[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22186-22187]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8678]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 1

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0019; Amdt. No. 1-67]
RIN 2120-AK03

Removal of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc Definitions; Delay of
Effective Date and Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; delay of effective date and reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This action delays the effective date and reopens the comment
period for a Direct Final Rule that was published on February 16, 2012
(77 FR 9163). In that document, the FAA published amendments to remove
the definitions of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations because the
definitions are outdated and no longer used for aircraft certification
or operational authorization. The International Aviation Civil
Organization (ICAO) has requested additional time to adequately analyze
the Direct Final Rule and prepare comments.

DATES: The effective date of the Direct Final Rule published on
February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9163) is delayed from April 16, 2012, to June
12, 2012. If an adverse comment is received, the FAA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register.
    The comment period of the Direct Final Rule published on February
16, 2012 (77 FR 9163) is reopened until May 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number (FAA-2012-
0019) using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations 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.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thuy H. Cooper, ARM-106, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the ``Additional Information'' section
for information on how to comment on this rule and how the FAA will
handle comments received. The ``Additional Information'' section also
contains related information about privacy and the docket. In addition,
there is information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking
documents.

Background

    On February 7, 2012, the FAA issued Amendment No. 1-67, entitled
``Removal of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc Definitions'' (77 FR 9163).
The FAA requested that comments on that rule be received on or before
March 19, 2012.
    By letter dated March 16, 2012, ICAO requested that the FAA
consider postponing the effective date of the rule until the rule is
reviewed through an international process. ICAO stated that due to the
short time frame, it was not in the position to understand the full
implications of removing the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions.
ICAO stated that additional time is necessary to adequately assess the
impact of the Direct Final Rule and prepare comments.

Reopening of Comment Period

    In accordance with Sec.  11.47(c) of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, the FAA has reviewed the request made by ICAO. The
petitioner has shown a substantive interest in the rule and good cause
for the reopening. The FAA has determined that reopening of the comment
period is consistent with the public interest, and that good cause
exists for taking this action.
    Accordingly, the comment period for Amendment No. 1-67 is reopened
until May 14, 2012.

Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from implementing the rule. The
most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the Direct Final
Rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include
supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate
comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or
if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one
time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this rulemaking. Before acting on this rule, the
FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing
date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the

comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The agency may change this rule in light of the
comments it receives.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.fdys.gov.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this rule may be
accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
referenced in item (1) above.

C. Privacy

    The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information the
commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket web site,
anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received
into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the
comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor
union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as
well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

D. Docket

    Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or Docket Operations 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.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 5, 2012.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-8678 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 218)]
[Notices]
[Page 66646-66647]
[DOCID:fr10no08-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-E-0093]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; IXEMPRA

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for IXEMPRA and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent
which claims that human drug product.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and

an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins
when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the human
drug product becomes effective and runs until the approval phase
begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an
application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA
grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion
of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of
extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for
example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time
that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product IXEMPRA
(ixabepilone). IXEMPRA in combination with capecitabine is indicated
for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer in
patients after failure of an anthracycline and a taxane. IXEMPRA as
monotherapy is indicated for the treatment of metastatic or locally
advanced breast cancer in patients after failure of an anthracycline, a
taxane, and capecitabine. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and
Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for
IXEMPRA (U.S. Patent No. 6,605,599) from Bristol Myers Squibb Co., and
the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in
determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a
letter dated April 22, 2008, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark
Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review
period and that the approval of IXEMPRA represented the first permitted
commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and
Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory
review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
IXEMPRA is 3,002 days. Of this time, 2,818 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 184 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective:
July 30, 1999. The applicant claims June 30, 1999, as the date the
investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However,
FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was July 30, 1999,
which was thirty days after FDA receipt of the IND.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the act: April 16, 2007.
FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application
(NDA) for Ixempra (NDA 22-065) was initially submitted on April 16,
2007.
    3. The date the application was approved: October 16, 2007. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-065 was approved on October
16, 2007.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in
its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 854 days of
patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination
by January 9, 2009. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA
for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted
with due diligence during the regulatory review period by May 11, 2009.
To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit
an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess.,
pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR
10.30.
    Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be
submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to
be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading
of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: October 20, 2008.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. E8-26678 Filed 11-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: April 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 72)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19441-19442]
[DOCID:fr14ap06-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0205; FRL-7766-2]

Cyfluthrin; Pesticide Tolerance Technical Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of September
13, 2005, concerning the establishment of pesticide tolerances for
residues of the insecticide cyfluthrin in/on several agricultural
commodities. This document is being issued to correct omissions
concerning the entry for wheat milled by products, except flour.

DATES:  This final rule is effective April 14, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0205. All documents in the
docket are listed on the regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Docket Facility is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga Odiott, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    The Agency included in the final rule a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?

    In addition to using regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov),

you may access this Federal Register document electronically through
the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
 A frequently updated electronic version of 40

CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/
.

II. What Does this Correction Do?

    FR Doc. 05-17823 published in the Federal Register of September 13,
2005 (70 FR 53944) (FRL-7725-7) is corrected as follows:
    1. On page 53944, in the first column, under SUMMARY, seventh line
from the bottom, add ``wheat bran;'' before ``wheat forage;'' and
``wheat shorts;'' after ``wheat hay;''.

    2. On page 53945, in the first column, first full paragraph, fourth
line from the bottom, the text after ``vi.'' should read ``by replacing
the tolerance for wheat milled products with wheat bran at 6.5 ppm and
wheat shorts at 11.0 ppm.''
    3. On the same page, in the same column, second full paragraph, add
the following text after the last sentence: ``EPA is removing the
tolerance for wheat milled byproducts since it is no longer needed with
the establishment of tolerances for wheat bran and wheat shorts.''

III. Why is this Correction Issued as a Final Rule?

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making today's technical
correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment,
because [the corrections of the subject tolerances do not underestimate
the aggregate dietary exposures and risks from cyfluthrin uses.
Therefore, the nature of these changes are not considered significant.
EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

IV. Do Any of the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this
Action?

    No. Refer to the discussion provided under Statutory and Executive
Order Reviews in the Federal Register document of September 13, 2005.

V. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule is not a ``major rule '' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 4, 2006.
Meredith F. Laws,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is corrected as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321 (q), 326a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.436 is amended in paragraph (a)(1), in the table, by
removing the commodity wheat milled byproducts and by alphabetically
adding new commodities to read as follows:

Sec.  180.436  Cyfluthrin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1)* * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              * * * * * * *
Wheat, bran....................................                  6.5 ppm
                              * * * * * * *
Wheat, shorts                                                   11.0 ppm
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-3550 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 21881]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-1574-000]

WPL Bear Creek Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
WPL Bear Creek Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 27, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 7, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07880 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 67287-67290]
[DOCID:fr18de09-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61145; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-120]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Changes in NYSE
Realtime Reference Prices Service

December 10, 2009.
    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 November 27, 2009, the New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE'' or ``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange.

The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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

    NYSE proposes (1) To add data elements to its ``NYSE Realtime
Reference Prices'' service, (2) to reduce the fixed monthly fee that
applies to that service and (3) to add a usage-based fee alternative
for that service. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://
www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    In File No. SR-NYSE-2009-42 (the ``NYSE Realtime Reference Prices
Filing''),\4\ the Exchange established a fixed monthly fee for its
NYSE-only market data service that allows a vendor to redistribute on a
real-time basis last sale prices of transactions that take place on the
Exchange. The NYSE Realtime Reference Prices service provides a low-
cost service that makes real-time prices widely available to many
millions of casual investors, provides vendors with a real-time
substitute for delayed prices, and relieves vendors of all
administrative burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-60004 (May 29,
2009), 74 FR 26905 (June 4, 2009) (File No. SR-NYSE-2009-42) (the
``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The service allows Internet service providers, traditional market
data vendors, and others (``NYSE-Only Vendors'') to make available NYSE
Realtime Reference Prices on a real-time basis.\5\ NYSE Realtime
Reference Prices information includes last sale prices for all
securities that are traded on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that it makes the NYSE Realtime Reference
Prices available to vendors no earlier than it makes those prices
available to the processor under the CTA Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to the service
and its fees:
a. Data Elements
    Currently, the NYSE Realtime Reference Price Service includes only
prices. It does not include the size of each trade and does not include
bid/asked quotations. For each security, the Exchange is proposing to
add the following data elements to the service:
     High price.
     Low price.
     Cumulative volume.
    The Exchange anticipates that it will update these data elements
every second, though initially it will update them once per minute. A
security's high (low) price will reflect the highest (lowest) price at
which the security has traded on the Exchange during the trading
session through the point in time at which it is disseminated. Further,
the cumulative volume will reflect a security's aggregate volume during
a trading session through the point in time at which it is last
disseminated. The Exchange believes that adding these data elements
will make the product more attractive to the customers of NYSE-Only
Vendors.
b. Reduction in the Fixed Monthly Fee
    The NYSE Realtime Reference Price service features a flat, fixed
monthly vendor fee of $70,000 and no user-based fees. For that fee, the
NYSE-Only Vendor may provide unlimited NYSE Realtime Reference Prices
to an unlimited number of the NYSE-Only Vendor's subscribers and
customers without having to differentiate between professional
subscribers and nonprofessional subscribers, without having to account
for the extent of access to the data, and without having to report the
number of users.
    The Exchange has now had experience with the product and has
received feedback from its customers. As a result of the comments of
the Exchange's customers, the response to the product from the vendors
most likely to subscribe to the product, and the past year's market
corrections, the Exchange is now proposing to reduce the fixed monthly
fee to $60,000. In addition, in combination with the proposed usage-
based fee and the proposed addition of new data elements to the
product, the Exchange hopes that the fee reduction will allow the
Exchange to broaden the universe of vendors that will find the product
appropriate for their business models.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed reduced fee will enable
Internet service providers and traditional vendors that have large
numbers of casual investors as subscribers and customers to contribute
to the Exchange's operating costs in a manner that is appropriate for
their means of distribution. The Exchange further believes that the
proposed reduction in the fixed monthly fee for the NYSE Realtime
Reference Prices service will make the product more attractive to
vendors. An increase in the number of vendors that determine to provide
free access to NYSE Realtime Reference prices to their Internet users
would benefit the investment community. The fee reduction will also
respond to the price competition provided by alternative exchanges,
ECNs and the market for delayed data. In addition, it will better
reflect the perceived value of the NYSE product and provide a more
equitable allocation of the Exchange's overall costs to users of its
facilities.
c. Usage-Based Fee
    The Exchange proposes to establish as an alternative to the fixed
monthly fee a fee of $.004 for each real-time reference price that a
NYSE-Only Vendor disseminates to its customers. The Exchange proposes
to limit a NYSE-Only Vendor's exposure under this alternative fee by
setting $60,000, the same amount as the proposed fixed monthly rate, as
the maximum fee that an NYSE-Only Vendor would have to pay for real-
time reference prices that it disseminates in any calendar month
pursuant to the per-query fee.
    In order to take advantage of the per-query fee, a NYSE-Only Vendor
must document in its Exhibit A that it has the ability to measure
accurately the number of queries and must have the ability to report
aggregate query quantities on a monthly basis.
    The Exchange will impose the per-query fee only on the
dissemination of real-time reference prices. NYSE-Only Vendors may
provide delayed data services in the same manner as they do today.
    The per-query charge is imposed on NYSE-Only Vendors, not end-
users, and is payable on a monthly basis. Because it represents a new
and additional alternative to the monthly fixed fee, NYSE-Only Vendors
may elect to disseminate NYSE Realtime Reference

Prices pursuant to the per-query fee rather than the fixed monthly fee.
d. Justification of Fees
    The NYSE Realtime Reference Prices service enables Internet service
providers and traditional vendors that have large numbers of casual
investors as subscribers and customers to contribute to the Exchange's
operating costs in a manner that is appropriate for their means of
distribution. Reducing the flat monthly fee and adding a per-query
payment option will reduce the costs of the service to those Internet
service providers and traditional vendors. For the reasons explained
above, the Exchange believes that this will enable NYSE Realtime
Reference Prices vendors to make a more appropriate contribution to the
Exchange's operating costs.
    In re-setting the level of the NYSE Realtime Reference Prices flat
monthly fee and in establishing the per-query fee, the Exchange took
into consideration several factors, including:
    (1) The fees that Nasdaq and NYSE Arca are charging for similar
services and that NYSE Amex has proposed to charge;
    (2) Consultation with some of the entities that currently receive
the service or that the Exchange anticipates may commence to take
advantage of the service;
    (3) The contribution of market data revenues that the Exchange
believes is appropriate for entities that are most likely to take
advantage of the proposed service;
    (4) The contribution that revenues accruing from the proposed fees
will make to meet the overall costs of the Exchange's operations;
    (5) The savings in administrative and reporting costs that the NYSE
Realtime Reference Prices service will provide to NYSE-Only Vendors;
and
    (6) The fact that the proposed fees provide even more attractive
alternatives to existing fees under the CTA Plan than the current flat
fee, alternatives that vendors will purchase only if they determine
that the perceived benefits outweigh the cost.
    The Exchange believes that the levels of the fixed monthly fee and
the per-query fee are consistent with the approach set forth in the
order by which the Commission approved ArcaBook fees for NYSE Arca.\6\
In the ArcaBook Approval Order, the Commission stated that ``when
possible, reliance on competitive forces is the most appropriate and
effective means to assess whether the terms for the distribution of
non-core data are equitable, fair and reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory.'' \7\ It noted that if significant competitive forces
apply to a proposal, the Commission will approve it unless a
substantial countervailing basis exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Release [sic] No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770
(December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21) (the ``ArcaBook Approval
Order'').
    \7\ Id. at 74771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Realtime Reference Prices constitute ``non-core data.'' The
Exchange does not require a central processor to consolidate and
distribute the product to the public pursuant to joint-SRO plans.
Rather, the Exchange distributes the product voluntarily.
    In the case of NYSE Realtime Reference Prices, both of the two
types of competitive forces that the Commission described in the
ArcaBook Approval Order are present: The Exchange has a compelling need
to attract order flow and the product competes with a number of
alternative products.
    The Exchange must compete vigorously for order flow to maintain its
share of trading volume. This requires the Exchange to act reasonably
in setting market data fees for non-core products such as NYSE Realtime
Reference Prices. The Exchange hopes that NYSE Realtime Reference
Prices will enable vendors to distribute NYSE last sale price data
widely among investors, and thereby provide a means for promoting the
Exchange's visibility in the marketplace.
    In addition to the need to attract order flow, the availability of
alternatives to NYSE Realtime Reference Prices significantly constrain
the prices at which the Exchange can market NYSE Realtime Reference
Prices. All national securities exchanges, the several Trade Reporting
Facilities of FINRA, and ECNs that produce proprietary data, as well as
the core data feed, are all sources of competition for NYSE Realtime
Reference Prices. Currently, NYSE Arca and Nasdaq offer similar
services. (In addition, the Exchange anticipates that NYSE Amex will
soon file for approval of a counterpart product.)
    The information available in NYSE Realtime Reference is included in
the CTA core data feed, which also includes the size of trades, as well
as last sale information from other markets. Even though NYSE Realtime
Reference Prices omits size and provides prices that are not
consolidated with those of other markets, investors may select it as a
less expensive alternative to the CTA Plan's consolidated last sale
price services for certain purposes. (Rule 603(c) of Regulation NMS
requires vendors to make the core data feeds available to customers
when trading and order-routing decisions can be implemented.)
e. Amendment to Exhibit C
    In providing NYSE Realtime Reference Prices, the Exchange
supplements the standard Network A Vendor Form with an Exhibit C that
provides certain terms and conditions that are unique to the NYSE
Realtime Reference Prices service, such as the replacement of end-user
agreements with a hyperlink to a notice and a labeling requirement. One
of those supplemental conditions provides that the NYSE-Only Vendor
will only distribute last sale prices as part of the service. Because
this filing proposes to expand the permissible universe of data
elements that a NYSE-Only Vendor may disseminate, the Exchange proposes
to amend the Exhibit C. The proposed revised version of Exhibit C is
attached to the proposed rule change as Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 4 is marked to show the proposed changes to the current version
of Exhibit C. Exhibit 5 is a clean, unmarked version.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
for the proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4)
\8\ that an exchange have rules that provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and other persons using its facilities and the requirements under
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and not to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would benefit investors by facilitating
their prompt access to widespread, free, real-time pricing information
contained in the NYSE Realtime Reference Prices service. In addition,
the Exchange believes (1) that the proposed fee reduction would allow
entities that provide market data to large numbers of investors to make
an appropriate contribution towards meeting the overall costs of the
Exchange's operations and (2) that the proposed per-query fee would
provide pricing flexibility to entities that determine to provide the
NYSE Realtime Reference Prices service.

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

    NYSE Realtime Reference Prices proposes to reduce an existing fee
of the Exchange (the flat monthly fee) and to provide an alternative
(the per-query fee) to the existing fee. It would not raise or rescind
any existing fees. It amounts to a competitive response to the products
that Nasdaq and NYSE Arca make available and that NYSE Amex has
proposed to make available. For those reasons, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

    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

    Within 35 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 Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSE-2009-120 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-120. 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, 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 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-
NYSE-2009-120 and should be submitted on or before January 8, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30080 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23531-23532]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9407]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66806; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 1014

April 13, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on April 4, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section (b)(ii)(D)(3) of Rule 1014,
Obligations and Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and Registered
Options Traders, a rule pertaining to the minimum size requirement for
quotations.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    This proposed rule change is based on filings previously submitted
by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') \3\ and the
International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') \4\ that were effective on
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58828 (October 21,
2008), 73 FR 63749 (October 27, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-107).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60854 (October 21,
2009) 74 FR 55613 (October 28, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-84).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Section
(b)(ii)(D)(3) of Rule 1014, Obligations and Restrictions Applicable to
Specialists and Registered Options Traders, in order to change a
minimum quoting size requirement. Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D) sets forth
certain market making obligations that apply to Streaming Quote Traders
(``SQTs''), \5\ Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') \6\ and
specialists. For example, Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D)(1) provides that, in
addition to other obligations and with certain exceptions, an SQT and
an RSQT shall be responsible to quote two-sided markets in not less
than 60% of the series in which such SQT or RSQT is assigned. Likewise,
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D)(2) provides that a specialist must quote two-sided
markets in the lesser of 99% of the series or 100% of the series minus
one call-put pair in each option in which such specialist is assigned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Streaming Quote Trader (``SQT'') is defined in Exchange
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in
options to which such SQT is assigned.
    \6\ A Remote Streaming Quote Trader (``RSQT'') is defined
Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is a member or member
organization with no physical trading floor presence who has
received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically in options to which such RSQT has been
assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations electronically
from off the floor of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D)(3) provides that SQTs, RSQTs and the
specialist assigned in an option shall submit electronic quotations for
such option with a size of not less than 10 contracts. The Exchange
proposes to eliminate the 10 contract minimum size and to provide
instead that the minimum number of contracts shall be specified by the
Exchange for each option. The proposed change would allow the Exchange
to set a minimum quotation size requirement for quotes on a class by
class basis, provided the minimum set by the Exchange is at least one
contract. Phlx would not impose a minimum quotation size requirement
greater than 10 contracts.
    The Exchange believes it should have the flexibility to change the
minimum size requirement on a class by class basis depending on market
conditions and the trading and liquidity in a particular option class
and its underlying security. Phlx notes that the minimum quotation size
requirement for market makers on ISE, CBOE, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca'') and the Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM'') is only one
contract.\7\ As a result, Phlx believes the proposed rule change is
based on and similar to the rules of other options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ISE Rule 804, CBOE Rules 6.2B, 8.7, 8.14, 8.15A,
NYSEArca Rule 6.37B and NOM Rulebook Chapter VII, Section 6(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)

of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed 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.
The proposed rule change would permit the Exchange to set a minimum
quotation size requirement on a class by class basis, provided the
minimum size is at least one contract. Phlx believes that this
flexibility will enable the Exchange to take into consideration market
conditions and the trading and liquidity in a particular option class
and its underlying security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition 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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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. 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-49 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-Phlx-2012-49. 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
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-Phlx-2012-49 and should be
submitted on or before May 10, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9407 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62887-62890]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65472; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-72]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fees
Applicable to Qualified Contingent Cross Orders in the Options Fee
Schedule

October 3, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 26, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III 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 Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') to establish fees relating to Qualified Contingent
Cross

(``QCC'') orders that are entered and executed through the Exchange
systems. The proposed change will be operative on September 26, 2011.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to establish fees for executions of
a new order type known as QCC.\3\ The Exchange intends to charge
Customer orders that comprise all or part of a QCC order a rate of $.00
per contract. This rate is consistent with the fees charged to Customer
orders generally. All other participants \4\ will be charged a rate of
$.20 per contract for QCC orders in which they participate. The
Exchange does not intend to allow QCC orders to be treated as Strategy
Trades for billing purposes. Participants engaged in trades that would
qualify for the fee caps on Strategy Executions can choose to either
pay the proposed QCC fees or avail themselves of the Strategy Trade fee
cap by not executing such orders utilizing the QCC order type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65047 (August 5,
2011), 76 FR 49812 (August 11, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-56). The QCC
permits an NYSE Amex ATP Holder to effect a qualified contingent
trade (``QCT'') in a Regulation NMS stock and cross the options leg
of the trade on the Exchange immediately upon entry and without
order exposure if the order is for at least 1,000 contracts, is part
of a QCT, and is executed at a price at least equal to the national
best bid and offer, as long as there are no Customer orders in the
Exchange's Consolidated Book at the same price.
    \4\ This includes Specialists, e-Specialists, NYSE Amex Options
Market Makers, Non-NYSE Amex Options Market Makers, Broker Dealers,
Professional Customers, and Firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Along with this change, the Exchange proposes to introduce an
incremental service fee of $.05 or $.10 per contract for a QCC order
executed on behalf of a Specialist, e-Specialist, Market Maker (both
Directed and non-Directed), or Firm that has reached its respective fee
cap for the month under endnotes 5 or 6 of the Fee Schedule.\5\ When a
capped participant trades with a non-Customer, the service fee will be
$.05 per contract. When a capped participant trades with a Customer,
the service fee will be $.10 per contract. Additionally, the
incremental service fee of $.10 per contract will apply to all Firm
Facilitation trades that would otherwise be charged a rate of $.00 per
contract. All QCC trades will count towards the monthly fee caps and
volume thresholds in endnotes 5 and 6 of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under endnote 5, Specialist, e-Specialist, and Market Maker
(both Directed and non-Directed) fees are aggregated and capped at
$350,000 per month plus an incremental service fee of $.01 per
contract for all Specialist, e-Specialist and Market Maker volume
executed in excess of 3,500,000 contracts per month. Under endnote
6, fees for Firm Proprietary manual trades are aggregated and capped
at $100,000 per month for member firms plus an incremental service
fee of $.01 per contract for all Firm Proprietary manual trading
volume in excess of that cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    QCC orders where a Customer trades against a Market Maker will not
result in the collection of Marketing Charges.
    Along with the proposed QCC fees, the Exchange intends to adopt a
rebate of $.03 per contract for executed QCC orders. The rebate will be
credited to the executing Floor Broker. The Exchange notes that the
terms of a QCC order are negotiated and agreed to prior to being
brought to an exchange for possible execution. In bringing a QCC order
to the Exchange for execution, permit holders have two primary means of
doing so. They can configure their systems to deliver the QCC order to
the Exchange matching engines for validation and execution.
Alternatively they can utilize the services of another ATP Holder
acting as a Floor Broker. In turn, the Floor Broker who is in receipt
of such an order can enter the order through an Exchange-provided
system \6\ to be delivered to the Exchange matching engine for
validation and potential execution. In light of the fact that the
Exchange does not offer a front-end for order entry, unlike some of the
competing exchanges,\7\ the Exchange believes it is necessary from a
competitive standpoint to offer this rebate to the executing Floor
Broker on a QCC order. The Exchange expects that the rebate offered to
executing Floor Brokers will allow them to price their services at a
level that will enable them to attract QCC order flow from participants
who would otherwise utilize an existing front-end order entry mechanism
offered by the Exchange's competitors instead of incurring the cost in
time and money to develop their own internal systems to be able to
deliver QCC orders directly to the Exchange systems. To the extent that
Floor Brokers are able to attract these QCC orders, they will gain
important information that will allow them to solicit the parties to
the QCC orders for participation in other trades, which will in turn
benefit all other Exchange participants through the additional
liquidity and price discovery that may occur as a result. The Exchange
notes that at least one other exchange offers a similar rebate.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Floor Brokers are required by NYSE Amex Rule 955NY to have
systematized orders prior to representing them in open outcry. Using
the same Electronic Order Capture System, Floor Brokers will be able
to enter QCC orders for validation by the Exchange matching engines
and potential execution.
    \7\ The International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') offers
PRECISE TRADE as a means for users to enter orders and Chicago Board
Options Exchange (``CBOE'') has a similar front-end order entry
system called PULSE. Such systems do not require users to develop
their own internal front-end order entry systems and may provide
savings to users in terms of development time and costs.
    \8\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX fee schedule dated September 12, 2011,
page 22 (describing a Floor Broker Subsidy that can range as high as
$.09 per contract), available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/marketregulation/membership/phlx/feesched.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes will be operative on September 26, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) \9\ of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and Section 6(b)(4) \10\ of the Act,
in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adopting the proposed new fees for QCC
orders where Customers pay $.00 and other participants pay $.20 per
contract is reasonable, particularly since Customers have come to
expect that they are able to trade for free. Also, Customers will
likely have no way of knowing in advance whether or not their order
might be executed as a QCC order or through some other means.
Conversely, other parties to a QCC order will know in advance that they
are being solicited to take part in a QCC order and can therefore
factor in the expected charges in making their trading decision.
Furthermore, the level of QCC fees for non-Customer participants is

comparable to the existing fees such participants currently pay to
participate in trades on the Exchange. For these reasons the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees are reasonable.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed new QCC order fees are not
unfairly discriminatory because non-Customer participants generally are
being charged the same rate. In addition, those participants who may
benefit from a monthly fee cap and/or reduced or zero rates \11\ for
certain trades will be subject to service fees of either $.05 or $.10
per contract that will serve to ameliorate the per contract difference
for a capped participant and a non-capped participant that is party to
a QCC order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the inclusion of QCC order fees and
subsequent capping of such fees is consistent with what has been filed
for and is effective on multiple exchanges, particularly with respect
to the fee cap available to Firms.\12\ Additionally, the Exchange notes
that, in seeking approval for the Firm monthly fee cap, the Exchange
stated that it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ CBOE, ISE and NASDAQ OMX PHLX, all include QCC fees in the
fee caps that they have adopted on behalf of Firms. See CBOE fee
schedule dated September 1, 2011, page 5, footnote 11, available at
http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf; ISE fee
schedule dated August 1, 2011, page 16, endnote 1, available at
http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/fee_schedule.pdf; and NASDAQ OMX PHLX fee schedule, supra note 8, pages
8-9.

    Believes that the proposed monthly fee cap, which applies only
to manual firm proprietary trades, is not unfairly discriminatory to
other market participants because its purpose is to attract large
block order flow to the floor of the Exchange, where such orders can
be better handled in comparison with electronic orders that are not
negotiable. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all of the
Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved
market liquidity.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64656 (June 13,
2011), 76 FR 35493, 35494 (June 17, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-36).

    Including QCC orders in the Firm monthly fee cap is not
inconsistent with that statement for several reasons. First, the
Exchange expects that most Firms will chose to utilize a Floor Broker
to handle their QCC orders. As explained previously, entering a QCC
order requires either modifying proprietary front-end order entry
systems, utilizing a Floor Broker, or utilizing an exchange sponsored
front-end order entry system.\14\ Given the cost in both time and money
associated with modifying proprietary front-end order entry systems and
the fact that the Exchange does not offer an exchange sponsored front-
end order entry system, it is the Exchange's expectation that the
majority of QCC orders will be entered by a Floor Broker on behalf of
Firms. Firms will utilize existing infrastructure, such as telephones,
to communicate QCC orders to Floor Brokers for entry and execution in
the same manner in which they communicate other orders to Floor Brokers
for manual execution. In short, from a Firm's perspective, QCC orders
will be handled by a Floor Broker just like their other orders that are
subject to the Firm monthly fee cap.\15\ By utilizing a Floor Broker,
as opposed to an exchange-sponsored front-end order entry system
available on other exchanges, Floor Brokers will gain important
information that will allow them to solicit the parties to the QCC
orders for participation in other trades, which will in turn benefit
all other Exchange participants through the additional liquidity and
price discovery that may occur as a result. For these reasons, the
Exchange believes that the inclusion of QCC orders in the Firm monthly
fee cap is not inconsistent with the statement made when the Firm
monthly fee cap was implemented. Further, the adoption of these fees is
expected to attract additional order flow to the Exchange and thereby
benefit all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 7.
    \15\ The Floor Broker's handling of orders will vary depending
on whether the order is a solicitation, facilitation, or QCC order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that even capped market participants will
still pay at least $0.10 per contract for QCC executions, as opposed to
$0.00 for open-outcry facilitation trades, so the proposed pricing will
continue to provide a strong incentive to expose customer orders for
possible price improvement, as is described further below.
    The Exchange believes that adopting the service fee of $.05 or $.10
per contract for participants whose trading is subject to a fee cap and
or reduced/zero rates is reasonable because it will allow those
participants who reach their fee cap during a month to pay the service
fee instead of the regular transaction fees and thus will be able to
lower their monthly fees. The Exchange believes that charging a service
fee is also reasonable because it will allow the Exchange to recoup the
costs incurred in providing certain services, which include trade
matching and processing, post-trade allocation, submission for clearing
and customer service activities related to trading activity on the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that charging a service fee to certain
participants for trades is not new or novel and that the relative level
of the service fee is consistent with that found on other exchanges
like the ISE and NASDAQ OMX PHLX.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See ISE and NASDAQ OMX PHLX fee schedules, supra notes 8
and 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging a higher service fee of $.10
per contract when capped participants trade with a Customer is
reasonable due to the nature of the order type. QCC orders will cross
cleanly without exposure upon the entry of a qualifying QCC order. When
a capped participant trades with a non-Customer, the total charge is
either $.10 (when a capped participant, who is charged the $.05
services fee, trades with another capped participant, who is also
charged the $.05 service fee) or $.25 (when a capped participant, who
is charged the $.05 service fee, trades with a non-capped, non-
Customer, who is charged $.20). By contrast, when a capped participant
trades with a Customer, the total charge is $.10 (the capped
participant is charged the $.10 service fee and the Customer is charged
$.00). Therefore, the Exchange believes the higher service fee for
capped participants trading with a Customer is warranted given the all-
in (considering both sides of the trade) economic costs of executing a
clean cross using QCC.
    Additionally, the Exchange notes that Firms are still able to
utilize Firm Facilitation trading procedures in attempting to
facilitate their own Customer orders. Such Firm Facilitation trades are
charged at the rate of $.00 per contract as an alternative to QCC. By
charging capped Firms $.10 when they facilitate Customer orders using
QCC, the Exchange is intentionally providing an economic incentive to
encourage Firms to expose such orders in open outcry, instead of
utilizing the clean cross afforded by a QCC order. The Exchange
believes the proposed fee change will attract additional order flow to
the Exchange and thereby will benefit all market participants.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt the service fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would uniformly
apply to participants who benefit from a monthly fee cap. The proposed
fee is designed to give those capped participants that trade frequently
on the Exchange a benefit by way of a lower transaction fee, while
enabling the Exchange to recoup some of its costs in providing the
services associated with validation, execution, submission for
clearing, and customer service activities related to trading activity
on the Exchange.

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to exclude QCC orders from
the Marketing Charges program is reasonable given the nature of a QCC
order. QCC orders by design are not subject to competitive bidding or
offering, instead a qualifying QCC order is printed to the tape
allowing for a clean cross. Therefore, it is the Exchange's expectation
that inducements such as payment for order flow will not factor into
attracting QCC orders since a market maker being solicited to be a
party to such a trade will simply ask for the order to be sent to a
venue that does not collect marketing charges for QCC orders. One such
exchange, the CBOE, already explicitly excludes QCC orders from its
payment for order flow program.\17\ The Exchange believes therefore
that it is reasonable to exclude QCC orders from the Marketing Charges
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See CBOE fee schedule, supra note 12, at page 4, footnote
6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed $.03 per contract rebate for
Floor Brokers who enter QCC orders that execute is reasonable because
it will allow Floor Brokers the opportunity to compete for QCC orders
that would otherwise be entered into front-end order entry systems of
competing exchanges.\18\ The proposed rebate is comparable to that
found on NASDAQ OMX PHLX \19\ in that it is being offered to Floor
Brokers as an inducement that may allow them to competitively price
their services offered to all participants. To the extent that the
rebate is successful in attracting additional order flow to the
Exchange, all participants should benefit. As such, the Exchange
believes that the rebate is appropriate and reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 7.
    \19\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt a $.03 per contract
rebate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would
uniformly apply to all QCC orders entered by a Floor Broker for
validation by the system and potential execution. Any participant will
be able to engage a rebate-receiving Floor Broker in a discussion
surrounding the appropriate level of fees that they may be charged for
entrusting the entry of the QCC order to the Floor Broker into the
Exchange systems for validation and execution. The additional order
flow attracted by this rebate should benefit all participants. For this
reason, the Exchange believes the adoption of the proposed rebate is
both equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
    For the reasons noted above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are fair, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \20\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \21\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the NYSE Amex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-NYSEAmex-2011-72 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-NYSEAmex-2011-72. 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, 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, NW., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov. 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-NYSEAmex-2011-72 and should be submitted on or before
November 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26102 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 76 (Thursday, April 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21243-21246]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08284]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0276; Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment, Establishment, and Revocation of Multiple Air
Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of Neosho, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Jet Route J-181 and VHF
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-13, V-14, V-15, and V-
307; establish Area Navigation (RNAV) routes T-411 and T-413; and
remove VOR Federal airway V-506. The FAA is proposing this action due
to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Neosho, MO
(EOS), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid
(NAVAID). The Neosho VOR is being decommissioned in support of the
FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0276; Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-1 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the National Airspace System (NAS) as
necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

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-2021-0276; Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-1) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (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-2021-0276; Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-1.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date 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 comment closing date. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Background

    The FAA is planning to decommission the Neosho, MO, VOR in January
2022. The Neosho VOR was one of the candidate VORs identified for
discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the Final
policy statement notice, ``Provision of Navigation Services for the
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to
Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum
Operational Network),'' published in the Federal Register of July 26,
2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082.
    Although the VOR portion of the Neosho VOR/DME is planned for
decommissioning, the co-located DME portion of the NAVAID is being
retained to support NextGen PBN flight procedure requirements.
    The air traffic service (ATS) routes effected by the Neosho VOR
decommissioning are Jet Route J-181 and VOR Federal airways V-13, V-14,
V-15, V-307, and V-506. With the planned decommissioning of the Neosho
VOR, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is
insufficient to enable the continuity of the affected ATS routes. As
such, proposed modifications to J-181, V-13, V-14, V-15, and V-307
would result in gaps in those routes and to V-506 would result in
revocation of that airway. To overcome the ATS route gaps and revoked
airway, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic could use portions of
adjacent ATS routes, including J-24, J-87, V-63, V-71, V-88, V-131, V-
140, V-161, V-190, and V-527, or receive air traffic control (ATC)
radar vectors to fly around or through the affected area. Additionally,
IFR pilots equipped with RNAV capabilities could also navigate point to
point using the existing fixes that would remain in place to support
continued operations though the affected area. Visual flight rules
(VFR) pilots who elect to navigate via the affected ATS routes could
also take advantage of the adjacent ATS routes or ATC services listed
previously.
    Further, the FAA proposes to establish RNAV routes T-411 and T-413
between the Razorback, AR, VORTAC and Lincoln, NE, VORTAC and between
the Razorback, AR, VORTAC and Pierre, SD, VORTAC, respectively. The T-
routes would, in part, mitigate the proposed removal of the V-13
segment between the Razorback, AR, VORTAC and the Butler, MO, VORTAC as
noted above (T-411) and provide a non-radar route in the absence of
Federal airways between the Neosho, MO, VOR/DME and the Salina, KS,
VORTAC (T-413). The proposed new T-routes would also provide airspace
users equipped with RNAV an en route structure between the
Fayetteville, AR, area northward to the Lincoln, NE, area and between
the Fayetteville, AR, area northwestward to the Pierre, SD, area.
Lastly, the proposed new T-routes would support the FAA's NextGen
efforts to modernize the NAS navigation system from a ground-based
system to a satellite-based system.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Jet
Route J-181 and VOR Federal airways V-13, V-14, V-15, and V-307;
establish RNAV routes T-411 and T-413; and remove VOR Federal airway V-
506 due to the planned decommissioning of the Neosho, MO, VOR. The
proposed ATS route actions are described below.
    J-181: J-181 currently extends between the Ranger, TX, VOR/Tactical
Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Bradford, IL, VORTAC. The FAA proposes
to remove the route segment between the Okmulgee, OK, VOR/DME and the
Hallsville, IL, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing route
would remain as charted.
    V-13: V-13 currently extends between the McAllen, TX, VOR/DME and
the Farmington, MN, VORTAC; and between the Duluth, MN, VORTAC and the
Thunder Bay, ON, Canada VOR/DME. The airspace within Canada is
excluded. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the
Razorback, AR, VORTAC and the Butler, MO, VORTAC. The unaffected
portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-14: V-14 currently extends between the Chisum, NM, VORTAC and the
Flag City, OH, VORTAC; and between the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME and the
Norwich, CT, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment
between the Tulsa, OK, VORTAC and the Springfield, MO, VORTAC.
Additional changes to other portions of the airway have been proposed
in two separate NPRMs. The unaffected portions of the existing airway
would remain as charted.
    V-15: V-15 currently extends between the Navasota, TX, VOR/DME and
the Bonham, TX, VORTAC; between the Okmulgee, OK, VOR/DME and the
Neosho, MO, VOR/DME; and between the Aberdeen, SD, VOR/DME and the
Minot, ND, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment
between the Okmulgee, OK, VOR/DME and the Neosho, MO, VOR/DME. The
unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-307: V-307 currently extends between the Harrison, AR, VOR/DME
and the Omaha, IA, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway
segment between the Harrison, AR, VOR/DME and the Oswego, KS, VOR/DME.
The unaffected portions of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    V-506: V-506 currently extends between the Tulsa, OK, VORTAC and
the Springfield, MO, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway in
its entirety.
    T-411: T-411 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
Razorback, AR, VORTAC and the Lincoln, NE, VORTAC. This T-route would
mitigate the loss of the V-13 airway segment proposed to be removed and
provide RNAV routing capability

from the Fayetteville, AR, area northward to the Lincoln, NE, area.
    T-413: T-413 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
Razorback, AR, VORTAC and the Pierre, SD, VORTAC. This T-route would
provide a non-radar route in the absence of Federal airways between the
Neosho, MO, VOR/DME and the Salina, KS, VORTAC, as well as RNAV routing
capability from the Fayetteville, AR, area, northwestward to the
Pierre, SD, area.
    All NAVAID radials listed in the ATS route descriptions below are
unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004, VOR Federal airways are
published in paragraph 6010(a), and RNAV T-routes are published in
paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this document would be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, 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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J-181 [Amended]

    From Ranger, TX; to Okmulgee, OK. From Hallsville, MO; INT
Hallsville 053[deg] and Bradford, IL, 219[deg] radials; to Bradford.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-13 [Amended]

    From McAllen, TX; INT McAllen 060[deg] radial and Corpus
Christi, TX, 178[deg] radials; Corpus Christi; INT Corpus Christi
039[deg] and Palacios, TX, 241[deg] radials; Palacios; Humble, TX;
Lufkin, TX; Belcher, LA; Texarkana, AR; Rich Mountain, OK; Fort
Smith, AR; INT Fort Smith 006[deg] and Razorback, AR, 190[deg]
radials; to Razorback. From Butler, MO; Napoleon, MO; Lamoni, IA;
Des Moines, IA; Mason City, IA; to Farmington, MN. From Duluth, MN;
to Thunder Bay, ON, Canada. The airspace outside the United States
is excluded.
* * * * *

V-14 [Amended]

    From Chisum, NM; Lubbock, TX; Childress, TX; Hobart, OK; Will
Rogers, OK; INT Will Rogers 052[deg] and Tulsa, OK, 246[deg]
radials; to Tulsa. From Springfield, MO; Vichy, MO; INT Vichy
067[deg] and St. Louis, MO, 225[deg] radials; St. Louis; Vandalia,
IL; Terre Haute, IN; Brickyard, IN; Muncie, IN; to Flag City, OH.
From Buffalo, NY; Geneseo, NY; Georgetown, NY; INT Georgetown
093[deg] and Albany, NY, 270[deg] radials; Albany; INT Albany
084[deg] and Gardner, MA, 284[deg] radials; Gardner; to Norwich, CT.
* * * * *

V-15 [Amended]

    From Navasota, TX; College Station, TX; Waco, TX; Cedar Creek,
TX; to Bonham, TX. From Aberdeen, SD; Bismarck, ND; to Minot, ND.
* * * * *

V-307 [Amended]

    From Oswego, KS; Chanute, KS; Emporia, KS; INT Emporia 336[deg]
and Pawnee City, NE, 194[deg] radials; Pawnee City; to Omaha, IA.
* * * * *

V-506 [Removed]

* * * * *

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-411 Razorback, AR (RZC) to Lincoln, NE (LNK) [New]

Razorback, AR (RZC)          VORTAC              (Lat. 36[deg]14'47.14'' N, long. 094[deg]07'17.01'' W)
DROOP, MO                    FIX                 (Lat. 37[deg]06'09.12'' N, long. 094[deg]26'42.39'' W)
Butler, MO (BUM)             VORTAC              (Lat. 38[deg]16'19.49'' N, long. 094[deg]29'17.74'' W)
Topeka, KS (TOP)             VORTAC              (Lat. 39[deg]08'13.48'' N, long. 095[deg]32'57.01'' W)
Lincoln, NE (LNK)            VORTAC              (Lat. 40[deg]55'25.66'' N, long. 096[deg]44'31.23'' W)

T-413 Razorback, AR (RZC) to Pierre, SD (PIR) [New]

Razorback, AR (RZC)          VORTAC              (Lat. 36[deg]14'47.14'' N, long. 094[deg]07'17.01'' W)
DROOP, MO                    FIX                 (Lat. 37[deg]06'09.12'' N, long. 094[deg]26'42.39'' W)
Emporia, KS (EMP)            VORTAC              (Lat. 38[deg]17'28.11'' N, long. 096[deg]08'17.22'' W)
Salina, KS (SLN)             VORTAC              (Lat. 38[deg]55'30.50'' N, long. 097[deg]37'16.80'' W)
Grand Island, NE (GRI)       VOR/DME             (Lat. 40[deg]59'02.50'' N, long. 098[deg]18'53.20'' W)
ISTIQ, NE                    WP                  (Lat. 41[deg]24'52.04'' N, long. 098[deg]24'18.89'' W)
LLUKY, NE                    WP                  (Lat. 42[deg]29'20.26'' N, long. 098[deg]38'11.44'' W)
MMINI, NE                    WP                  (Lat. 42[deg]53'07.44'' N, long. 099[deg]37'35.54'' W)
JMBAG, SD                    WP                  (Lat. 43[deg]30'45.88'' N, long. 100[deg]08'45.77'' W)
Pierre, SD (PIR)             VORTAC              (Lat. 44[deg]23'40.40'' N, long. 100[deg]09'46.11'' W)

    Issued in Washington, DC.
George Gonzalez,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-08284 Filed 4-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P