[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 23475]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09305]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings; Cancellation

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 86 FR 22083, April
26, 2021.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Thursday, April 29,
2021 at 2:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
April 29, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

     Dated: April 28, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09305 Filed 4-29-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


such, the Exchange believes the non-participation requirement is met
with respect to all orders submitted to BOX, including orders on the
BOX Book, the Complex Order Book, a PIP or a COPIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See November 2012 Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, in the case of a transaction effected for an account with
respect to which the initiating member or an associated person thereof
exercises investment discretion, neither the initiating member nor any
associated person thereof may retain any compensation in connection
with effecting the transaction, unless the person authorized to
transact business for the account has expressly provided otherwise by
written contract referring to Section 11(a) of the Act and Rule 11a2-
2(T).\95\ Participants trading for

covered accounts over which they exercise investment discretion must
comply with this condition in order to rely on the rule's exemption and
the Exchange will enforce this requirement pursuant to its obligation
under Section 6(b)(1) of the Act to enforce compliance with federal
securities laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 17 C.F.R. 240.11a2-2(T)(a)(2)(iv). In addition, Rule 11a2-
2(T)(d) requires a member or associated person authorized by written
contract to retain compensation, in connection with effecting
transactions for covered accounts over which such member or
associated person thereof exercises investment discretion, to
furnish at least annually to the person authorized to transact
business for the account a statement setting forth the total amount
of compensation retained by the member in connection with effecting
transactions for the account during the period covered by the
statement. See 17 C.F.R. 240.11a2-2(T)(d). See also 1978 Release
(stating ``[t]he contractual and disclosure requirements are
designed to assure that accounts electing to permit transaction-
related compensation do so only after deciding that such
arrangements are suitable to their interests'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the automated execution of orders submitted to BOX, no
Options Participant will enjoy any special control over the timing and
execution or special order handling advantages in effecting
transactions in orders submitted to BOX. All orders are electronically
executed, rather than being handled manually by an Options Participant.
Because these processes prevent Options Participants from gaining any
time and place advantage once an order is submitted to BOX, the
Exchange believes that the execution of orders submitted through the
PIP and COPIP, including the execution of PIP Orders and COPIP Orders
against orders on the BOX Book or on the Complex Order Book, will
satisfy three of the four conditions of the Effect Versus Execute Rule.
The Exchange notes that BOX Options Participants also must comply with
the fourth condition of the Effect Versus Execute Rule with respect to
discretionary accounts and the Exchange will enforce this requirement
pursuant to its obligation under Section 6(b)(1) of the Act to enforce
compliance with federal securities laws.
    The Exchange believes the proposal promotes just and equitable
principles of trade and is consistent with the general policy
objectives of Section 11(a) of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
execution of orders submitted through the PIP and COPIP, including the
execution of PIP Orders and COPIP Orders against orders on the BOX Book
or on the Complex Order Book (whether prior to or after the respective
PIP or COPIP Broadcast) satisfy the requirements of the Effect Versus
Execute Rule. Further, the Exchange believes the policy concerns
Congress sought to address in Section 11(a) of the Act, the time and
place advantage members on exchange floors have over non-members off
the floor and the general public, are not present for transactions
entered into BOX whether the transaction is executed on the BOX Book,
the Complex Order Book, through a PIP or through a COPIP.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\96\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\97\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \97\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change is a
reasonable modification designed to provide additional opportunities
for Participants to obtain executions with price improvement for their
customers while continuing to provide meaningful competition within the
PIP and COPIP. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change
will increase the number of PIP and COPIP transactions on the Exchange
and participation in the PIP and COPIP, which will ultimately enhance
competition and provide customers with additional opportunities for
price improvement. The Exchange believes these changes are consistent
with the goals to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism
for a free and open market and a national market system.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal will result
in increased liquidity available at improved prices, with competitive
pricing outside the control of the Initiating Participant. The proposed
rule change should promote and foster competition and provide more
options contracts with the opportunity for price improvement. As a
result of the increased opportunities for price improvement, the
Exchange believes that Participants will increasingly use the PIP and
COPIP so that more customer orders are provided the opportunity to
receive price improvement.
PIP and COPIP Allocation
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the PIP and COPIP
allocations is an improvement over the current allocations, and will
benefit all market participants submitting PIP and COPIP orders on the
Exchange. As a result of the proposed changes, the Exchange believes
that additional Participants will use the PIP and COPIP to increase the
number of orders that are provided with the opportunity to receive
price improvement. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the
proposed allocation algorithm will encourage greater participation in
the PIP and COPIP process by encouraging additional Participants to
respond to the PIP and COPIP. The Exchange believes that the proposed
pro rata allocation encourages additional Participants to respond at a
particular price in size, even if that Participant did not set the
price. These additional responses should encourage greater competition
in the PIP and COPIP, which should, in turn, benefit and protect
investors and the public interest through the potential for greater
price improvement.
    The proposed rule changes preserve the priority of Public Customer
orders over non-Public Customer orders at the same price. The Exchange
believes this priority remains consistent with the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the new PIP and COPIP allocations are
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to
protect investors and the public interest, because it continues to
recognizes the unique status of customers in the marketplace by
continuing to afford Public Customers certain priority advantages.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Primary Improvement Order
allocation is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
customers and Participants. Giving Primary Improvement Orders
allocation priority for 40% or 50% of the remaining quantity of the PIP
or COPIP Order will continue to provide incentive for Participants to
initiate PIP and COPIP auctions on BOX, which provides greater
opportunity to receive price improvement by encouraging participation
in the PIP and COPIP process. The Exchange believes that disregarding
Public Customer orders and Legging Orders when determining whether the
Initiating Participant retains 40% or 50% under proposed Rule 7150(h)
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to customers
and Participants because neither Public Customer order allocation nor
Legging Order allocation will be affected by the Initiating Participant
retaining the difference between 40% or 50% as discussed above.
    The Exchange believes that the Market Maker Allocation is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect
investors and the

public interest, because it strikes a reasonable balance between
encouraging vigorous price competition and rewarding Market Makers for
their unique obligations. Overall, the proposed PIP and COPIP
allocations represent a careful balancing by the Exchange of the
rewards and obligations of various types of market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to give Legging Orders last
priority is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
customers and Participants. Giving Legging Orders last priority
preserves the established priority of Legging Orders since they
currently have last priority during the current PIP allocation.
    The Exchange believes that providing priority to BOX Book Interest
in the proposed COPIP allocation is reasonable as it preserves the
established priority of BOX Book Interest when executing with Complex
Orders. Therefore the Exchange believes the proposal will reduce
investor confusion when executing orders on the Exchange.
Orders and Quotes on the BOX Book
    The Exchange believes its proposal to no longer give quotes and
orders on the BOX Book prior to the PIP Broadcast priority for purposes
of the PIP allocation is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. As stated above, with the current PIP allocation,
orders and quotes on the BOX Book prior to the PIP Broadcast have time
priority and therefore execute before PIP responses. Since, with this
proposal, the Exchange is changing the allocation at the end of the PIP
from a price/time allocation to a pro rata allocation, the Exchange
believes that continuing to give orders and quotes on the BOX Book
prior to the commencement of a PIP priority would contradict the new
PIP allocation. Therefore the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
remove the provisions of the rules that give interest on the BOX Book
prior to the commencement of a PIP priority in order to avoid investor
confusion.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes its proposal to no longer give
Complex Orders on the Complex Order Book prior to the COPIP Broadcast
priority for purposes of the COPIP allocation is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory. As mentioned above, with the proposed
changes to the COPIP allocation from a price/time allocation to a pro
rata allocation, the Exchange believes that continuing to give Complex
Orders on the Complex Order Book prior to the COPIP Broadcast priority
would contradict the new COPIP allocations. Therefore the Exchange
believes it is reasonable to remove the provisions of the rules that
give Complex Orders on the Complex Order Book prior to the COPIP
Broadcast priority in order to avoid investor confusion.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes these proposed changes will
encourage additional Participants to response to the PIP and COPIP. The
Exchange believes that under the current rules Participants are
discouraged from responding to the PIP and COPIP since certain orders
on the book were executed before a Participants response at the same
price level. By no longer giving interest on the book priority, the
Exchange believes that additional Participants will respond to the PIP
and COPIP. These additional responses should encourage greater
competition, which should, in turn, benefit and protect investors and
the public interest through greater price improvement.
Broadcast of Improvement Orders
    The Exchange believes the proposal to remove the broadcast of
Improvement Orders via the HSVF is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to customers and Participants because under the
proposal no market participants will be able to receive broadcast
notification of Improvement Orders. As a result, no Participants will
have an information advantage, therefore the proposal serves to promote
just and equitable principles of trade and to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system. Additionally, the Exchange believes that this proposed change
will encourage greater participation in the PIP and COPIP which should
lead to greater price improvement. The Exchange believes that this
should encourage Participants to submit Improvement Orders at the best
possible price that the Participant is willing to participate. This, in
turn, should result in better execution prices which should, in turn,
benefit and protect investors and the public interest through greater
price improvement. The Exchange notes that this is similar to the rules
of other exchanges.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See Phlx Rule 1080(n)(ii)(A)(6) and CBOE Rule
6.74A(b)(1)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cancel Improvement Orders
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to allow Participants to
cancel Improvement Orders during the PIP and COPIP is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that
since the PIP and COPIP Orders are guaranteed to execute at a price
that is at least equal to, if not better, than the NBBO, that allowing
Participants to cancel their Improvement Orders will not affect the
ability of an order to receive an execution at the NBBO. Additionally,
the Exchange believes that allowing Participants to cancel Improvement
Orders will protect Participants from the risk of the market moving
against them. The Exchange believes that this protection for
Participants should lead to more aggressive responses, which, should
lead to greater price improvement for investors. Therefore the Exchange
believes that the proposed change will not affect investor protection
and investors will continue to benefit from the potential for price
improvement. The Exchange notes that this is consistent with the rules
of Phlx.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See Phlx Rule 1080(n)(ii)(A)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removal of Market Maker Prime
    As stated above, the Exchange is removing the Market Maker Prime
designation because it has not achieved the intended results.
Specifically, the Market Maker Prime designation has not incentivized
Market Makers to quote aggressively on the BOX Book as it was intended.
The Exchange believes that the continued presence of the Market Maker
Prime designation will only serve to confuse and complicate the
Exchange's Rules, while providing little or no benefit. Therefore the
Exchange believes that removing the Market Maker Prime will promote
just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors and the
public interest.
Customer PIP Order
    The Exchange is removing the CPO functionality because it has not
achieved the intended results. The Exchange believes that the continued
presence of the CPO will only serve to confuse and complicate the
Exchange's Rules, while providing little or no benefit. The Exchange
notes that Public Customers will continue to have opportunities to
participate in PIP auctions without limits imposed by CPOs. Therefore,
the Exchange believes that removing the CPO will avoid investor
confusion when executing orders on the Exchange.
Professional Priority
    The Exchange believes the proposal to treat Professionals as
broker-dealers for the purposes of the PIP and COPIP will ensure that
non-Professional, Public Customers continue to receive the appropriate
order priority marketplace advantages on BOX, while furthering

fair competition among marketplace professionals.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change to the priority rules for
Professionals in the PIP and COPIP is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it treats Professionals, whose activity
on BOX is akin to the order flow activity and system usage of broker-
dealers, the same priority for competing in the PIP and COPIP as the
priority given to broker-dealers. As noted above, the order sending
behavior, trading activity and available technology and information of
Professionals tend to be more similar to broker-dealers trading on a
proprietary basis than to non-Professional, Public Customers. This can
be particularly true of orders placed in response to the PIP and COPIP.
As such, the Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to
treat Professionals like broker-dealers for order priority purposes
when competing for customer order flow in auction transactions.
    Further, the Exchange believes the proposed change to the priority
rules is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will
assure that non-Professional, Public Customers continue to receive the
appropriate order priority marketplace advantages on BOX, while
furthering fair competition among marketplace professionals (both
Professionals and Broker-Dealers) by treating them equally in order
priority when they compete for these desirable customer orders. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to treat Professionals
in the PIP and COPIP like broker-dealers because it applies an order
priority structure that groups these sophisticated market participants
together when they are competing in this manner.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for non-Professional, Public Customers to have priority
over Professionals and broker-dealers for the PIP and COPIP. The
securities markets generally, and the Exchange in particular, have
historically aimed to improve markets for retail investors and develop
various features within the market structure for the benefit of non-
Professional, Public Customers.
    The Exchange proposes to make certain miscellaneous conforming and
clarifying changes to Rules 7000, 7130, 7150, and 7245 to make them
consistent with the adoption of the proposed PIP and COPIP allocations.
These conforming and clarifying changes are required to make the rules
consistent and are necessary to promote just and equitable principles
of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes this proposal is a
reasonable modification to its rules, designed to facilitate increased
interaction of PIP and COPIP on the Exchange, and to do so in a manner
that ensures a dynamic, real-time trading mechanism that maximizes
opportunities for trade executions for orders. The Exchange believes it
is appropriate and consistent with the Act to adopt the proposed rule
changes.

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

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change represents
any undue burden on competition or will impose any burden on
competition among exchanges in the listed options marketplace not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To
the contrary, the proposal is pro-competitive because it will enable
the Exchange to better compete with another options exchange that
provides a similar allocation algorithm within its auctions.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See supra, note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to intra-market competition, the PIP and COPIP will
still be available to all Participants. The Exchange believes that the
proposal should encourage Participants to compete amongst each other by
responding with the best price in each auction. Submitting an order to
the PIP or a Complex Order to the COPIP is entirely voluntary and
Participants will determine whether they wish to submit these orders to
the Exchange. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive marketplace
with other competing exchanges and market participants can readily
direct their order flow to other exchanges if they so choose.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2014-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2014-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal 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-BOX-
2014-16 and should be submitted on or before July 23, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15472 Filed 7-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 13)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3430-3431]
[DOCID:fr18ja08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29164; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-14]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Pagosa Springs, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Pagosa
Springs, CO. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate
aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Stevens Field.
The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management
of aircraft operations at Stevens Field, Pagosa Springs, CO.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-
29164; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-14, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2007-29164 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-14) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2007-29164 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-14''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM's

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://.

www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Pagosa
Springs, CO. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft
using the new RNAV (GPS) SIAP at Stevens Field. This action would
enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Stevens
Field, Pagosa Springs, CO.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAAs authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes additional controlled airspace at Stevens Field,
Pagosa Springs, CO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order
7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15,
2007, and effective September 15, 2007 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO, E5 Pagosa Springs, CO [New]

Stevens Field, Pagosa Springs, CO
    (Lat. 37[deg]17'11'' N., long. 107[deg]3'22'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 10.0 mile radius of Stevens Field and within 8.0 miles each
side of the 169[deg] bearing from the Airport extending from the
10.0 mile radius to 25.0 miles south of the Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 21, 2007.
Clark Desing,
Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area.
 [FR Doc. E8-850 Filed 1-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69928-69929]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

35th Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical
Information and Meteorological Data Link Services

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical
Information and Meteorological Data Link Services.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
thirty-fifth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical
Information and Meteorological Data Link Services.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 9-13, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at MITRE, 7515 Colshire Drive,
McLean, VA 22102-7539.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-
0652/(202) 833-

9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 206. The agenda will
include the following:

December 09

 Introduction and opening remarks
 Review and approve meeting agenda
 Approval of previous meeting minutes
 SC-206 Action item review
 Approval of previous (Chicago) meeting minutes
 Sub-Groups status and week's plan
 Industry Presentations

10 December

 Sub-Groups meetings
 SG4: SE2020 Eddy Dissipation Rate (EDR) Turbulence Project
 Plenary--SG3 Architecture Document FRAC Resolution

11 December

 Plenary--SG3 Architecture Document FRAC Resolution
 Sub-Group Meetings

12 December

 Plenary--SG3 Architecture Document FRAC Resolution
 Sub-Group Meetings

13 December

 Closing--Plenary
 Sub-Groups reports
 Action Item review
 Future meeting plans and dates
 Industry Coordination & Presentations
 Other business
 Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting.
    Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 14, 2013.
Paige Williams,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-27864 Filed 11-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


DRAFT WATER QUALITY MID-CYCLE SUBCOMMITTEE

AGENDA

September 4, 2008

1:00 - 3:00 pm Eastern Time

Participation by Teleconference Only

866-299-3188

Code:<PHONE_NUMBER>#

1:00 - 1:10 pm	Welcome	Dr. Herb Windom,

	- Introduction of Subcommittee Members	Subcommittee Chair

	- Overview of Subcommittee Objectives

1:10 - 1:15 pm	Administrative Procedures	Susan Peterson,

	Subcommittee DFO

1:15 – 1:30 pm	Material Overview	Dr. Charles Noss

		Office of Research and

		Development

1:30 - 1:50 pm	Overview of Charge/	Dr. Herb Windom

	Rating Program Performance	Subcommittee Chair

1:50 -2: 10 pm	Overall Progress Review	Dr. Charles Noss

Office of Research and

Development

2:10 – 2:35 pm	Updated MYP Review	Dr. Charles Noss

		Office of Research and

		Development

2:35 – 2:40 pm	Public Comment	Dr. Charles Noss, ORD NPD

2:40 – 3:00 pm	Preparation for Next Call and/or Face-to-Face 	Dr. Herb Windom,

	Meeting	Subcommittee Chair

	- Discuss Writing Assignments

	- Identify Additional Information Needs

3:00 pm	Adjourn

            A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development