. Area A is the surface area that extends from the ground up
to 12,500 feet MSL. The FAA is not making any changes to Area A.
    Area B. The revised area consists of that airspace extending upward
from 2,500 feet MSL east and west of the Atlanta airport. It combines
two existing subareas, B and C. The existing area B consists of a small
segment of airspace, east of the ATL airport that extends upward from
2,100 feet MSL between the 7- and 9-NM radii of the Atlanta VORTAC. The
existing Area C includes that airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet
MSL, east and west of Atlanta airport between the 7- and 12-NM radii of
the Atlanta VORTAC. With this change, the existing 2,100-foot floor of
Class B airspace is eliminated.
    Area C. The area is redefined to include that airspace that extends
upward from 3,000 feet MSL (as described above, the existing Area C
extends upward from 2,500 feet MSL). The new Area C lowers the existing
floor of Class B airspace from 3,500 feet MSL to 3,000 feet MSL.
Currently, Area D includes the airspace extending upward from 3,500
feet MSL. With this change, most of the airspace now in Area D is
incorporated into the new Area C (with the lower 3,000-foot floor).
    Area D. This area consists of that airspace extending upward from
3,500 feet MSL. However, it is significantly reduced in size due to the
modification of Area C, described above. The revised Area D includes
only that airspace bounded on the south by a line 4 miles north of and
parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer course, and on the north by a
line 8 miles north of and parallel to the above mentioned localizer
courses. The revised Area D is bounded on the west by long.
84[deg]51[min]38[sec] W., and on the east by long.
84[deg]00[min]32[sec] W.
    Area E. This area continues to include the airspace extending
upward from 4,000 feet MSL, but it is modified by incorporating a small
segment of Class B airspace south of ATL that currently extends upward
from 6,000 feet MSL. In addition, Area E incorporates the two segments,
currently extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL that were added by the
October 2006 rule as discussed in the NPRM.
    Area F. Area F consists of that airspace extending upward from
5,000 feet MSL. The area currently is composed of four small segments,
one southwest of ATL, one southeast of ATL, and the two segments east
and west of ATL that were designated in the October 2006 rule. These
four areas would be removed from Area F and incorporated into other
subareas with lower floors. The modified Area F is located north of ATL
within the area bounded on the south by a line 8 miles north of and
parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer courses, and on the north by a
line 12 miles north of and parallel to the above mentioned

localizer courses. On the east and west, Area F is bounded by long.
83[deg]54[min]04[sec] W.; and long. 84[deg]57[min]41[sec] W.,
respectively. The effect of this change is to lower the floor of Class
B airspace from 6,000 feet MSL to 5,000 feet MSL in the described area.
    Area G. Area G contains that airspace extending upward from 6,000
feet MSL. Currently, Area G consists of airspace north of ATL, which is
largely incorporated into the revised Area F. The revised Area G
consists of the airspace bounded approximately between the Atlanta
VORTAC 30 NM radius on the south, and a line 12 miles south of and
parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer courses.
    Area H. This area consists of two airspace segments that extend
upward from 5,000 feet MSL, one located southwest and one located
southeast of ATL. The Area H segments are bounded on the north by a
line 12 miles south of and parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer
courses and on the south by the 30 NM radius of the Atlanta VORTAC,
excluding the airspace within Area G as described above.
    Area I. Area I is redefined to consist of the airspace extending
upward from 7,000 feet MSL north of ATL. The revised Area I is bounded
on the north side by the 30 NM radius of the Atlanta VORTAC; on the
south by a line 12 NM north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R
localizer courses; on the east by a line drawn from lat.
33[deg]50[min]59[sec] N., long. 84[deg]16[min]38[sec] W., direct to
lat. 34[deg]04[min]20[sec] N., long. 84[deg]09[min]24[sec] W.; and on
the west by a line from lat. 33[deg]50[min]59[sec] N., long.
84[deg]34[min]14[sec] W. direct to lat. 34[deg]01[min]40[sec] N., long.
84[deg]47[min]55[sec] W. This change would lower the floor of Class B
airspace from 8,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL in the defined area.
    Area J. Area J is a new subarea to describe that airspace extending
upward from 6,000 feet MSL in two segments, one northwest and one
northeast, of ATL. One segment abuts the west side of Area I and the
other segment abuts the east side of Area I. The two segments also abut
the northern boundary of Area F, with the 30 NM radius of the Atlanta
VORTAC defining their northern edges. Area J lowers part of the Class B
airspace floor from 8,000 feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL in the northwest
and northeast sections of the area.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
is no new information collection requirement associated with this rule.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended
regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact
of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final
rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows:
    This action modifies the Atlanta, GA, Class B airspace area to
ensure the containment of aircraft within Class B airspace, reduce
controller workload and enhance safety in the Atlanta, GA, terminal
area. It lowers the Class B airspace in some sections to encompass
existing IFR traffic. Lowering the floor of the Class B airspace will
increase safety by segregating large turbine-powered aircraft from
aircraft that may not be in contact with ATC. It also increases safety
and reduces air traffic controller workload by reducing the number of
radio communications that air traffic controllers must use to inform
IFR aircraft when they are leaving and re-entering Class B airspace.
This reduces the amount of distraction that air traffic controllers
face in issuing these communications and frees radio time for more
important control instructions. IFR traffic will not be rerouted as a
result of this proposal.
    The change may cause some VFR pilots to have to choose between
flying lower, circumnavigating the area, or requesting Class B service
from A80 to transition the area. This has the potential of increasing
costs to VFR pilots if the alternative routes are longer, take more
time and burn more fuel. The FAA believes, however, that there will be
minimal impact to VFR aircraft operating where the Class B floor will
be lowered. Commenters did not offer specific comments on increased
fuel consumption for VFR flights if the pilot of these flights chose
alternative routes. An FAA sampling of VFR traffic found that 98
percent of 7123 VFR flights were already operating below the 5,000-foot
floor proposed in the NPRM. Since the final rule raises a portion of
this floor, we can still conclude that an estimated 98% of VFR flights
based on this sample will operate below the redesigned Class B floor.
Where the floor will be lowered to 3,000 feet, we believe there is
sufficient airspace to allow safe flight below the Class B airspace.
The minimum vectoring altitude (based in part on obstruction clearance)
under most of the 3,000 foot floor is 2,500 feet. VFR aircraft can and
do fly safely at 2,000 feet under the existing Class B floor.
Recognizing that some VFR aircraft may elect to circumnavigate instead
of flying lower, only a short deviation in distance and time will be
needed to place the aircraft beneath a higher Class B floor.
    The FAA intends to take actions that will increase the alternatives
available to VFR pilots. For instance, the FAA intends to establish VFR
Waypoints and Reporting Points to assist VFR pilot navigation, and to
establish VFR routes that can be used to circumnavigate the Class B
airspace or used as a predetermined route through the Class B

airspace when operations permit. In addition to these new VFR
waypoints, the FAA will establish RNAV T-Routes within Class B airspace
for transitioning over the top of ATL airports. These various
alternatives should provide pilots with options that will assist them
in navigating around or beneath the Class B and/or to request ATC
clearance to cut through the Class B. The FAA believes that no more
than a small percent of VFR traffic will choose to travel longer, less
efficient or more costly routes because safe flight will still be
possible beneath most of the Class B airspace, A80 would continue to
provide VFR services to assist pilots in transiting the area, and only
short course deviations would be needed if pilots decide to avoid the
areas with lower Class B floors.
    The FAA has made changes relative to the NPRM by raising the floor
of the proposed Class B in the vicinity of PDK from 5,000 feet to 7,000
feet. This may be relieving in that additional airspace will be
available for GA operations relative to the proposal.
    The FAA will have to update maps and charts to indicate the
airspace modifications, but these documents are updated regularly.
These modifications will be made within the normal updating process and
therefore will not contribute to the cost of the rule since the updates
would be as scheduled.
    The rule redefines Class B airspace boundaries to improve safety,
will not require updating of materials outside the normal update cycle,
will not require rerouting of IFR traffic, and is expected to possibly
cause some VFR traffic to travel alternative routes which are not
expected to be appreciably longer than with the current airspace
design. The expected outcome will be a minimal impact with positive net
benefits, and a regulatory evaluation was not prepared.
    FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    The rule is expected to improve safety by redefining Class B
airspace boundaries and will impose only minimal costs because it will
not require rerouting of IFR traffic, could possibly cause some VFR
traffic to travel alternative routes that are not expected to be
appreciably longer than with the current airspace design, and will not
require updating of materials outside the normal update cycle. The FAA
reviewed the comments and did not find any comments that would lead us
to conclude that there would be an impact on small businesses.
Therefore, the expected outcome will be a minimal economic impact on
small entities affected by this rulemaking action.
    Therefore as the acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it
will have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on
international trade

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO GA B Atlanta, GA [Amended]

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 33[deg]38'12'' N., long. 84[deg]25'40'' W.)
Atlanta VORTAC
    (Lat. 33[deg]37'45'' N., long. 84[deg]26'06'' W.)

Boundaries

    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 12,500 feet

MSL, bounded on the east and west by a 7-mile radius of the Atlanta
VORTAC, on the south by a line 4 miles south of and parallel to the
Runway 10/28 localizer courses, and on the north by a line 4 miles
north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer courses;
excluding the Atlanta Fulton County Airport-Brown Field, GA, Class D
airspace area.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL, bounded on the east and west by a 12-
mile radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on the south by a line 4 miles
south of and parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer courses, and on
the north by a line 4 miles north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/
26R localizer courses; excluding the Atlanta Fulton County Airport-
Brown Field, GA, Class D airspace area and that airspace contained
in Area A.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL, bounded on the east by long.
84[deg]00'32'' W., on the west by long. 84[deg]51'38'' W., on the
south by a line 8 miles south of and parallel to the Runway 10/28
localizer courses, and on the north by a line 4 miles north of and
parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer courses; excluding that
airspace contained in Areas A and B.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 3,500 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL, bounded on the east by long.
84[deg]00'32'' W., on the west by long. 84[deg]51'38'' W., on the
south by a line 4 miles north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R
localizer courses, and on the north by a line 8 miles north of and
parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer courses.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL, bounded on the east by long.
83[deg]54'04'' W., on the west by long. 84[deg]57'41'' W., on the
south by a line 12 miles south of and parallel to the Runway 10/28
localizer courses and on the north by a line 8 miles north of and
parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer courses; excluding that
airspace contained in Areas A, B, C, and D.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL, within a 30-mile radius of the
Atlanta VORTAC and bounded on the east by long. 83[deg]54'04'' W.,
on the south by a line 8 miles north of and parallel to the Runway
08L/26R localizer courses, on the west by long. 84[deg]57'41'' W.,
and on the north by a line 12 miles north of and parallel to the
Runway 08L/26R localizer courses.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL bounded on the north by a line 12
miles south of and parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer courses,
on the east by a line from lat. 33[deg]25'21'' N., long.
84[deg]16'49'' W. direct to lat. 33[deg]15'33'' N., long.
84[deg]01'55'' W., on the south by a 30-mile radius of the Atlanta
VORTAC, and on the west by a line from lat. 33[deg]25'25'' N., long.
84[deg]33'32'' W. direct to lat. 33[deg]18'26'' N., long.
84[deg]42'56'' W. and thence south via long. 84[deg]42'56'' W.
    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL, within a 30-mile radius of the
Atlanta VORTAC south of a line 12 miles south of and parallel to the
Runway 10/28 localizer courses, bounded on the west by long.
84[deg]57'41'' W. and on the east by long. 83[deg]54'04'' W.
excluding that airspace within the lateral limits of area G.
    Area I. That airspace extending upward from 7,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL bounded on the north by the 30-mile
radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on the east by a line from lat.
33[deg]50'59'' N., long. 84[deg]16'38'' W. direct to lat.
34[deg]04'20'' N., long. 84[deg]09'24'' W., on the south by a line
12 miles north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer
courses, and on the west by a line from lat. 33[deg]50'59'' N.,
long. 84[deg]34'14'' W. direct to lat. 34[deg]01'40'' N., long.
84[deg]47'55'' W.
    Area J. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL bounded on the north by a 30-mile
radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on the east by long. 83[deg]54'04''
W., on the south by a line 12 miles north of and parallel to the
Runway 08L/26R localizer courses, and on the west by long.
84[deg]57'41'' W., excluding that airspace within the lateral limits
of area I.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA13.001

[FR Doc. 2013-00287 Filed 1-7-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 100 (Friday, May 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31196-31198]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11081]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2020-0013; OMB No. 1660-0061]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Federal Assistance to Individuals and
Households Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: 30-Day notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Brian Thompson, Supervisory Program Specialist, FEMA Recovery
Directorate,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed information collection
previously published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2020 at 85 FR
14212 with a 60-day public comment period. FEMA received three comments
from the public.
    Comment 1: The commenter suggested that FEMA could minimize the
burden for veterans with disabilities by having their patient advocates
or service organizations asking if they have any unmet needs.
Additionally, the commenter suggested that when a disability hinders
someone's ability to understand things and when those serious needs
have continued to not be met can deteriorate a service member's mental
health dramatically. Finally the commenter stated that when service
members need to apply to many different organizations and ask for help
only to be advised to contact someone else without help can be very
discouraging. Rather, a simple phone call from someone that has access
to important information and the ability to help that person can really
help. FEMA has initiated interrelated projects to increase the
communication of the needs of registrants with disabilities across our
programs and better support the needs of survivors with disabilities.
Recognizing the need for more effective and actionable disability-
related questions in the Registration Intake form (covered in OMB
collection 1660-0002, Disaster Assistance Registration), FEMA is in the
process of submitting a revision to OMB collection 1660-0002 to add a
specific reasonable accommodation question, and an additional question
capturing disability-related losses. The reasonable accommodation
question will ask registrants to indicate if they have a disability-
related need to access FEMA's programs and services. FEMA's

Individual Assistance (IA) Program and Office of Equal Rights (OER) are
working to develop a written procedure to arrange for any
accommodation/modification, and to develop training documents/curricula
for all FEMA personnel involved in providing accommodations to disaster
survivors. The Federal Register Notice for 1660-0002 which outlines the
reasonable accommodation question addition should be posted in the near
future for public comment.
    The reasonable accommodation question was developed through
collaboration between the FEMA Office of Disability Integration and
Coordination (ODIC), the FEMA OER, the FEMA IA Program, the FEMA Office
of External Affairs, and other relevant offices within FEMA. In
addition to these offices, ODIC sought input from the National Council
on Disability (NCD) to validate the language included in the question.
NCD is an independent Federal agency charged with advising the
President, Congress, and other Federal agencies regarding policies,
programs, practices, and procedures that affect people with
disabilities.
    With the addition of the reasonable accommodation question in the
registration intake form, FEMA will be better able to identify and
assist applicants with completing the forms included in 1660-0061
(request for late application review, submitting appeals, completing
the Authorization for the Release of Information form, requesting
advance disaster assistance, and stop payment requests).
    In addition, the policies regarding how and why FEMA can share
applicant information are not in place to make it harder for veterans
and others with disabilities to receive the help they need, but to
protect them from fraud and identity theft by ensuring only those who
have appropriate consent from the applicant can access their
information. FEMA generally communicates directly with each applicant
throughout the IHP process to gather information, inform them of their
eligibility for assistance, refer them to other sources of assistance,
and guide them on the proper use of IHP funds.
    FEMA also generally communicates directly with each applicant to
protect their private information. The Privacy Act of 1974 regulates
how FEMA collects, uses, and discloses an applicant's personal
information in order to protect the privacy of the applicant, and
requires FEMA to obtain written consent from the applicant in order to
share their disaster assistance records with a third party. For
example, FEMA employees and contractors will always verify an
applicant's identity before discussing eligibility or potential
assistance. After verifying their identity with FEMA, the applicant can
also give verbal permission for FEMA to speak with a third party
regarding their case via the FEMA Helpline.
    FEMA may share applicant information outside FEMA with entities
such as States, territorial, Tribal, and local governments, voluntary
organizations, and other organizations in accordance with published
routine uses identified in DHS/FEMA-008 Disaster Recovery Assistance
Files System of Records Notice. FEMA shares this information to enable
the applicant to receive additional disaster assistance, prevent a
duplication of benefits, and prevent future disaster losses.
    Comment 2: The second comment was not a germane comment.
    Comment 3: The commenter suggested that it should be made clear
whether the Coronavirus pandemic falls within the bounds of a declared
disaster or emergency which justifies provision of FEMA assistance of
the type discussed after a disaster or emergency to aid in housing,
food sources, medical needs, and other forms of aid provided by FEMA
after an earthquake or hurricane, which should also be available to
those families and persons needing assistance during the coronavirus
emergency. At this time, the only declaration provided for Individual
Assistance for COVID-19 is specific to Crisis Counseling. The
Individuals and Households Program has not been authorized; therefore,
FEMA is not accepting disaster assistance registrations for COVID-19 at
this time and is not providing assistance under the Individuals and
Households Program.
    News Release HQ-20-091 dated April 9, 2020 on FEMA.gov about rent
suspension is only in regard to disaster survivors who were already
receiving temporary housing from FEMA in FEMA-provided Temporary
Housing Units. For further information regarding FEMA's response to
COVID-19, please visit https://www.fema.gov/coronavirus.
    The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will
submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households Program.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0061.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 010-0-11, Individuals and
Households Program (IHP)--Other Needs Assistance Administrative Option
Selection; Development of State/Tribal Administrative Plan (SAP) for
Other Needs Provision of IHP; FEMA Form 010-0-12 (English), Individuals
and Households Program Application for Continued Temporary Housing
Assistance; FEMA Form 010-0-12S (Spanish), Programa de Individuos y
Familias Solicitud Para Continuar La Asistencia de Vivienda Temporera;
Request for Approval of Late Registration; Appeal of Program Decision;
FEMA Form 009-0-95 (English), Request for Advance Disaster Assistance;
FEMA Form 009-0-95S (Spanish), Solicitud de Adelanto de la Asistencia
por Desastre; FEMA Form 009-0-96 (English), Request to Stop Payment and
Reissue Disaster Assistance Check; FEMA Form 009-0-96S (Spanish),
Solicitud para Detener el Pago y Reemitir el Cheque de Asistencia por
Desastre; FEMA Form 140-003d-1--(English), Authorization for the
Release of Information Under the Privacy Act; FEMA Form 140-003d-1S--
(Spanish), Autorizaci[oacute]n para la Divulgaci[oacute]n de
Informaci[oacute]n bajo el Acta de Privacidad.
    Abstract: The collection provides applicants the ability to request
approval of late applications, request continued temporary housing
assistance, appeal program decisions, request advance disaster
assistance, request assistance checks not received be stopped and
reissued, and to authorize the release of information to third parties.
It also establishes an agreement between FEMA and States, territories,
and Tribal governments regarding the administration of the Other Needs
provision of IHP.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households; State, Local, or Tribal
Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 140,753.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 185,057.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 150,828.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $5,692,939.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: NA.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: NA.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $1,089,213.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data

collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Maile Arthur,
Deputy Director, Information Management Division, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2020-11081 Filed 5-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77931-77932]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31328]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63469; File No. SR-ISE-2010-113]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Payment for Order Flow Fees

December 8, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 30, 2010, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend its payment for order flow program.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.ise.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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    ISE currently has a payment-for-order-flow (``PFOF'') program
pursuant to which the Exchange charges a PFOF fee of $0.65 per contract
for all options classes that are not in the penny pilot program and are
not subject to the Exchange's maker/taker fees. For penny pilot
classes, the Exchange charges a PFOF fee of $0.25 per contract. The
Exchange's PFOF fee currently does not apply to market makers executing
a Public Customer Order in the Exchange's Price Improvement Mechanism
(``PIM''). For competitive reasons, the Exchange now proposes to apply
its PFOF fee for Public Customer Orders executed in the Exchange's PIM.
As a result of this change, ISE will be more competitive with the PFOF
fee that at least one other options exchange \3\ assesses for these
types of orders. This proposed fee change will also allow ISE market
makers to better compete for order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE'') currently charges a marketing fee of up to $0.65 per
contract for customer orders executed in its Automated Improvement
Mechanism. See CBOE Fees Schedule dated October 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative on
December 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(4) that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities. In particular, the proposed fee change will allow the
Exchange and its market makers to better compete for order flow and
thus enhance competition.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder \5\ because it
establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed on its members by ISE.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2010-113 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-113. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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,\6\ 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-113 and should be submitted on
or before January 4, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31328 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 172 (Thursday, September 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55050-55052]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19452]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89705; File No. SR-IEX-2020-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX
Rules 2.220(a)(7) and 11.410(a) To Include MIAX PEARL, LLC in the List
of Away Trading Centers To Which the Exchange Routes and the Market
Data Sources the Exchange Will Use To Determine MIAX PEARL's Top of
Book Quotation

August 28, 2020.
    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 August 25, 2020, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or
the ``Exchange'') 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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\4\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ IEX is filing with the Commission a
proposed rule change to amend IEX Rules 2.220(a)(7) and 11.410(a) to
include MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'') in the list of away trading
centers to which the Exchange routes and the market data sources the
Exchange will use to determine MIAX PEARL's Top of Book \6\ quotation,
in anticipation of MIAX PEARL's planned launch. The Exchange has
designated this rule change as ``non-controversial'' under Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and provided the Commission with the notice
required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ See IEX Rule 11.410(a)(1).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.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 these statement [sic] may be examined
at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory
organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rules 2.220(a)(7) \9\ and
11.410(a) \10\ to include MIAX PEARL LLC (``MIAX PEARL'') in the list
of away trading centers to which the Exchange routes and the market
data sources the Exchange will use to determine Top of Book \11\
quotations, in anticipation of MIAX PEARL's planned launch of equities
trading on September 25, 2020.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ IEX Rule 2.220(a)(7) lists the away trading centers that IEX
Services LLC (``IEX Services'') routes to as outbound router for the
Exchange.
    \10\ IEX Rule 11.410(a) specifies the market data sources for
each away trading center that the Exchange uses for necessary price
reference points.
    \11\ See IEX Rule 11.410(a)(1).
    \12\ See https://www.miaxoptions.com/alerts/2020/07/20/miax-pearl-equities-updated-dom-and-esesm-interface-specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rule 2.220(a)(7)
to add MIAX PEARL to the list of away trading centers to which IEX
Services routes orders. As set forth in IEX Rule 11.230(b)(2), IEX
Services routes eligible orders to away trading centers with accessible
Protected Quotations in compliance with Regulation NMS Rule 611.\13\
The Exchange must include MIAX PEARL in its list of away trading
centers to which it routes, because MIAX PEARL's best-priced, displayed
quotation will be a Protected Quotation under Regulation NMS Rule
600(b)(62) \14\ for purposes of Regulation NMS Rule 611.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(62).
    \15\ See MIAX PEARL Equities Rule 2617(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend and update the table in IEX
Rule 11.410(a) specifying the primary and secondary sources for MIAX
PEARL market data as a result of MIAX PEARL's establishment of Top of
Market and Depth of Market Feeds \16\ (``MIAX PEARL Market Data Feeds''
or ``direct feeds''). As specified in IEX Rule 11.410(a)(2), the
Exchange uses market data from each away trading center that produces a
Protected Quotation \17\ to determine each away trading center's Top of
Book quotation, as well as the NBBO \18\ for certain reporting,
regulatory and compliance systems within IEX. As proposed, the Exchange
will use the direct feeds as the primary source to determine MIAX
PEARL's Top of Book quotes. The Exchange also proposes to use
securities information processor (``SIP'') data, i.e., CQS SIP data for
securities reported under the Consolidated Quotation Services and
Consolidated Tape Association plans and UQDF SIP data for securities
reported under the Nasdaq Unlisted Trading Privileges plan, as the
secondary source to determine MIAX PEARL's Top of Book quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See MIAX PEARL Equities Rule 2625.
    \17\ See IEX Rule 1.160(bb).
    \18\ See IEX Rule 1.160(u).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not proposing any other changes to IEX Rules
2.220(a)(7) and 11.410. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in
which orders are handled or routed by the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \19\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed in the Purpose section, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors
and the public interest because including MIAX PEARL in the list of
away trading centers to which IEX routes and including the MIAX PEARL
Market Data Feeds in the primary sources of market data the Exchange
will use to determine away trading center Top of Book quotes (with the
SIP as the secondary source) will facilitate the Exchange's compliance
with the applicable requirements of Regulation NMS.
    Additionally, adding MIAX PEARL to the list of away trading centers
to which IEX routes and listing the MIAX PEARL Market Data Feeds as the
primary source of market data the Exchange will use to determine away
trading center Top of Book quotes (with the SIP as the secondary
source) provides transparency with respect to the away trading centers
to which IEX Services may route orders and the sources of market data
the Exchange will use to determine MIAX PEARL's Top of Book quotes.

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

    IEX 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. The Exchange believes that the
proposed update does not impact competition in any respect since its
purpose is to enhance transparency with respect to the operation of the
Exchange and its use of market data feeds, and to update an away market
name.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \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 text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \23\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \24\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent

with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will merely amend IEX rules to reflect the
planned September 25, 2020 launch of MIAX PEARL as an away trading
center with Protected Quotes and specify that IEX will route orders to
MIAX PEARL and use the direct feeds as the primary source (with the SIP
as the secondary source) to determine MIAX PEARL's Top of Book
quotation.
    The Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rule
change concurrent with MIAX PEARL's launch of equities trading, thereby
facilitating IEX's compliance with the applicable requirements of
Regulation NMS and providing clarity to market participants with
respect to whether IEX routes to MIAX PEARL and how IEX determines MIAX
PEARL's Top of Book quotation. The Commission believes that waiver of
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because the proposed rule change does
not raise any new or novel issues. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and designates the proposal as operative
upon filing.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \26\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-IEX-2020-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2020-12. 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 will also be available for inspection
and copying at the IEX's principal office and on its internet website
at www.iextrading.com. 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-IEX-2020-12
and should be submitted on or before September 24, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.

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

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-19452 Filed 9-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 24934]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09771]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2016-61]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received: Airbus SAS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES:  Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before May 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2016-
6120 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Long, ARM-200, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2016.
James M. Crotty,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2016-6120.
    Petitioner: Airbus SAS.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 25.865, 25.901(c), 25.1181,
and 25.1191.
    Description of Relief Sought: Airbus seeks time-limited relief
from the requirements for fire protection of flight controls, engine
mounts, and other flight structure; and designated fire zones and
firewalls.

[FR Doc. 2016-09771 Filed 4-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P