[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80119-80120]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27288]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0529]

Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools; Guidance for
Industry; Availability; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
entitled ``Qualification Process

for Drug Development Tools; Guidance for Industry; Availability'' that
appeared in the Federal Register of November 25, 2020. The document
announced the availability of a final guidance for industry and FDA
staff that met the 21st Century Cures Act's requirement to issue
guidance on this qualification process and elaborated on the new
qualification process and transparency requirements and discusses the
taxonomy for biomarkers and other drug development tools. The document
was published with incorrect information in the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 section. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Leptak, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6461, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-0017; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring,
MD 20993-0002;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of November 25, 2020
(85 FR 75334), in FR Doc. 2020-26051, the following correction is made:
    On page 75336, in the first column, under the heading, ``II.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'', the paragraph is corrected to read:
    ``While this guidance contains no collection of information, it
does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information.
Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information pertaining to submissions of investigational new drug
applications have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the
collections of information pertaining to submissions of new drug
applications and abbreviated new drug applications have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0001; and the collections of information
pertaining to submissions of biologics license applications in 21 CFR
part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.''

    Dated: December 8, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-27288 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: April 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 72)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19998]
[DOCID:fr14ap08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0274; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-14]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lewistown, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
that establishes a Class E airspace area to support Area Navigation
(RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach
Procedures (IAPs) that serve the Lewistown Hospital, Lewistown, PA.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 10, 2008. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist,
System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia
Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (404) 305-
5572.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on January 30, 2008 (73 FR 5429). The
FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial
rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public
comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse
comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment,
or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were
received within the comment period, the regulation would become
effective on April 10, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and
thus this notice confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, GA on March 28, 2008.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-7670 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13496-13499]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5604]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596; FRL-9637-1]
RIN 2040-AF36

Effective Date for the Water Quality Standards for the State of
Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing an
extension of the March 6, 2012 effective date of the ``Water Quality
Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Final
Rule'' (inland waters rule) for four months to July 6, 2012. EPA's
inland waters rule included an effective date of March 6, 2012 for the
entire regulation except for the site-specific alternative criteria
provision, which took effect on February 4, 2011. This revision of the
effective date for the inland waters rule does not affect or change the
February 4, 2011 effective date for the site-specific alternative
criteria provision.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 6, 2012. The effective
date of Sec.  131.43, revised on December 6, 2010 (75 FR 75805),
effective March 6, 2012, is delayed until July 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-OW-2011-0466. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
of which 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 through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004,
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. The Office of Water (OW)
Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The OW Docket Center telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
rulemaking, contact: Tracy Bone, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Mailcode
4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Does this action apply to me?

    Citizens concerned with water quality in Florida may be interested
in this rulemaking. Entities discharging nitrogen or phosphorus to
lakes and flowing waters of Florida could be indirectly affected by
this rulemaking because water quality standards (WQS) are used in
determining National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit limits. Categories and entities that may ultimately be affected
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Examples of potentially affected
               Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............................  Industries discharging pollutants
                                        to lakes and flowing waters in
                                        the State of Florida.
Municipalities.......................  Publicly-owned treatment works
                                        discharging pollutants to lakes
                                        and flowing waters in the State
                                        of Florida.
Stormwater Management Districts......  Entities responsible for managing
                                        stormwater runoff in Florida.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for entities that may be directly or indirectly affected by this
action. This table lists the types of entities of which EPA is now
aware that potentially could be affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table, such as nonpoint source contributors
to nitrogen/phosphorus pollution in Florida's waters may be indirectly
affected through implementation of Florida's water quality standards
program (i.e., through Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs)).

Any parties or entities conducting activities within watersheds of the
Florida waters covered by this rule, or who rely on, depend upon,
influence, or contribute to the water quality of the lakes and flowing
waters of Florida, may be indirectly affected by this rule. To
determine whether your facility or activities may be affected by this
action, you should carefully examine the language in 40 CFR 131.43,
which is the final rule. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

    On December 6, 2010, EPA's final inland waters rule, entitled
``Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing
Waters; Final Rule,'' was published in the Federal Register at 75 FR
75762, and codified at 40 CFR 131.43. The final inland waters rule
established numeric nutrient criteria in the form of total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, nitrate+nitrite, and chlorophyll a for the different
types of Florida's inland waters to assure attainment of the State's
applicable water quality designated uses. More specifically, the
numeric nutrient criteria translated Florida's narrative nutrient
provision at Subsection 62-302-530(47)(b), Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), into numeric values that apply to lakes and springs
throughout Florida and flowing waters outside of the South Florida
Region. (EPA has distinguished the South Florida Region as those areas
south of Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee River watershed to the
west of Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie watershed to the east of Lake
Okeechobee.) This final inland waters rule seeks to improve water
quality, protect public health and aquatic life, and achieve the long-
term recreational uses of Florida's waters, which are a critical part
of the State's economy.

III. Revised Effective Date

A. Rationale for Extending the March 6, 2012 Effective Date

    As stated in the inland waters rule, 75 FR 75807, the rule was
scheduled to take effect on March 6, 2012, except for the site-specific
alternative criteria (SSAC) provision at 40 CFR 131.43(e), which took
effect on February 4, 2011. As discussed at length in the proposal to
this final rule, 76 FR 79604 and finalized in this action, EPA is
extending the effective date of the final inland waters rule four
months to July 6, 2012.
    The State rulemaking and legislative process is ongoing and its
ultimate resolution is uncertain. The Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) sent the Environmental Review
Commission (ERC)-approved rules and amendments to the Florida
legislature for ratification during the 2012 regular legislative
session. The last day of Florida's 2012 regular legislative session is
March 9, 2012. Final State action on Florida numeric nutrient criteria
that assure attainment of State water quality designated uses
consistent with applicable CWA provisions could affect the need for
EPA's criteria for corresponding waters to take effect. Implementation
of either the State or Federal criteria could have implications for
many interested parties and members of the public in the State.
    Extending the effective date of EPA's inland waters rule would
avoid the confusion and inefficiency that may occur should Federal
criteria become effective while State criteria are being finalized by
the State, submitted to EPA, and reviewed by EPA. To this end, EPA
proposed a 90-day extension of the March 6, 2012 effective date on
December 22, 2012 (76 FR 79604) and requested comment. EPA also
requested comment on whether a longer extension should be provided.
Based on public comment, and because the State rulemaking process has
continued toward FDEP's adoption and submission of new or revised water
quality standards to EPA for review pursuant to CWA section 303(c), EPA
is extending the March 6, 2012 effective date by four months to July 6,
2012 to allow the State to complete its process.

B. Public Comment

    EPA received six comments on the proposed rule. One commenter does
not support any delay in the effective date. This commenter says that
an extension is inconsistent with EPA's determination that numeric
nutrient criteria are necessary for Florida, the Clean Water Act's
direction to EPA to act promptly in establishing such criteria
following such determination, and a consent decree obligation. EPA
disagrees with the commenter. EPA maintains that its determination
remains in place and that numeric nutrient criteria for Florida were
promptly proposed and promulgated by EPA (75 FR 75762, December 10,
2010), consistent with EPA's determination, the CWA, and the consent
decree. This action provides a limited time for the State of Florida to
complete its current rulemaking process and to submit any finally
adopted water quality standards to EPA for review under the Clean Water
Act. As mentioned above, having EPA's criteria take effect while State
criteria are being finalized by the State in the near term could cause
confusion and administrative inefficiency for the State and regulated
entities, something the EPA wants to avoid. Providing this time to
allow the State rulemaking process to conclude will avoid such
confusion and inefficiency.
    The other five commenters support the proposal to extend the
effective date, arguing that the additional time would avoid the
confusion and inefficiency that may occur should Federal criteria
become effective while State criteria are being finalized by the State,
and possibly being reviewed by EPA. These commenters supported the
proposed extension of the effective date by 90 days. In addition to
extending the effective date by 90 days, some of these commenters also
proposed that EPA extend the comment period for longer than 90 days; a
six-month extension and a seven-month extension were mentioned
specifically. EPA agrees that a slightly longer extension is warranted,
but that four months is appropriate in order to provide sufficient time
to allow the State rulemaking process to come to completion.
    Therefore, based on public comment as well as the continued
progress by Florida in their water quality standards process, EPA
believes that a four-month extension is warranted.
    EPA received a comment urging actions related to an EPA rulemaking
under development (i.e., not the inland waters rule). These comments
are outside the scope of this action and therefore EPA is not
addressing them.

C. Good Cause Exemption

    Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), provides that ``[t]he required publication or service of a
substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its
effective date, except * * * (3) as otherwise provided by the agency
for good cause found and published with the rule.'' Today's final rule
is a rule that relieves a restriction, i.e., that delays the effective
date of a Federal rule. Today's rule does not establish any
requirements but rather merely extends the effective date of already-
promulgated requirements. On this basis, EPA has determined that there
is ``good cause'' for having this rule take effect upon March 6, 2012.
EPA thus finds that this constitutes ``good cause'' under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), since it
merely extends the effective date of an already promulgated rule, and
is therefore not subject to review under Executive Order 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not impose any
information collection burden, reporting or record keeping requirements
on anyone.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of
assessing the impacts of this action on small entities, small entity is
defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    This final rule does not establish any requirements that are
applicable to small entities, but rather merely extends the date of
already promulgated requirements. Thus, I certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives, and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or Tribal
governments or the private sector. This final rule does not regulate or
affect any entity and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely extends the
effective date of an already promulgated regulation.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or
EPA consults with Tribal officials early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation and develops a Tribal summary impact statement.
However, the rule will neither impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law.
    In the State of Florida, there are two Indian Tribes, the Seminole
Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, with
lakes and flowing waters. Both Tribes have been approved for treatment
in the same manner as a State (TAS) status for CWA sections 303 and 401
and have federally-approved WQS in their respective jurisdictions.
These Tribes are not subject to this final rule. This rule will not
impact the Tribes because it merely extends the date of already
promulgated requirements.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866
and because the Agency does not believe this action includes
environmental health risks or safety risks that would present a risk to
children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. This action is not subject to E.O.
12898 because this action merely extends the effective date for already
promulgated requirements.

K. 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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must
be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated
previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the
reasons therefore, and established an effective date of March 6, 2012.
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
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Water quality standards, Nitrogen/
phosphorus pollution, Nutrients, Florida.

    Dated: February 16, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-5604 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 18605]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07288]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee Open Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is
hereby given of a meeting of the Commercial Space Transportation
Advisory Committee (COMSTAC).

DATES: The meeting will take place on Wednesday, May 7, 2014, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m., and Thursday, May 8, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the National Transportation
Safety Board Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC
20594.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Scott, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FAA Office of Commercial Space
Transportation (AST-3), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room 331,
Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This will be the 59th meeting of the
COMSTAC.
    The proposed schedule for the COMSTAC working group meetings on May
7 is below:

--Operations (8 a.m.-10 a.m.)
--Business/Legal (10 a.m.-12 a.m.)
--Systems (1 p.m.-3 p.m.)
--International Space Policy (3 p.m.-5 p.m.)

    The full Committee will meet on May 8. The proposed agenda for that
meeting features speakers relevant to the commercial space
transportation industry; and reports and recommendations from the
working groups.
    Interested members of the public may submit relevant written
statements for the COMSTAC members to consider under the advisory
process. Statements may concern the issues and agenda items mentioned
above and/or additional issues that may be relevant for the U.S.
commercial space transportation industry. Interested parties wishing to
submit written statements should contact Larry Scott, COMSTAC
Designated Federal Officer, (the Contact Person listed in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) in writing (mail or email) by April 30, 2014, so
that the information can be made available to COMSTAC members for their
review and consideration before the May 7 and 8 meetings. Written
statements should be supplied in the following formats: One hard copy
with original signature and/or one electronic copy via email.
    A portion of the May 8 meeting will be unavailable to the public
(starting at approximately 2 p.m.).
    An agenda will be posted on the FAA Web site at www.faa.gov/go/ast.
For specific information concerning the times and locations of the
COMSTAC working group meetings, contact the Contact Person listed
below.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should
inform the Contact Persons listed below in advance of the meeting.
    Complete information regarding COMSTAC is available on the FAA Web
site at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/.
    This notice is given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2).

    Issued in Washington, DC, March 25, 2014.
 George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2014-07288 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55060-55061]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24870]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0839; Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-7]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Selinsgrove, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface in Selinsgrove, PA. A new area
navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedure has been developed at Penn Valley Airport, requiring
airspace reconfiguration. Controlled airspace is necessary for the
safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at
the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates
of the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1 (800)
647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2014-
0839; Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-7, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy 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 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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
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 amend Class E airspace at Penn Valley Airport, Selinsgrove,
PA to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR
operations at the airport

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule 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 and be submitted
in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons 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 Docket
No. FAA-2014-0839; Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-7.'' The postcard will be
date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. 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 http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://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 the 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 between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet or more above the surface from an 8-mile radius to a 9-
mile radius of Penn Valley Airport, Selinsgrove, PA because a new RNAV
(GPS) standard instrument approach procedure to Runway 35 has been
developed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    The proposed amendment would remove the segment extending
northbound from Selinsgrove VOR/DME, northbound, would be removed
because it is no longer required as part of the airspace redesign.
Additionally, the amendment would update the geographic coordinates of
the airport to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database, and would
correct the name of the navigation aid from VORTAC to VOR/DME.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

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 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.

Lists 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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Selinsgrove, PA [Amended]

Penn Valley Airport, PA
    (Lat. 40[deg]49'16'' N., long. 76[deg]51'51'' W.)
Selinsgrove, VOR/DME
    (Lat. 40[deg]47'27'' N., long. 76[deg]53'03'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9-mile radius of Penn Valley Airport and within 5 miles
southeast of the Selinsgrove VOR/DME 207[deg] radial, extending from
the 9-mile radius to 10 miles southwest of the VOR/DME.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 8, 2017.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2017-24870 Filed 11-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 32696]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12992]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Jupiter Enterprises, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

May 29, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Jupiter Enterprises, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended June 30, 2007.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 29, 2013, through 11:59 p.m. EDT
on June 11, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12992 Filed 5-29-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7408-7410]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02726]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0094; Notice 2]

Ferrari North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Ferrari North America, Inc. (FNA), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2007-2009 Ferrari F430 passenger cars do not fully
comply with paragraph S4.4(c)(2), of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. FNA filed a
report dated July 16, 2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. FNA then petitioned NHTSA
under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Kerrin
Bressant, Office of Vehicles Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, FNA submitted a
petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements
of 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 17, 2015, in the Federal Register (80 FR
34787). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2014-0094.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Affected are approximately 1,975 MY 2007-2009 Ferrari model F430
passenger cars manufactured from September 1, 2007 through July 29,
2009.

III. Noncompliance

    FNA explains that the Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS)
malfunction indicator illuminates as required by FMVSS No. 138 when a
malfunction is first detected, however, if the malfunction is caused by
an incompatible wheel, when the vehicle ignition is deactivated and
then reactivated to the ``On'' (``Run'') position after a five-minute
period, the malfunction indicator does not re-illuminate immediately as
required. FNA added, that the malfunction indicator in the subject
vehicles will re-illuminate after a maximum of 40 seconds of driving
above 23 miles per hour (mph).

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraph S4.4(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 138 requires in pertinent part:

    S4.4 TPMS Malfunction.
* * * * *
    (c) Combination low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale. The
vehicle meets the requirements of S4.4(a) when equipped with a
combined Low Tire Pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale that:
    (2) Flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but no longer
than 90 seconds upon detection of any condition specified in S4.4(a)
after the ignition locking system is activated to the ``On''
(``Run'') position. After each period of prescribed flashing, the
telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as a
malfunction exists and the ignition locking system is in the ``On''
(``Run'') position. This flashing and illumination sequence must be
repeated each time the ignition locking system is placed in the
``On'' (``Run'') position until the situation causing the
malfunction has been corrected. . . .

V. Summary of FNA's Analyses

    FNA stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    (A) FNA stated that the TPMS in the subject vehicles generally
functions properly to alert the driver to a low tire pressure.
Moreover, the TPMS malfunction indicator illuminates as required when a
problem is first detected. If, however, there is an incompatible wheel
and tire unit, when the vehicle ignition is deactivated and then
reactivated after a five-minute period, the malfunction indicator does
not re-illuminate immediately as required by FMVSS No. 138. According
to FNA, the malfunction indicator will illuminate shortly thereafter,
and, in any event, it will illuminate in no more than 40 seconds after
the vehicle accelerates above 23 mph. Once the vehicle has accelerated
above 23 mph for a period of 15 seconds, the TPMS will seek to confirm
the sensors fitted to the vehicle, and in the case a sensor is not
fitted, the TPMS will detect this condition within a maximum of 25
additional seconds and activate the malfunction indicator. Thus, FNA
explained that even in the presence of the noncompliance, drivers are
warned of the malfunction in less than one minute of driving at or
above normal urban speeds.
    (B) FNA further explained that if the TPMS fails to detect a
compatible wheel sensor, the TPMS monitor will display no value for the
tire pressure of the affected wheel(s). The TPMS monitor will alert the
driver to the fact that something is not functioning properly with the
system, pending the illumination of the malfunction indicator.
    (C) FNA said that the noncompliance is confined to one particular
aspect of the functionality of the otherwise compliant TPMS malfunction
indicator. All other aspects of the low-pressure monitoring system
functionality are fully compliant with the requirements of FMVSS No.
138.
    (D) FNA said it is not aware of any customer complaints, field
communications, incidents or injuries related to this condition.
    In summation, FNA believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt FNA from providing notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: FNA explained that although the malfunction
indicator does not re-illuminate immediately after the vehicle is
restarted, it will illuminate shortly thereafter--within 40 seconds
after the vehicle speed exceeds 23 mph.
    NHTSA agrees with FNA that the malfunction indicator will not
illuminate as required during very short periods of time when the
vehicle is traveling at low speeds and thus poses little risk to
vehicle safety. Under normal driving conditions, a driver will begin a
trip by accelerating moderately beyond 23 mph, and as explained by FNA,
once the vehicle accelerates above 23 mph, the malfunction indicator
re-illuminates and then it will remain illuminated for the entire
ignition cycle, regardless of vehicle speed. We agree the noncompliance
will only occur in the very rare case where the driver begins a trip
and never exceeds the 23 mph threshold, the speed required to re-
activate the malfunction indicator. No real safety risk exists because
at such low speeds there is little risk of vehicle loss of control due
to underinflated tires. Furthermore, the possibility that the vehicle
will experience both a low inflation pressure condition and a
malfunction simultaneously is highly unlikely.
    FNA stated that if the TPMS fails to detect the wheel sensors, a
TPMS monitor is also provided that displays on its TPMS pressures
screen ``--'' warning the driver that the status of the wheel sensor is
not confirmed. The agency evaluated the displays FNA uses in the
noncompliant vehicles. In addition to the combination telltale
indicator lamp, the subject vehicles are equipped with a ``plan view''
icon which displays the pressures for all four wheels individually. If
any wheel has a malfunctioning pressure sensor the indicator for that
wheel displays several dashes indicating the there is a problem with
that respective wheel. The additional information is not required by
the safety standard, but can be used as an aid to the driver to
determine the status of a vehicle's tires.
    FNA discussed that the noncompliance only involves one specific
aspect of the malfunction and that the primary functions of the TPMS,
identification of other malfunctions and identification of low
inflation pressure scenarios, is not affected.
    The agency agrees with FNA's reasoning that the primary function of
the TPMS is to identify low tire inflation pressure conditions which
FNA's system does as required by the

safety standard. Also, there are a variety of other malfunctions that
can occur in addition to the delayed re-illumination malfunction
identified in this petition. We understand from FNA that the TPMS
installed in the subject vehicles will otherwise perform as required.
    FNA mentioned that they have not received or are aware of any
consumer complaints, field communications, incidences or injuries
related to this noncompliance. In addition to the analysis done by FNA
that looked at customer complaints, field communications, incidents or
injuries related to this condition, NHTSA conducted additional checks
of NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigations consumer complaint database
and found two subject vehicle complaints both of which were determined
to be unrelated to this petition.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing analysis, NHTSA
has decided that FNA has met its burden of demonstrating that the FMVSS
No. 138 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, FNA's petition is hereby granted and FNA is exempted from
the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the
subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject noncompliant vehicles that FNA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after FNA
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-02726 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34345-34346]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12247]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 9, 2022.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an

announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place
of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

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

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

     Dated: June 2, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12247 Filed 6-2-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 10279-10280]
[DOCID:fr07mr07-175]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55376; File No. SR-ISE-2007-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Re-Price
Orders

February 28, 2007.
    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 February 6, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
the ISE. On February 16, 2007, ISE filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ The Exchange filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposed rule
text to clarify its meaning.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE is proposing to add a new order type for the ISE Stock
Exchange that would prevent orders from being cancelled back to Equity
Electronic Access Members (``Equity EAMs'') when the order would either
cause a locked or crossed market if displayed or cause a trade-through
if executed. The text of the proposed rule change is available at ISE,
the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.ise.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The ISE Stock Exchange has several order types that may result in
orders being cancelled back to Equity EAMs when the orders cannot be
displayed on the ISE Stock Exchange because the order would create a
violation of ISE Rule 2112 by locking or crossing the Protected
Quotation \6\ of another Trading Center \7\ or would cause a violation
of ISE Rule 2107(b) by trading-through the Protected Quotation of
another Trading Center.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ISE Rule 2100(c)(16).
    \7\ See ISE Rule 2100(c)(20).
    \8\ For example, Not Routable orders are limit orders that are
to be executed in whole or in part upon receipt, and if not fully
executed, displayed on the ISE Stock Exchange if possible. If a Not
Routable limit order is not fully executed and is not displayable on
the ISE, the order is cancelled back to the member. See ISE Rule
2104(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this filing is to add an order type that will give
Equity EAMs the choice of whether to have orders re-priced instead of
cancelled. Re-price orders and the unexecuted balance of Re-price
orders will be automatically re-priced within the minimum price
variation \9\ for display on the ISE Stock Exchange instead of being
cancelled. For example, if the National Best Bid and Offer is $4.06 x
$4.10 and the ISE Best Bid and Offer is $4.05 x $4.10 when an Equity
EAM enters a Not Routable limit order to sell with a limit price of
$4.05, the order will be cancelled back to the member unless it is
marked ``Re-Price.'' If the order is marked ``Re-Price,'' the order
will be placed on the ISE Stock Exchange's limit order book at $4.07,
the lowest possible offer price that the ISE can display without
creating a locked or crossed market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ISE Rule 2210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The ISE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \11\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, serve to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
In particular, the Exchange believes that this filing will provide
investors with more flexibility in entering orders and receiving
executions of such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the
Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the
filing date of the proposal.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), ISE provided the
Commission with notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\13\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative period, which would make the
rule change operative immediately. The

Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
because the proposed rule change is substantially similar to a rule
previously approved by the Commission.\15\ For this reason, the
Commission designates that the proposal become operative immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ See Nasdaq Rule 4751(f)(8).
    For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on February 16, 2007, the date on which ISE filed
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-ISE-2007-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-14. 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. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the ISE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-ISE-2007-14 and should be submitted on or before March
28, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4042 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


MEMORANDUM       To: 		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0199       From:		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation       Date:		August 2015 Subject:	Federal Plan Affected EGU Technical Support Document (TSD) This memorandum lists all proposed applicable affected EGUs according to the National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS), Energy Information Administration (EIA), and comments from the Clean Power Plan (Table 1). Each affected EGU is assigned its proposed applicable standards if a federal plan were to be promulgated for that affected EGU. The EPA solicits comment on the list of affected units. This list is not a final determination and the EPA may incorporate units that are not defined here.

Key to Recurring Column Values                                   Field Name                                      Code                                   Definition Category COALST Coal Steam

NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle

OGST Oil/Gas Steam

UC  -  Coal Under Construction  -  Coal Steam

UC Coal  -  commenced in 2012 Under Construction (construction commenced in 2012)  -  Coal Steam

UC-NGCC Under Construction  -  Natural Gas Combined Cycle

UC NGCC  -  commenced in 2012 Under Construction (construction commenced in 2012)  -  Natural Gas Combined Cycle Fuel Type BIT Bituminous Coal

DFO Distillate Fuel Oil

LIG Lignite Coal

NG Natural Gas

OG Other Gas

PC Petroleum Coke

RFO Residual Fuel Oil

SGC Coal-Derived Synthesis Gas

SUB Subbituminous Coal

WC Waste/Other Coal

WH Waste Heat

WO Waste/Other Oil Prime Mover Type CC Combined Cycle

ST Steam Turbine


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27904-27907]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12588]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80916; File No. SR-CHX-2017-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Article 23, Rule
13, Consolidated Audit Trail--Fee Dispute Resolution

June 13, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on June
5, 2017, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''
or ``SEC'') 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CHX proposes to amend the Rules of the Exchange (``CHX Rules'') to
adopt Article 23, Rule 13 (Consolidated Audit Trail--Fee Dispute
Resolution) to establish the procedures for resolving potential
disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.\2\ The text
of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.chx.com/regulatory-operations/rule-filings/, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are defined as set forth herein, or in the Consolidated
Audit Trail Funding Fees Rule, the CAT Compliance Rule Series or in
the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange, Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.,
Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., BOX Options
Exchange LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''), Investors' Exchange LLC, Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC,
Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC,\3\ NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc.
and NYSE National, Inc.\4\ (collectively, the ``Plan Participants''
\5\) filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange
Act \6\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder,\7\ the National
Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the ``CAT
NMS Plan'' or ``Plan'').\8\ The Plan Participants filed the Plan to
comply with Rule 613 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act. The Plan
was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 17, 2016,\9\
and approved by the Commission, as modified, on November 15, 2016.\10\
The Plan is designed to create, implement and maintain a consolidated
audit trail (``CAT'') that would capture customer and order event
information for orders in NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities,
across all markets, from the time of order inception through routing,
cancellation, modification, or execution in a single consolidated data
source. The Plan accomplishes this by creating CAT NMS, LLC (the
``Company''), of which each Plan Participant is a member, to operate
the CAT.\11\ Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee of the
Company (``Operating Committee'') has discretion to establish funding
for the Company to operate the CAT, including establishing fees that
the Plan Participants will pay, and establishing fees for Industry
Members that will be implemented by the Plan

Participants (``CAT Fees'').\12\ The Plan Participants are required to
file with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such CAT
Fees applicable to Industry Members that the Operating Committee
approves.\13\ Accordingly, the Exchange has filed a proposed rule
change with the SEC to adopt the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees,
which will require Industry Members that are Exchange members to pay
the CAT Fees determined by the Operating Committee.\14\ The Exchange
submits this rule filing to adopt Rule 13 (Consolidated Audit Trail--
Fee Dispute Resolution) to establish the procedures for resolving
potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.
Proposed Rule 13 is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ISE Gemini, LLC, ISE Mercury, LLC and International
Securities Exchange, LLC have been renamed Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq
MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq ISE, LLC, respectively. See Securities Exchange
Act Rel. No. 80248 (Mar. 15, 2017), 82 FR 14547 (Mar. 21, 2017);
Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80326 (Mar. 29, 2017), 82 FR 16460
(Apr. 4, 2017); and Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80325 (Mar. 29,
2017), 82 FR 16445 (Apr. 4, 2017).
    \4\ National Stock Exchange, Inc. has been renamed NYSE
National, Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 79902 (Jan. 30,
2017), 82 FR 9258 (Feb. 3, 2017).
    \5\ A ``Participant'' is a ``member'' of the Exchange for
purposes of the Act. See CHX Article 1, Rule 1(s). For the avoidance
of confusion, the term ``Plan Participant'' will be used when
referring to Participants of the Plan.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \8\ See Letter from the Plan Participants to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated September 30, 2014; and Letter from
Plan Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
February 27, 2015. On December 24, 2015, the Plan Participants
submitted an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan. See Letter from Plan
Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
December 23, 2015.
    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 77724 (Apr. 27, 2016), 81
FR 30614 (May 17, 2016).
    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 79318 (Nov. 15, 2016), 81
FR 84696 (Nov. 23, 2016) (``Approval Order'').
    \11\ The Plan also serves as the limited liability company
agreement for the Company.
    \12\ Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80691 (May 16, 2017), 82
FR 23344 (May 22, 2017) (SR-CHX-2017-08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Definitions
    Paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 13 sets forth the definitions for
Proposed Rule 13. Paragraph (a)(1) of Proposed Rule 13 states that, for
purposes of Rule 13, the terms ``CAT NMS Plan'', ``Industry Member'',
``Operating Committee'', and ``Plan Participant'' are defined as set
forth in the Rule 1 (Consolidated Audit Trail--Definitions), and the
term ``CAT Fee'' is defined as set forth in the Consolidated Audit
Trail Funding Fees. In addition, the Exchange proposes to add paragraph
(a)(2) to Proposed Rule 13. New paragraph (a)(2) would define the term
``Subcommittee'' to mean a subcommittee designated by the Operating
Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. This definition is the same
substantive definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan.
(2) Fee Dispute Resolution
    Section 11.5 of the CAT NMS Plan requires Plan Participants to
adopt rules requiring that disputes with respect to fees charged to
Industry Members pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan be determined by the
Operating Committee or Subcommittee. Section 11.5 of the CAT NMS Plan
also states that decisions by the Operating Committee or Subcommittee
on such matters shall be binding on Industry Members, without prejudice
to the right of any Industry Member to seek redress from the SEC
pursuant to SEC Rule 608 or in any other appropriate forum. The
Exchange proposes to adopt paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 13. Paragraph
(b) of Proposed Rule 13 states that disputes initiated by an Industry
Member with respect to CAT Fees charged to such Industry Member
pursuant to the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees, including
disputes related to the designated tier and the fee calculated pursuant
to such tier, shall be resolved by the Operating Committee, or a
Subcommittee designated by the Operating Committee, of the CAT NMS
Plan, pursuant to the Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures adopted
pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan and set forth in paragraph (c) of Proposed
Rule 13. Decisions on such matters shall be binding on Industry
Members, without prejudice to the rights of any such Industry Member to
seek redress from the SEC or in any other appropriate forum.
    The Operating Committee has adopted ``Fee Dispute Resolution
Procedures'' governing the manner in which disputes regarding CAT Fees
charged pursuant to the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees will be
addressed. These Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures, as they relate to
Industry Members, are set forth in paragraph (c) of Proposed Rule 13.
Specifically, the Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures provide the
procedure for Industry Members that dispute CAT Fees charged to such
Industry Member pursuant to one or more of the Plan Participants'
Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees Rules, including disputes related
to the designated tier and the fee calculated pursuant to such tier, to
apply for an opportunity to be heard and to have the CAT Fees charged
to such Industry Member reviewed. The Procedures are modeled after the
adverse action procedures adopted by various exchanges,\15\ and will be
posted on the Web site for the CAT NMS Plan Web site.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Chapter X of BATS BZX Exchange, Inc. (Adverse
Action); and Chapter X of NYSE National, Inc. (Adverse Action).
    \16\ The CAT NMS Plan Web site is www.catnmsplan.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under these Procedures, an Industry Member that disputes CAT Fees
charged to such Industry Member and that desires to have an opportunity
to be heard with respect to such disputed CAT Fees must file a written
application with the Company within 15 business days after being
notified of such disputed CAT Fees. The application must identify the
disputed CAT Fees, state the specific reasons why the applicant takes
exception to such CAT Fees, and set forth the relief sought. In
addition, if the applicant intends to submit any additional documents,
statements, arguments or other material in support of the application,
the same should be so stated and identified.
    The Company will refer applications for hearing and review promptly
to the Subcommittee designated by the Operating Committee pursuant to
Section 4.12 of the CAT NMS Plan with responsibility for conducting the
reviews of CAT Fee disputes pursuant to these Procedures. This
Subcommittee will be referred to as the Fee Review Subcommittee. The
members of the Fee Review Subcommittee will be subject to the
provisions of Section 4.3(d) of the CAT NMS Plan regarding recusal and
Conflicts of Interest. The Fee Review Subcommittee will keep a record
of the proceedings.
    The Fee Review Subcommittee will hold hearings promptly. The Fee
Review Subcommittee will set a hearing date. The parties to the hearing
shall furnish the Fee Review Subcommittee with all materials relevant
to the proceedings at least 72 hours prior to the date of the hearing.
Each party will have the right to inspect and copy the other party's
materials prior to the hearing.
    The parties to the hearing will consist of the applicant and a
representative of the Company who shall present the reasons for the
action taken by the Company that allegedly aggrieved the applicant. The
applicant is entitled to be accompanied, represented and advised by
counsel at all stages of the proceedings.
    The Fee Review Subcommittee will determine all questions concerning
the admissibility of evidence and will otherwise regulate the conduct
of the hearing. Each of the parties will be permitted to make an
opening statement, present witnesses and documentary evidence, cross
examine opposing witnesses and present closing arguments orally or in
writing as determined by the Fee Review Subcommittee. The Fee Review
Subcommittee also will have the right to question all parties and
witnesses to the proceeding. The Fee Review Subcommittee must keep a
record of the hearing. The formal rules of evidence will not apply.
    The Fee Review Subcommittee must set forth its decision in writing
and send the written decision to the parties to the proceeding. Such
decisions will contain the reasons supporting the conclusions of the
Fee Review Subcommittee.
    The decision of the Fee Review Subcommittee will be subject to
review by the Operating Committee either on its own motion within 20
business days after issuance of the decision or upon written request
submitted by the applicant within 15 business days after

issuance of the decision. The applicant's petition must be in writing
and must specify the findings and conclusions to which the applicant
objects, together with the reasons for such objections. Any objection
to a decision not specified in writing will be considered to have been
abandoned and may be disregarded. Parties may petition to submit a
written argument to the Operating Committee and may request an
opportunity to make an oral argument before the Operating Committee.
The Operating Committee will have sole discretion to grant or deny
either request.
    The Operating Committee will conduct the review. The review will be
made upon the record and will be made after such further proceedings,
if any, as the Operating Committee may order. Based upon such record,
the Operating Committee may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in
part, the decision of the Fee Review Subcommittee. The decision of the
Operating Committee will be in writing, will be sent to the parties to
the proceeding and will be final.
    The Procedures state that a final decision regarding the disputed
CAT Fees by the Operating Committee, or the Fee Review Subcommittee (if
there is no review by the Operating Committee), must be provided within
90 days of the date on which the Industry Member filed a written
application regarding disputed CAT Fees with the Company. The Operating
Committee may extend the 90-day time limit at its discretion.
    In addition, the Procedures state that any notices or other
documents may be served upon the applicant either personally or by
leaving the same at its, his or her place of business or by deposit in
the United States post office, postage prepaid, by registered or
certified mail, addressed to the applicant at its, his or her last
known business or residence address. The Procedures also state that any
time limits imposed under the Procedures for the submission of answers,
petitions or other materials may be extended by permission of the
Operating Committee. All papers and documents relating to review by the
Fee Review Subcommittee or the Operating Committee must be submitted to
the Fee Review Subcommittee or Operating Committee, as applicable.
    The Procedures also note that decisions on such CAT Fee disputes
made pursuant to these Procedures will be binding on Industry Members,
without prejudice to the rights of any such Industry Member to seek
redress from the SEC or in any other appropriate forum.
    Finally, an Industry Member that files a written application with
the Company regarding disputed CAT Fees in accordance with these
Procedures is not required to pay such disputed CAT Fees until the
dispute is resolved in accordance with these Procedures, including any
review by the SEC or in any other appropriate forum. For these
purposes, the disputed CAT Fees means the amount of the invoiced CAT
Fees that the Industry Member has asserted pursuant to these Procedures
that such Industry Member does not owe to the Company. The Industry
Member must pay any invoiced CAT Fees that are not disputed CAT Fees
when due as set forth in the original invoice.
    Once the dispute regarding CAT Fees is resolved pursuant to these
Procedures, if it is determined that the Industry Member owes any of
the disputed CAT Fees, then the Industry Member must pay such disputed
CAT Fees that are owed as well as interest on such disputed CAT Fees
from the original due date (that is, 30 days after receipt of the
original invoice of such CAT Fees) until such disputed CAT Fees are
paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of (i) the Prime Rate plus
300 basis points, or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by applicable law.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ which require,
among other things, that the Exchange rules must be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest, and not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealer, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\18\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act
because it implements, interprets or clarifies Section 11.5 of the
Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members
in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving
the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan ``is necessary and appropriate in
the public interest, for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.'' \19\ To the extent that this
proposal implements, interprets or clarifies the Plan and applies
specific requirements to Industry Members, the Exchange believes that
this proposal furthers the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the
SEC, and is therefore consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Approval Order at 84697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \20\ require [sic] that Exchange rules
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate. 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. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule change implements Section 11.5 of the CAT
NMS Plan approved by the Commission, and is designed to assist the
Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan.
Similarly, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing
this proposed rule to implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan.
Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing and, therefore, it
does not raise competition issues between and among the exchanges and
FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2017-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2017-11. 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-CHX-2017-11, and should be
submitted on or before July 10, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-12588 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 44888]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-3123]

Advisory Committee; Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory
Committee, Renewal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; renewal of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
renewal of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee by
the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner
has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the
Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional
2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in
effect until August 27, 2020.

DATES: Authority for the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory
Committee will expire on August 27, 2020, unless the Commissioner
formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaToya Bonner, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by
the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11
and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the
renewal of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee
(the Committee). The Committee is a discretionary Federal advisory
committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner.
    The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging
responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective
drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which the
Food and Drug Administration has regulatory responsibility.
    The Committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the treatment of endocrine and metabolic disorders, and makes
appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.
    The Committee shall consist of a core of 11 voting members
including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the
Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the
fields of endocrinology, metabolism, epidemiology or statistics, and
related specialties. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping
terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this
committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting
members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the
Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and
is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented
organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting
members, the Committee may include one non-voting member who is
identified with industry interests.
    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other
information can be found at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/EndocrinologicandMetabolicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/ucm100261.htm or by
contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). In light of the fact that no change has been made to the
committee name or description of duties, no amendment will be made to
21 CFR 14.100.
    This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory
committees, please check https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: August 28, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-19066 Filed 8-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P