VIA E-MAIL

June 18, 2010

Mr. Peter Tsirigotis
Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Mail Drop D205-01
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
109 TW Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

      RE:	Industrial Insulation Group, LLC Testing and ICR Response Schedule

Dear Mr. Tsirigotis:

Industrial Insulation Group, LLC ("IIG") is providing this letter in response to EPA's request for a formal commitment from IIG to provide data, perform testing to collect new data, and collect and submit existing test data for the purposes of quantifying emissions of hazardous air pollutants and for assessing potential impacts to public health due to these emissions.  Consistent with the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association ("NAIMA") and its members' discussion with EPA staff and their specific requests, IIG, in conjunction with NAIMA and other industry companies, plans to conduct the following testing and collect the following existing data:

      Mineral Wool

Process Unit:	Cupola  -  With Baghouse and Incinerator
Pollutants To Be Tested:	Carbon Monoxide, Carbonyl Sulfide
Data To Be Supplied:	New carbonyl sulfide and carbon monoxide data will be collected at Industrial Insulation Group's Phenix City, Alabama facility.
Location/Lines Represented:	Industrial Insulation Group  -  Phenix City, Alabama

Process Unit:	Cupola
Pollutants To Be Tested:	PM2.5 (Filterable and Condensable), Total PM (Filterable and Condensable), Metals, Mercury, Hex Chrome, Hydrogen Fluoride, Hydrochloric Acid
Data To Be Supplied:	New PM2.5, total PM, metals, mercury, hex chrome, hydrogen fluoride, and hydrochloric acid data will be collected at Industrial Insulation Group's Phenix City, Alabama facility (1 Cupola).
Location/Lines Represented:	Industrial Insulation Group  -  Phenix City, Alabama

Process Unit:	Collection Operation
Pollutants To Be Tested:	Formaldehyde, Phenol, Methanol
Data To Be Supplied:	Existing formaldehyde data will be supplied from Industrial Insulation Group.  New formaldehyde, phenol and methanol data will be collected from Industrial Insulation Group.
Location/Lines Represented:	Industrial Insulation Group  -  Phenix City, Alabama

Process Unit:	Curing Oven
Pollutants To Be Tested:	Formaldehyde, Phenol, Methanol
Data To Be Supplied:	Existing formaldehyde data will be supplied from Industrial Insulation Group.  New formaldehyde, phenol and methanol data will be collected from Industrial Insulation Group.
Location/Lines Represented:	Industrial Insulation Group  -  Phenix City, Alabama

Process Unit:	Cooling Operation
Pollutants To Be Tested:	Formaldehyde, Phenol, Methanol
Data To Be Supplied:	Existing formaldehyde data will be supplied from Industrial Insulation Group.  New formaldehyde, phenol and methanol data will be collected from Industrial Insulation Group.
Location/Lines Represented:	Industrial Insulation Group  -  Phenix City, Alabama

TESTING SCHEDULE

BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. ("BTEC"), an environmental consulting and testing firm, will supervise the collection of new emissions data as described above on behalf of Industrial Insulation Group, LLC and other NAIMA companies.  On-site fieldwork support for this project will be provided on a primarily geography-based basis by the following companies:

   1. Prism Analytical Technologies, Inc. of Mount Pleasant, Michigan;
   2. Lehder Environmental Services, Inc. of Point Edward, Ontario;
   3. Metco Environmental of Carrollton, Texas;
   4. Delta Air Quality Services of Orange, California; and
   5. Environ Corporation of Irvine, California.

Other than the mercury analytical services required by Method 30B, laboratory services for this project will be provided by Maxxam Analytics Limited of Mississauga, Ontario.  Method 30B analytical services will be provided by Ohio Lumex Company of Twinsburg, Ohio.

BTEC will commence testing in July 2010, and testing will be completed in November 2010.  BTEC will begin submitting new test data through the EPA Electronic Reporting Tool on a rolling basis within 60-90 days of completing field work and expects to complete the input of all data by January 2011.  Please find attached BTEC's Emissions Test Program Summary, Scope of Work, and a description of Quality Assurances.  The Project Schedule is being developed by BTEC and will be forwarded to you at a later date.

NAIMA will submit to EPA all existing data described above in June and July 2010.  Individual facilities will submit completed Information Collection Requests by the end of August 2010.

This letter outlines Industrial Insulation Group, LLC's good faith attempt to accommodate its understanding of EPA's data and timing needs.  Industrial Insulation Group, LLC commits to complete the testing and endeavors to do so on the schedule outlined above.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Sincerely,

Jessie C. Payne
Corporate EHS Manager

Enclosures

cc:	Mr. Jeffrey A. Telander
      Sector Policies and Programs Division
      Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02)
      Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      109 TW Alexander Drive
      Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

      Mr. William Neuffer
      Sector Policies and Programs Division
      Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02)
      Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      109 TW Alexander Drive
      Research Triangle Park, NC  27711


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 22697]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9799]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-34-000]

Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Notice of
Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on April 8, 2011, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2011), Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO) filed a petition
for declaratory order seeking the Commission's confirmation that the
terms of the Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) in effect between
Southwest Power Pool and MISO, regarding the sharing of transmission
capacity on a common path, as set forth in section 5.2 of the JOA, will
remain in effect and applicable to Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (Entergy
Arkansas) in the event Entergy Arkansas becomes a transmission-owning
member of MISO.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 9, 2011.

    Dated: April 15, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9799 Filed 4-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65040-65044]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26145]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68067; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-53]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending NYSE Rule 17 To Add a New Paragraph (c)(3) Addressing the
Authority of the Exchange or Archipelago Securities LLC To Cancel
Orders When a Technical or Systems Issue Occurs and To Describe the
Operation of an Error Account for Arca Securities

October 18, 2012.
    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 October 10, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 17 by adding a new
paragraph (c)(3) that addresses the authority of the Exchange or
Archipelago Securities LLC (``Arca Securities'') to cancel orders when
a technical or systems issue occurs and to describe the operation of an
error account for Arca Securities. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 17 by adding a new
paragraph (c)(3) that addresses the authority of the Exchange or Arca
Securities to cancel orders when a technical or systems issue occurs
and to describe the operation of an error account for Arca
Securities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Arca Securities is a facility of the Exchange. Accordingly,
under NYSE Rule 17, the Exchange is responsible for filing with the
Commission rule changes and fees relating to Arca Securities'
functions. In addition, the Exchange is using the phrase ``Arca
Securities or the Exchange'' in this rule filing to reflect the fact
that a decision to take action with respect to orders affected by a
technical or systems issue may be made in the capacity of Arca
Securities or the Exchange depending on where those orders are
located at the time of that decision.
    From time to time, the Exchange also uses non-affiliate third-
party broker-dealers to provide outbound routing services (i.e.,
third-party Routing Brokers). In those cases, orders are submitted
to the third-party Routing Broker through Arca Securities, the
third-party Routing Broker routes the orders to the routing
destination in its name, and any executions are submitted for
clearance and settlement in the name of Arca Securities so that any
resulting positions are delivered to Arca Securities upon
settlement. As described above, Arca Securities normally arranges
for any resulting securities positions to be delivered to the member
organization that submitted the corresponding order to the Exchange.
If error positions (as defined in proposed Rule 17(c)(3)(B)) result
in connection with the Exchange's use of a third-party Routing
Broker for outbound routing, and those positions are delivered to
Arca Securities through the clearance and settlement process, Arca
Securities would be permitted to resolve those positions in
accordance with proposed Rule 17(c)(3). If the third-party Routing
Broker received error positions in connection with its role as a
routing broker for the Exchange, and the error positions were not
delivered to Arca Securities through the clearance and settlement
process, then the third-party Routing Broker would resolve the error
positions itself, and Arca Securities would not be permitted to
accept the error positions, as set forth in proposed Rule
17(c)(3)(B)(ii).

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

    Arca Securities is the approved routing broker of the Exchange,
subject to the conditions listed in NYSE Rule 17(c). The Exchange
relies on Arca Securities to provide outbound routing services from
itself to routing destinations of Arca Securities (``routing
destinations''). When Arca Securities routes orders to a routing
destination, it does so by sending a corresponding order in its own
name to the routing destination. In the normal course, routed orders
that are executed at routing destinations are submitted for clearance
and settlement in the name of Arca Securities, and Arca Securities
arranges for any resulting securities positions to be delivered to the
member organization that submitted the corresponding order to the
Exchange. However, from time to time, the Exchange and Arca Securities
encounter situations in which it becomes necessary to cancel orders and
resolve error positions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The examples described in this filing are not intended to be
exclusive. Proposed NYSE Rule 17(c)(3) would provide general
authority for the Exchange or Arca Securities to cancel orders in
order to maintain fair and orderly markets when technical and
systems issues are occurring, and Rule 17(c)(3) also would set forth
the manner in which error positions may be handled by the Exchange
or Arca Securities. The proposed rule change is not limited to
addressing order cancellation or error positions resulting only from
the specific examples described in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of Circumstances That May Lead to Canceled Orders
    A technical or systems issue may arise at Arca Securities, a
routing destination, or the Exchange that may cause the Exchange or
Arca Securities to take steps to cancel orders if the Exchange or Arca
Securities determines that such action is necessary to maintain a fair
and orderly market. The examples set forth below describe some of the
circumstances in which the Exchange or Arca Securities may decide to
cancel orders.

    Example 1. If Arca Securities or a routing destination
experiences a technical or systems issue that results in Arca
Securities not receiving responses to immediate or cancel (``IOC'')
orders that it sent to the routing destination, and that issue is
not resolved in a timely manner, Arca Securities or the Exchange
would seek to cancel the routed orders affected by the issue.\6\ For
instance, if Arca Securities experiences a connectivity issue
affecting the manner in which it sends or receives order messages to
or from routing destinations, it may be unable to receive timely
execution or cancellation reports from the routing destinations, and
Arca Securities or the Exchange may consequently seek to cancel the
affected routed orders. Once the decision is made to cancel those
routed orders, any cancellation that a member organization submitted
to the Exchange on its initial order during such a situation would
be honored.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In a normal situation (i.e., one in which a technical or
systems issue does not exist), Arca Securities should receive an
immediate response to an IOC order from a routing destination, and
would pass the resulting fill or cancellation on to the member
organization. After submitting an order that is routed to a routing
destination, if a member organization sends an instruction to cancel
that order, the cancellation is held by the Exchange until a
response is received from the routing destination. For instance, if
the routing destination executes that order, the execution would be
passed on to the member organization and the cancellation
instruction would be disregarded.
    \7\ If a member organization did not submit a cancellation to
the Exchange, however, that initial order would remain ``live'' and
thus be eligible for execution or posting on the Exchange, and
neither the Exchange nor Arca Securities would treat any execution
of that initial order or any subsequent routed order related to that
initial order as an error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 2. If the Exchange experiences a systems issue, the
Exchange may take steps to cancel all outstanding orders affected by
that issue and notify affected member organizations of the
cancellations. In those cases, the Exchange would seek to cancel any
routed orders related to the member organizations' initial orders.
Examples of Circumstances That May Lead to Error Positions
    In some instances, the technical or systems issue at Arca
Securities, a routing destination, the Exchange, or a non-affiliate
third-party Routing Broker may also result in Arca Securities acquiring
an error position that it must resolve. The examples set forth below
describe some of the circumstances in which error positions may arise.
    Example A. Error positions may result from routed orders that
the Exchange or Arca Securities attempts to cancel but that are
executed before the routing destination receives the cancellation
message or that are executed because the routing destination is
unable to process the cancellation message. Using the situation
described in Example 1 above, assume that the Exchange seeks to
cancel orders routed to a routing destination because it is not
receiving timely execution or cancellation reports from the routing
destination. In such a situation, Arca Securities may still receive
executions from the routing destination after connectivity is
restored, which it would not then allocate to member organizations
because of the earlier decision to cancel the affected routed
orders. Instead, Arca Securities would post those positions into its
error account and resolve the positions in the manner described
below.
    Example B. Error positions may result from an order processing
issue at a routing destination. For instance, if a routing
destination experienced a systems problem that affects its order
processing, it may transmit back a message purporting to cancel a
routed order, but then subsequently submit an execution of that same
order (i.e., a locked-in trade) to The Depository Trust & Clearing
Corporation (``DTCC'') for clearance and settlement. In such a
situation, the Exchange would not then allocate the execution to the
member organization because of the earlier cancellation message from
the routing destination. Instead, Arca Securities would post those
positions into its error account and resolve the positions in the
manner described below.
    Example C. Error positions may result if Arca Securities
receives an execution report from a routing destination but does not
receive clearing instructions for the execution from the routing
destination. For instance, assume that a member organization sends
the Exchange an order to buy 100 shares of ABC stock, which causes
Arca Securities to send an order to a routing destination that is
subsequently executed, cleared and closed out by that routing
destination, and the execution is ultimately communicated back to
that member organization. On the next trading day (T+1), if the
routing destination does not provide clearing instructions for that
execution, Arca Securities would still be responsible for settling
that member organization's purchase, but would be left with a short
position in its error account.\8\ Arca Securities would resolve the
position in the manner described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ To the extent that Arca Securities incurred a loss in
covering its short position, it would submit a reimbursement claim
to that routing destination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example D. Error positions may result from a technical or
systems issue that causes orders to be executed in the name of Arca
Securities that are not related to Arca Securities' function as the
Exchange's routing broker and are not related to any corresponding
orders of member organizations. As a result, Arca Securities would
not be able to assign any positions

resulting from such an issue to member organizations. Instead, Arca
Securities would post those positions into its error account and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
resolve the positions in the manner described below.

    In the circumstances described above, Arca Securities may not learn
about an error position until T+1, either: (1) During the clearing
process when a routing destination has submitted to DTCC a transaction
for clearance and settlement for which Arca Securities never received
an execution confirmation; or (2) when a routing destination does not
recognize a transaction submitted by Arca Securities to DTCC for
clearance and settlement. Moreover, the affected member organizations'
trade may not be nullified absent express authority under Exchange
rules.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 128 (regarding clearly erroneous
executions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to NYSE Rule 17
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 17 to add new paragraph
(c)(3) to address the cancellation of orders due to technical or
systems issues and the use of an error account by Arca Securities.
    Specifically, under paragraph (c)(3)(A) of the proposed rule, the
Exchange or Arca Securities would be expressly authorized to cancel
orders as may be necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets if a
technical or systems issue occurred at the Exchange, Arca Securities,
or a routing destination.\10\ The Exchange or Arca Securities would be
required to provide notice of the cancellation to affected member
organizations as soon as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Such a situation may not cause the Exchange to declare
self-help against the routing destination pursuant to Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS. If the Exchange or Arca Securities determines to
cancel orders routed to a routing destination under proposed Rule
17(c)(3), but does not declare self-help against that routing
destination, the Exchange would continue to be subject to the trade-
through requirements in Rule 611 with respect to that routing
destination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(3)(B) of the proposed rule would permit Arca
Securities to maintain an error account for the purpose of addressing
positions that result from a technical or systems issue at Arca
Securities, the Exchange, a routing destination, or a non-affiliate
third-party Routing Broker that affects one or more orders (``error
positions''). By definition, an error position would not include any
position that results from an order submitted by a member organization
to the Exchange that is executed on the Exchange and processed pursuant
to NYSE Rule 132.\11\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to add to the
proposed rule that for purposes of proposed Rule 17(c)(3), uncompared
transactions that may be processed pursuant to Rule 134(e) are not
error positions of Arca Securities.\12\ Arca Securities also would not
be permitted to accept any positions in its error account from an
account of a member organization and could not permit any member
organization to transfer any positions from the member organization's
account to Arca Securities' error account under the proposed rule.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As provided in NYSE Rule 132(a), ``Each party to a contract
shall submit data regarding its side of the contract (``trade
data'') to a Fully-Interfaced Clearing Agency for comparison or
settlement, but each party shall be free to select the Fully-
Interfaced Clearing Agency of its choice for such purpose.''
    \12\ Rule 134(e) provides for the manner by which uncompared
transactions at the Exchange are resolved.
    \13\ The purpose of this provision is to clarify that Arca
Securities may address error positions under the proposed rule that
are caused by a technical or systems issue, but that Arca Securities
may not accept from a member organization positions that are
delivered to the member organization through the clearance and
settlement process, even if those positions may have been related to
a technical or systems issue at Arca Securities, the Exchange, a
routing destination of Arca Securities, or a non-affiliate third-
party Routing Broker. This provision would not apply, however, to
situations like the one described above in which Arca Securities
incurred a short position to settle a member organization purchase,
as the member organization did not yet have a position in its
account as a result of the purchase at the time of Arca Securities'
action (i.e., Arca Securities' action was necessary for the purchase
to settle into the member organization's account). Moreover, to the
extent a member organization receives positions pursuant to Rule 132
in connection with a technical or systems issue, that member
organization may seek to rely on NYSE Rule 18 if it experiences a
loss. That rule provides member organizations with the ability to
file claims against the Exchange ``related to an Exchange system
failure.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under paragraph (c)(3)(C), in connection with a particular
technical or systems issue, Arca Securities or the Exchange would be
permitted to either (1) assign all resulting error positions to member
organizations, or (2) have all resulting error positions liquidated, as
described below. Any determination to assign or liquidate error
positions, as well as any resulting assignments, would be required to
be made in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
    Arca Securities or the Exchange would be required to assign all
error positions resulting from a particular technical or systems issue
to the applicable member organizations affected by that technical or
systems issue if Arca Securities or the Exchange:
     Determined that it has accurate and sufficient information
(including valid clearing information) to assign the positions to all
of the applicable member organizations affected by that technical or
systems issue;
     Determined that it has sufficient time pursuant to normal
clearance and settlement deadlines to evaluate the information
necessary to assign the positions to all of the applicable member
organizations affected by that technical or systems issue; and
     Had not determined to cancel all orders affected by that
technical or systems issue.
    For example, a technical or systems issue of limited scope or
duration may occur at a routing destination, and the resulting trades
may be submitted for clearance and settlement by such routing
destination to DTCC. If there were a small number of trades, there may
be sufficient time to match positions with member organization orders
and avoid using the error account.
    There may be scenarios, however, where Arca Securities determines
that it is unable to assign all error positions resulting from a
particular technical or systems issue to all of the affected member
organizations, or determines to cancel all affected routed orders. For
example, in some cases, the volume of questionable executions and
positions resulting from a technical or systems issue might be such
that the research necessary to determine which member organization to
assign those executions to could be expected to extend past the normal
settlement cycle for such executions. Furthermore, if a routing
destination experiences a technical or systems issue after Arca
Securities has transmitted IOC orders to it that prevents Arca
Securities from receiving responses to those orders, Arca Securities or
the Exchange may determine to cancel all routed orders affected by that
issue. In such a situation, Arca Securities or the Exchange would not
pass on to the member organizations any executions on the routed orders
received from the routing destination.
    The proposed rule also would require Arca Securities to liquidate
error positions as soon as practicable.\14\ In liquidating error
positions, Arca Securities would be required to provide complete time
and price discretion for the trading to liquidate the error positions
to a third-party broker-dealer and could not attempt to exercise any
influence or control over the timing or

methods of trading to liquidate the error positions. Arca Securities
also would be required to establish and enforce policies and procedures
reasonably designed to restrict the flow of confidential and
proprietary information between the third-party broker-dealer and Arca
Securities/the Exchange associated with the liquidation of the error
positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ If Arca Securities determines in connection with a
particular technical or systems issue that some error positions can
be assigned to some affected member organizations but other error
positions cannot be assigned, Arca Securities would be required
under the proposed rule to liquidate all such error positions
(including those positions that could be assigned to the affected
member organizations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed paragraph (c)(3)(D), Arca Securities and the
Exchange would be required to make and keep records to document all
determinations to treat positions as error positions and all
determinations for the assignment of error positions to member
organizations or the liquidation of error positions, as well as records
associated with the liquidation of error positions through the third-
party broker-dealer.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \15\ of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\16\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or
dealers. The Exchange believes that this proposal is in keeping with
those principles since Arca Securities' or the Exchange's ability to
cancel orders during a technical and systems issue and to maintain an
error account facilitates the smooth and efficient operations of the
market. Specifically, the Exchange believes that allowing Arca
Securities or the Exchange to cancel orders during a technical or
systems issue would allow the Exchange to maintain fair and orderly
markets. Moreover, the Exchange believes that allowing Arca Securities
to assume error positions in an error account and to liquidate those
positions, subject to the conditions set forth in the proposed
amendments to NYSE Rule 17, would be the least disruptive means to
correct these errors, except in cases where Arca Securities can assign
all such error positions to all affected member organizations of the
Exchange. Overall, the proposed amendments are designed to ensure full
trade certainty for market participants and to avoid disrupting the
clearance and settlement process. The proposed amendments are also
designed to provide a consistent methodology for handling error
positions in a manner that does not discriminate among member
organizations. The proposed amendments are also consistent with Section
6 of the Act insofar as they would require Arca Securities to establish
controls to restrict the flow of any confidential information between
the third-party broker and Arca Securities/the Exchange associated with
the liquidation of error positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 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 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

    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 Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\18\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay.\19\ The Commission notes that it previously approved NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.45(d), which is substantively identical to the instant
proposed rule change.\20\ The Commission finds that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because it will allow the Exchange to implement the
proposed rule change as part of a planned implementation of similar
rules on the Exchange's affiliate exchanges. Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66963 (May 10,
2012), 77 FR 28919 (May 16, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-22).
    \21\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings 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-NYSE-2012-53 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-NYSE-2012-53. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than

those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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-NYSE-2012-53 and should be
submitted on or before November 14, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26145 Filed 10-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 142 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44472-44474]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31321 Amdt. No. 3913]

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective July 23, 2020. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South

MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and
(3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2020.
Robert C. Carty,
Executive Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

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

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

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

Effective 13 August 2020

Mobile, AL, Mobile Rgnl, NDB RWY 15, Amdt 3B, CANCELLED
Decatur, AR, Crystal Lake, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 9A, CANCELLED
North Little Rock, AR, North Little Rock Muni, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 1A,
CANCELLED
Ozark, AR, Ozark-Franklin County, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 4A, CANCELLED
Pine Bluff, AR, Pine Bluff Rgnl Airport Grider Field, VOR RWY 36,
Amdt 12B, CANCELLED
Chandler, AZ, Chandler Muni, NDB RWY 4R, Orig-C, CANCELLED
Scottsdale, AZ, Scottsdale, VOR-C, Amdt 2, CANCELLED
Tucson, AZ, Marana Regional, NDB RWY 12, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Arcata/Eureka, CA, California Redwood Coast-Humboldt County, VOR RWY
14, Amdt 1C, CANCELLED
Eureka, CA, Murray Field, VOR-A, Amdt 7B, CANCELLED
Firebaugh, CA, Firebaugh, VOR-A, Amdt 4, CANCELLED
Fortuna, CA, Rohnerville, VOR RWY 11, Amdt 3A, CANCELLED
Hayward, CA, Hayward Executive, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 3B, CANCELLED
Lodi, CA, Lodi, VOR-A, Amdt 4, CANCELLED

Los Banos, CA, Los Banos Muni, VOR RWY 32, Amdt 5A, CANCELLED
Marysville, CA, Yuba County, VOR RWY 32, Amdt 10H, CANCELLED
Merced, CA, Merced Rgnl/Macready Field, VOR RWY 30, Amdt 1,
CANCELLED
Palo Alto, CA, Palo Alto, VOR RWY 31, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Rio Vista, CA, Rio Vista Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2A, CANCELLED
Aspen, CO, Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field, VOR/DME-C, Amdt 5, CANCELLED
Craig, CO, Craig-Moffat, VOR RWY 7, Amdt 3, CANCELLED
Bridgeport, CT, Igor I Sikorsky Memorial, VOR RWY 24, Amdt 17A,
CANCELLED
Chester, CT, Chester, VOR-A, Amdt 4A, CANCELLED
St Augustine, FL, Northeast Florida Rgnl, VOR RWY 13, Orig-E,
CANCELLED
Coeur D'Alene, ID, Coeur D'Alene--Pappy Boyington Field, VOR/DME RWY
2, Amdt 2C, CANCELLED
Knox, IN, Starke County, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 2, CANCELLED
La Porte, IN, La Porte Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 7B, CANCELLED
Plymouth, IN, Plymouth Muni, VOR RWY 10, Amdt 12A, CANCELLED
De Quincy, LA, De Quincy Industrial Airpark, VOR/DME RWY 34, Amdt 3,
CANCELLED
Jennings, LA, Jennings, VOR/DME RWY 8, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22L,
Amdt 8D
Montague, MA, Turners Falls, VOR-A, Amdt 4A, CANCELLED
Southbridge, MA, Southbridge Muni, VOR/DME-B, Amdt 9, CANCELLED
Auburn/Lewiston, ME, Auburn/Lewiston Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1A,
CANCELLED
Caribou, ME, Caribou Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 11A, CANCELLED
Dowagiac, MI, Dowagiac Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 10, CANCELLED
Rochester, MN, Rochester Intl, VOR RWY 2, Amdt 17B, CANCELLED
Rochester, MN, Rochester Intl, VOR RWY 20, Amdt 14B, CANCELLED
Holly Springs, MS, Holly Springs-Marshall County, VOR RWY 18, Amdt
7, CANCELLED
Tunica, MS, Tunica Muni, VOR-A, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Billings, MT, Billings Logan Intl, VOR-A, Amdt 2A, CANCELLED
West Yellowstone, MT, Yellowstone, NDB RWY 1, Amdt 4A, CANCELLED
Asheboro, NC, Asheboro Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 3A, CANCELLED
Jacksonville, NC, Albert J Ellis, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 8D, CANCELLED
Lexington, NC, Davidson County, VOR/DME RWY 24, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Liberty, NC, Causey, VOR RWY 2, Amdt 5A, CANCELLED
Oxford, NC, Henderson-Oxford, NDB RWY 6, Amdt 3A, CANCELLED
Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, VOR RWY 32, Amdt 3E,
CANCELLED
Smithfield, NC, Johnston Regional, NDB RWY 3, Amdt 2, CANCELLED
Winston Salem, NC, Smith Reynolds, VOR RWY 15, Amdt 1D, CANCELLED
Grant, NE, Grant Muni, NDB RWY 15, Amdt 3B, CANCELLED
Potsdam, NY, Potsdam Muni/Damon Fld/, NDB RWY 24, Amdt 5B, CANCELLED
Corvallis, OR, Corvallis Muni, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 12, CANCELLED
Eugene, OR, Mahlon Sweet Field, VOR-A, Amdt 7B, CANCELLED
Eugene, OR, Mahlon Sweet Field, VOR OR TACAN RWY 16R, Amdt 5D,
CANCELLED
Newport, OR, Newport Muni, VOR RWY 16, Amdt 9B, CANCELLED
Newport, OR, Newport Muni, VOR RWY 34, Amdt 2A, CANCELLED
North Bend, OR, Southwest Oregon Rgnl, VOR RWY 5, Amdt 11A,
CANCELLED
North Bend, OR, Southwest Oregon Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 6A, CANCELLED
Redmond, OR, Roberts Field, VOR/DME RWY 23, Amdt 4, CANCELLED
Allentown, PA, Allentown Queen City Muni, VOR-B, Amdt 8C, CANCELLED
East Stroudsburg, PA, Stroudsburg-Pocono, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 6A,
CANCELLED
Greenville, SC, Greenville Downtown, NDB RWY 1, Amdt 22D, CANCELLED
Union, SC, Union County, Troy Shelton Field, NDB RWY 5, Orig-C,
CANCELLED
Rogersville, TN, Hawkins County, NDB RWY 7, Amdt 3, CANCELLED
Smyrna, TN, Smyrna, VOR/DME RWY 14, Amdt 7C, CANCELLED
Smyrna, TN, Smyrna, VOR/DME RWY 32, Amdt 13C, CANCELLED
Amarillo, TX, Rick Husband Amarillo Intl, NDB RWY 4, Amdt 17,
CANCELLED
Amarillo, TX, Tradewind, NDB-A, Amdt 14B, CANCELLED
Cleveland, TX, Cleveland Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 4D, CANCELLED
Panhandle, TX, Panhandle-Carson County, VOR-A, Orig-B, CANCELLED
Pecos, TX, Pecos Muni, VOR RWY 14, Amdt 7C, CANCELLED
Van Horn, TX, Culberson County, NDB RWY 21, Amdt 2C, CANCELLED
Barre/Montpelier, VT, Edward F Knapp State, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 4A,
CANCELLED
Watertown, WI, Watertown Muni, VOR RWY 29, Orig-C, CANCELLED
Buckhannon, WV, Upshur County Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 1B, CANCELLED
Fairmont, WV, Fairmont Muni-Frankman Field, VOR-A, Amdt 2, CANCELLED

Effective 10 September 2020

Monroeville, AL, Monroe County Aeroplex, VOR RWY 3, Amdt 10D,
CANCELLED
Monroeville, AL, Monroe County Aeroplex, VOR RWY 21, Amdt 10C,
CANCELLED
Camden, AR, Harrell Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1B
Woodland, CA, Watts-Woodland, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 5, CANCELLED
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 8
Toccoa, GA, Toccoa RG Letourneau Field, VOR RWY 21, Amdt 14,
CANCELLED
Toccoa, GA, Toccoa RG Letourneau Field, VOR/DME RWY 3, Amdt 3,
CANCELLED
Lihue, HI, Lihue, VOR-A, Amdt 4, CANCELLED
Kankakee, IL, Greater Kankakee, VOR RWY 4, Amdt 6C, CANCELLED
Kankakee, IL, Greater Kankakee, VOR RWY 22, Amdt 7C, CANCELLED
Harper, KS, Harper Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Rangeley, ME, Rangeley Lake, NDB-B, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Rangeley, ME, Rangeley Lake, RNAV (GPS)-C, Amdt 1
Aurora, MO, Jerry Sumners Sr Aurora Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 4A,
CANCELLED
Superior, NE, Superior Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2, CANCELLED
Cortland, NY, Cortland County-Chase Field, VOR-A, Orig
Cortland, NY, Cortland County-Chase Field, VOR OR GPS-A, Orig-B,
CANCELLED
Middletown, NY, Randall, VOR RWY 8, Amdt 7B, CANCELLED
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) X RWY 22L, Orig
Cadiz, OH, Harrison County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Coshocton, OH, Richard Downing, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig
Coshocton, OH, Richard Downing, VOR-A, Amdt 10, CANCELLED
Middletown, OH, Middletown Regional/Hook Field, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 9C,
CANCELLED
Middletown, OH, Middletown Regional/Hook Field, NDB-A, Amdt 3A,
CANCELLED
Toledo, OH, Eugene F Kranz Toledo Express, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 7,
Amdt 29A
Toledo, OH, Eugene F Kranz Toledo Express, RADAR-1, Amdt 19D
Wadsworth, OH, Wadsworth Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 2A, CANCELLED
Oklahoma City, OK, Will Rogers World, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 17R, Amdt 6
Redmond, OR, Roberts Field, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 5, Amdt 2A
Darlington, SC, Darlington County Jetport, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 1A,
CANCELLED
Lebanon, TN, Lebanon Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 10A, CANCELLED
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 13R,
Amdt 2
Hereford, TX, Hereford Muni, NDB RWY 20, Amdt 2B, CANCELLED
Jacksonville, TX, Cherokee County, VOR RWY 14, Amdt 4B
Mineola, TX, Mineola Wisener Field, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Mineola, TX, Mineola Wisener Field, VOR-A, Amdt 6C, CANCELLED
Winnsboro, TX, Winnsboro Muni, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Winnsboro, TX, Winnsboro Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 4A, CANCELLED
Price, UT, Carbon County Rgnl/Buck Davis Field, VOR RWY 1, Amdt 1A,
CANCELLED
Danville, VA, Danville Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 5
Danville, VA, Danville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1
Danville, VA, Danville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Danville, VA, Danville Rgnl, VOR RWY 20, Amdt 2A, CANCELLED
Milton, WV, Ona Airpark, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig-B
Wheeling, WV, Wheeling Ohio Co, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1A

[FR Doc. 2020-15880 Filed 7-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 138)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40967-40970]
[DOCID:fr17jy08-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 892

[Docket No. FDA-2005-N-0346] (formerly Docket No. 2005N-0467)

Medical Devices; Radiology Devices; Reclassification of Bone
Sonometers

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final rule
to reclassify bone sonometer devices from class III into class II,
subject to special controls. FDA is taking this action on its own
initiative after reviewing recent scientific and technological studies
regarding bone sonometer devices. Elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance
document entitled ``Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff; Class II
Special Controls Guidance Document: Bone Sonometers'' that will serve
as the special control for these devices.

DATES:  This final rule is effective August 18, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Robert A. Phillips, Center for
Devices

and Radiological Health (HFZ-470), Food and Drug Administration, 9200
Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulatory Authority

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), as amended by
the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 amendments) (Public Law
94-295), the Safe Medical Devices Act (SMDA) (Public Law 101-629), the
Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Public
Law 105-115), the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002
(MDUFMA) (Public Law 107-250), the Medical Devices Technical
Corrections Act (MDTCA) (Public Law 108-214), and the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA), establishes a comprehensive
system for the regulation of medical devices intended for human use.
Section 513 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established three categories
(classes) of devices, depending on the regulatory controls needed to
provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The
three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II
(special controls), and class III (premarket approval).
    Under section 513 of the act, devices that were in commercial
distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the 1976
amendments), generally referred to as preamendments devices, are
classified after FDA has: (1) Received a recommendation from a device
classification panel (an FDA advisory committee); (2) published the
panel's recommendation for comment, along with a proposed regulation
classifying the device type; and (3) published a final regulation
classifying the device type. FDA has classified most preamendments
devices under these procedures.
    Devices that were not in commercial distribution prior to May 28,
1976, generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified
automatically by statute (section 513(f) of the act) into class III
without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class III
and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is
reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the
device to be substantially equivalent, under section 513(i) of the act,
to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The
agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to
predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in
section 510(k) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807.
    A preamendments device that has been classified into class III may
be marketed, by means of premarket notification procedures, without
submission of a premarket approval application (PMA), until FDA issues
a final regulation under section 515(b) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b))
requiring premarket approval.
    Section 513(f)(3) of the act allows FDA to initiate
reclassification of a postamendment device classified into class III
under section 513(f)(1) of the act, or the manufacturer or importer of
a device to petition the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services for the issuance of an order classifying the device in
class I or class II. FDA's regulations in 21 CFR 860.134 set forth the
procedures for the filing and review of a petition for reclassification
of such class III devices. To change the classification of the device,
it is necessary that the proposed new classification have sufficient
regulatory controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device for its intended use.

II. Regulatory Background of the Device

    In the Federal Register of February 15, 2006 (71 FR 7894), FDA
published a proposed rule to reclassify bone sonometers from class III
(premarket approval) into class II (special controls) after reviewing
current technological and scientific developments. Specifically, the
Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) reviewed recent
studies addressing performance characteristics of bone sonometers
manufactured by different companies and determined that, when combined
with mitigation measures to offset the risks of use associated with
these devices, special controls would be adequate to assure the safety
and effectiveness of bone sonometers. Interested persons were invited
to comment on the proposed rule by May 16, 2006. FDA also identified
the draft guidance document entitled ``Draft Guidance for Industry and
FDA Staff; Class II Special Controls Draft Guidance Document; Bone
Sonometers'' as the proposed special control capable of providing
reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these devices (71
FR 7976).

III. Analysis of Comments and FDA's Response

    FDA received a number of comments on the proposed rule and draft
guidance document. Each of the comments supported the reclassification
of bone sonometers from class III into class II, but made specific
suggestions with regard to the general scope and clinical testing
sections of the guidance. FDA agreed with the following suggested
changes to the special controls guidance and revised the document
accordingly: (1) Determining device-specific T-score thresholds; (2)
removing recommendations regarding monitoring; (3) increasing the
number of women recommended for reproducibility studies; (4)
recommending intermediate-term precision studies in addition to short-
term precision studies; (5) deleting the recommendation that separate
T-score thresholds be determined for reference databases based on non-
Caucasian females or males of any ethnicity; (6) recommending
justification for exclusion criteria regarding recent use of bone-
active drugs; (7) recommending stratification of patients by bone
mineral density rather than age for reproducibility testing; (8)
recommending inclusion of axial dual energy x-ray absorptiometry data
in order to determine level of discordance with bone sonometer; and (9)
recommending testing to assess temperature dependence of measurements.
    The agency disagreed with the suggestion to require that bone
sonometers express measurements in terms of fracture risk instead of T-
scores. FDA recognizes the diagnostic significance of fracture risk and
the limitations of T-scores. Previously-approved bone sonometers,
however, express measurements in terms of T-scores because they were
developed and approved prior to recent publications reporting
limitations of T-scores. Because currently approved bone sonometers
express measurements in terms of T-scores, firms wishing to demonstrate
substantial equivalence of new bone sonometers with similar indications
and technology may choose to express diagnostic measurements in terms
of T-scores. The agency distinguishes this goal from that of
demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of bone sonometers using new
technology, or, with new indications for use, such as fracture risk
measurement. As yet, a standardized measure of fracture risk has not
been introduced into clinical practice, although FDA is aware that such
efforts are currently underway. The agency encourages these efforts. If
and when a standard method to predict fracture risk becomes available,
FDA may revise the bone sonometers guidance.

IV. FDA's Conclusions

    Based on the information discussed in the preamble to the proposed
rule (71 FR 7894), and revisions to the guidance as discussed
previously in this document, FDA concludes that special controls, in
conjunction with general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of
the safety and effectiveness of bone sonometers. The agency is,
therefore, reclassifying bone sonometers from class III (premarket
approval) into class II (special controls) when intended for
determining the possible presence of osteoporosis and/or assessing non-
age-related bone loss. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
FDA is announcing the availability of the guidance document entitled
``Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff; Class II Special Controls
Guidance Document; Bone Sonometers'' as the special control capable of
providing reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these
devices. Following the effective date of this final classification
rule, any firm submitting a 510(k) premarket notification for a bone
sonometer intended for determining the possible presence of
osteoporosis and/or assessing non-age-related bone loss will need to
address the issues covered in the special controls guidance. However,
the firm need only show that its device meets the recommendations of
the guidance or in some other way provides equivalent assurances of
safety and effectiveness.
    FDA is now codifying the classification for bone sonometers by
adding new Sec.  892.1180. For the convenience of the reader, 21 CFR
892.1 has been amended to inform the reader where to find guidance
documents referenced in 21 CFR part 892.
    Section 510(m) of the act provides that FDA may exempt a class II
device from the premarket notification requirements under section
510(k) of the act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not
necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has
determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device and,
therefore, this type of device is not exempt from premarket
notification requirements. Persons intending to market this type of
device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing
the device, which contains information about the bone sonometer(s)
intended for marketing.

V. Environmental Impact

    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this
reclassification action is of a type that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.

VI. Analysis of Impacts

    FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive
Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency certifies
that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined
by the Executive order.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Reclassification of bone sonometers from class III
to class II relieves manufacturers of this device type of the costs of
complying with the premarket approval requirements in section 515 of
the act. Because reclassification will reduce regulatory costs with
respect to this device type, it will impose no significant economic
impact on any small entities, and it may permit small potential
competitors to enter the marketplace by lowering their costs.
    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $127 million, using the most current (2006) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this
final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or
exceed this amount.

VII. Federalism

    FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule
does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Accordingly, the agency has concluded
that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism
implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a
federalism summary impact statement is not required.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final rule contains no new collections of information.
Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
    This final rule also designates a guidance document as a special
control. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is
publishing a notice announcing the availability of that guidance
document entitled ``Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff; Class II
Special Controls Guidance Document: Bone Sonometers,'' which contains a
Paperwork Reduction Act analysis for that guidance.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 892

    Medical devices, Radiation protection, X-rays.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
892 is amended as follows:

PART 892--RADIOLOGY DEVICES

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 892 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.

0
2. Add Sec.  892.1(e) to read as follows:

Sec.  892.1   Scope.

* * * * *
    (e) Guidance documents referenced in this part are available on the
Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html.

0
3. Add Sec.  892.1180 to subpart B to read as follows:

Sec.  892.1180  Bone sonometer.

    (a) Identification. A bone sonometer is a device that transmits
ultrasound energy into the human body to measure acoustic properties of
bone that indicate overall bone health and fracture risk. The primary
components of the device are a voltage generator, a transmitting
transducer, a receiving transducer, and hardware and software for
reception and

processing of the received ultrasonic signal.
    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special
control for this device is FDA's ``Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff;
Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Bone Sonometers.'' See
Sec.  892.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.

    Dated: July 2, 2008.
Daniel G. Schultz,
Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. E8-16354 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 60204]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25181]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76019; File No. SR-BATS-2015-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, To List and Trade
Shares of the ProShares Managed Futures Strategy ETF of the ProShares
Trust Under BATS Rule 14.11 on BATS Exchange, Inc.

September 29, 2015.
    On July 30, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
list and trade shares of the ProShares Managed Futures Strategy ETF
(``Fund'') of the ProShares Trust under BATS Rule 14.11(i). The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on August 17, 2015.\3\ On August 19, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ On September 4, 2015, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\5\ The
Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75664 (August 11,
2015), 80 FR 49288 (``Notice'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 is available at: http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-bats-2015-56/bats201556-.pdf.
    \5\ Amendment No. 2 is available at: http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-bats-2015-56/bats201556-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
Commission is extending this 45-day time period. The Commission finds
that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to
take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time
to consider the proposed rule change, as modified by the amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ designates November 15, 2015, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File
Number SR-BATS-2015-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25181 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 9347]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3575]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. ER11-2844-000]

Adagio Energy 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
Adagio Energy 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 March 2, 2011.
    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 should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 10, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3575 Filed 2-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P