[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63929-63930]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0002]

Joint Meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory
Committee and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committees: Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory
Committee and Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committees: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on December 1, 2011, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a disability,
visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You'', click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus''. Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Bldg. 1.
    Contact Person: Kristina Toliver, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8533, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), and
follow the prompts to the desired center or product area. Please call
the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007
(Public Law 110-85) requires FDA to bring, at least annually, one or
more drugs with Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) with
Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU) before its Drug Safety and Risk
Management Advisory Committee (DSaRM). On December 1, 2011, the DSaRM
and the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committees will meet
in joint session to discuss REMS-related topics. During the morning
session, the committees will discuss the REMS program for isotretinoin,
also known as iPLEDGE, as an example of a REMS that has ETASU. During
the afternoon session, the committees will discuss general issues
related to the impact of REMS with ETASU on the health care system and
patient access, such as how programs with ETASU can be better
integrated into existing health systems.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
November 16, 2011. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 9:40 a.m. and 10:10 a.m. (for comments related to
iPLEDGE), and between 2:20 p.m. and 2:50 p.m. (for other REMS-related
comments). Those individuals interested in making formal oral
presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before November 7, 2011. Time allotted for each presentation may
be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may

conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by November 8, 2011.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristina Toliver at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: October 11, 2011.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-26588 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: November 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 67680-67684]
[DOCID:fr22no06-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54767; File No. SR-NYSE-2004-69]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Establish
Rules for the Trading of Unregistered Corporate Debt Securities

 November 16, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On December 3, 2004, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (f/k/a New
York Stock Exchange, Inc.) (``NYSE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
establish rules for the trading of unlisted debt securities on the
Exchange's Automated Bond System (``ABS''). In connection with this
proposed rule change, NYSE submitted an application for a Commission
exemption pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act \3\ that would
permit its members, brokers, and dealers to trade certain unregistered
corporate debt securities on ABS.\4\ On March 15, 2005, NYSE filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\5\ The proposal, as
amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 15,
2005.\6\ The Commission received 19 comments from 16 different
commenters on the NYSE Exemption Request and/or the proposed rule
change. On October 18, 2005, the Exchange filed an initial response to
the comment letters.\7\ On September 22, 2006, the Exchange filed a
second response to the comment letters.\8\ This order approves the
proposed rule change, as amended.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51998 (July 8,2005),
70 FR 40748 (July 14, 2005) (File No. S7-06-05) (``NYSE Exemption
Request'').
    \5\ Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the originalfiling
in its entirety.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51999 (July 8,2005),
70 FR 41067.
    \7\ See letter from Mary Yeager, Assistant Secretary, NYSE,to
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated October 18, 2005
(``NYSE Response Letter 1'').
    \8\ See letter from Mary Yeager, Assistant Secretary, NYSE,to
Nancy Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated September 22, 2006
(``NYSE Response Letter 2'').
    \9\ In a separate action, the Commission today also isapproving
the NYSE Exemption Request. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54766 (November 16, 2006) (File No. S7-06-05) (``Section 36
Exemption Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Currently, bond trading is conducted on the Exchange through ABS,
an electronic trading system that provides subscribers with access to
screens that display the order ``book'' in each bond being traded.
Subscribers can enter orders which, if not immediately executed, would
be displayed in the book according to price-time priority. NYSE
disseminates quotation and last-sale information to market data vendors
via the Exchange's dedicated bond quote line.
    A corporate debt security may be listed and traded on the Exchange
if it meets the standards set forth in NYSE Listed Company Manual
Section 102.03 (for debt securities of domestic issuers \10\) or
Section 103.05 (for debt securities of non-U.S. issuers), both of which
require that the debt issue has an aggregate market value or principal
amount of no less than $5 million, and that (a) the issuer of the debt
security (or an entity that directly or indirectly owns a majority
interest in, or is under common control with, such issuer) has equity
securities listed on the Exchange;

(b) an issuer of equity securities listed on the Exchange has
guaranteed the debt security; or (c) at least one of three criteria is
met relating to the rating of the debt security or certain related debt
securities.\11\ In addition, a convertible debt security may be listed
under NYSE Listed Company Manual Sections 102.03 or 103.05 only if the
underlying equity security is subject to real-time last sale reporting
in the United States. Alternatively, a debt security can trade on NYSE
without a listing relationship if it is an ``exempted security'' (as
defined in Section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act \12\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An issuer incorporated or otherwise organized outsidethe
United States would be treated as a domestic issuer under NYSE's
bond listing standards only if it is excepted from the definition of
``foreign private issuer'' as set forth in Rule 3b-4 under the
Exchange Act, 17 CFR 240.3b-4.
    \11\ Debt securities meeting the requirements of NYSEListed
Company Manual Sections 703.19 (``Other Securities'') or 703.21
(``Equity-Linked Debt Securities'') currently also may be listed and
traded on the Exchange.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 12(a) of the Exchange Act \13\ provides that it shall be
unlawful for any member, broker, or dealer to effect any transaction in
any security (other than an exempted security) on a national securities
exchange unless a registration is effective as to such security for
such exchange. Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act \14\ sets forth the
information an issuer is required to submit for a security to be
registered on a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(a).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this filing, the Exchange has proposed to establish NYSE Rules
1400 and 1401 in connection with the NYSE Exemption Request. Rule 1400
would incorporate the terms of the Commission's Section 36 Exemption
Order into the Exchange's rules. Under Rule 1400, the debt securities
eligible to be traded on the Exchange without being listed on the
Exchange would include any unlisted note, bond, debenture, or evidence
of indebtedness that is statutorily exempt from the registration
requirements of Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act or is eligible to be
traded absent Section 12(b) registration pursuant to the Section 36
Exemption Order. Securities eligible to be traded pursuant to the
Section 36 Exemption Order would include debt securities that meet the
NYSE Listing Standards of NYSE Listed Company Manual Sections 102.03 or
103.05, but would exclude convertible debt securities, which are equity
securities under Section 3(a)(11) of the Exchange Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(11). Debt securities meeting
thelisting requirements of NYSE Listed Company Manual Sections
703.19 or 703.21, while not eligible to be traded pursuant to the
Section 36 Exemption Order, would continue to be eligible to be
listed and traded on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Rule 1401 would set forth additional criteria for an
unregistered debt security to be traded on the Exchange. Rule 1401
would require of each ``traded'' debt security an outstanding aggregate
market value or principal amount of no less than $10 million on the
date trading commences \16\ and $1 million for continued inclusion for
trading on the Exchange.\17\ Rule 1401 also would allow the Exchange to
suspend trading of a debt security if, among other things, the issuer
declares bankruptcy, the Exchange receives advice that the debt
securities are without value, or the issuer of the debt securities or
its management engages in operations which, in the opinion of the
Exchange, are contrary to the public interest. Rule 1401 also provides
that the Exchange would promptly suspend trading in a debt security if
the security no longer qualified as an exempted security or no longer
met the criteria set forth in the Commission's Section 36 Exemption
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NYSE would employ two existing corporate bond
issuedatabases that provide issue market size information to review
for compliance with this criterion.
    \17\ To monitor the $1 million threshold, NYSE wouldutilize
Xcitek, LLC (``Xcitek''), a third-party vendor, to monitor corporate
actions such as partial redemptions, defaults, and tender offers.
NYSE has represented that it would monitor the prices of bonds in
the event that an issuer defaults or is facing potential bankruptcy
and would monitor the media for warnings of possible difficulties in
addition to ratings downgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE intends to identify outstanding debt securities that it
currently does not list as well as newly issued debt securities that
would satisfy the requirements of Rules 1400 and 1401, and to notify
its members and member organizations, through ticker notices and
postings on the Exchange's Web site, that such unlisted debt securities
are eligible to be traded on the Exchange. In addition, NYSE intends to
identify debt securities currently listed on the Exchange that meet the
criteria set forth in Rules 1400 and 1401 and thus would be eligible
for trading on an unlisted basis. In such cases, NYSE would inform the
issuer that its debt securities could be delisted but traded on the
Exchange on an unlisted basis.\18\ An issuer could elect not to have
its debt securities delisted; such securities would have to continue to
meet the applicable listing standards.\19\ Any security not satisfying
the requirements of Rules 1400 and 1401 could trade on the Exchange
provided it meets the applicable listing standards.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NYSE Response Letter 2 at 1.
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ Debt securities would remain eligible for listing byand
trading on the Exchange under NYSE Listed Company Manual Sections
102.03, 103.05, 703.19, and 703.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments and NYSE's Response

    As noted above, the Commission received 19 comments from 16
different commenters related to the proposed NYSE Exemption Request
and/or the proposed rule change.\21\ Thirteen of the commenters
strongly urged the Commission to grant the Section 36 exemption and
approve the proposed rule change.\22\ The commenters generally asserted
that allowing unregistered corporate bonds to trade on NYSE would lead
to increased efficiency, transparency, liquidity, and competition in
the debt markets. Three other commenters--NASD, Nasdaq, and the BMA--
expressed some support for NYSE's proposal but also raised certain
concerns.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See comments from Dennis J. Lehr, dated July 18, 2005
(``Lehr Letter''); Howard M. Friedman, Compliance and Operations
Officer, Easton & Co., dated July 19, 2005 (``Easton Letter'');
Michele C. David, Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, The
Bond Market Association (``BMA''), dated July 26, 2005; Robyn
Greene, Esq., dated August 4, 2005 (``Greene Letter''); William T.
Dolan, dated August 5, 2005 (``Dolan Letter''); Donald G. Dueweke,
dated August 9, 2005 (``Dueweke Letter''); Denis P. Kelleher, CEO,
Wall Street Access, dated August 9, 2005 (``Wall Street Access
Letter''); Joseph P. Riveiro, Manager, Corporate Bond Department,
InvestecUS, Inc., dated August 9, 2005 (``InvestecUS Letter'');
Lynnette Kelly Hotchkiss, Senior Vice President and Associate
General Counsel, BMA, dated August 15, 2005 (``BMA Letter 2'');
David Russell, Jr., Managing Director, Cove Hill Advisory Services,
Inc., dated August 15, 2005 (``Cove Hill Letter''); Thomas Peterffy,
Chairman, and David M. Battan, Vice President and General Counsel,
Interactive Brokers LLC, dated August 19, 2005 (``Interactive
Brokers Letter''); Barbara Z. Sweeney, Senior Vice President and
Corporate Secretary, National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), dated September 7, 2005 (``NASD Letter''); Fred
Siesel, dated June 2, 2006 (``Siesel Letter 1''); Ron Klein,
Chairman and CEO, General Associates, Inc., dated July 2, 2006
(``General Associates Letter 1''); Michael N. Castle, Member of the
U.S. House of Representatives, dated August 22, 2006 (``Castle
Letter''); Joan Conley, Senior Vice President, The Nasdaq Stock
Market, Inc., dated September 6, 2006 (``Nasdaq Letter''); Fred
Siesel, dated September 14, 2006 (``Siesel Letter 2''); Cate Long,
Multiple-Markets, dated October 12, 2006 (``Multiple-Markets
Letter''); and Ron Klein, Chairman and CEO, General Associates,
Inc., dated October 16, 2006 (``General Associates Letter 2'').
    \22\ See Lehr Letter, Easton Letter, Greene Letter, Dolan
Letter, Dueweke Letter, Wall Street Access Letter, InvestecUS
Letter, Cove Hill Letter, Interactive Brokers Letter, Siesel Letter
1, General Associates Letter 1, Castle Letter, Siesel Letter 2,
Multiple-Markets Letter, and General Associates Letter 2.
    \23\ See NASD Letter, Nasdaq Letter, and BMA Letter 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Bond Market Supervision and Fragmentation Issues

    NASD argued generally that Commission approval of NYSE's proposal
``could undermine the

Commission's original goal of increasing transparency in the corporate
bond market.'' \24\ NASD asserted that, by being permitted to trade
unregistered debt securities, the Exchange would be establishing an
``execution facility in the [over-the-counter (``OTC'')] market.'' \25\
Based on that assertion, NASD argued that ``transactions in unlisted
bonds that are effected through ABS must be subject to NASD's
statutorily mandated oversight as the OTC market regulator under
Section 15A of the Exchange Act.'' \26\ NASD further argued that ``a
robust consolidated inter-market audit trail * * * [is necessary] * * *
to ensure that the broader corporate bond market is effectively
regulated without fragmentation'' \27\ and that, ``[i]f significant
corporate bond transaction data is disseminated by the NYSE, investors
will be confronted with two unconsolidated corporate bond `tapes.' ''
\28\ Nasdaq also expressed the view that having one regulator in the
corporate bond market ensures appropriate and non-duplicative
regulation of that market.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NASD Letter at 7.
    \25\ Id. at 3.
    \26\ Id. at 3-4.
    \27\ Id. at 5.
    \28\ Id. at 7.
    \29\ See Nasdaq Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to transaction reporting, the BMA noted that, read
literally, NASD's rules governing the Trade Reporting and Compliance
Engine (``TRACE''), to which NASD members must report transactions in
TRACE-eligible securities, would apply to trades in unregistered debt
securities on ABS.\30\ The BMA stated that dual reporting of the same
trades would be unnecessary and unduly burdensome.\31\ Another
commenter, Multiple-Markets, argued that a combined trade reporting
system would be beneficial to investors.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See BMA Letter 2 at 3.
    \31\ See id.
    \32\ See Multiple-Markets Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response letter, NYSE rejected NASD's assertion that trading
of unregistered debt securities would render ABS an OTC facility
subject to NASD oversight.\33\ NYSE argued that, if trading of
unregistered securities on ABS were OTC activity, its members would not
need a Section 36 exemption to trade such securities on the Exchange in
the first place.\34\ With respect to concerns relating to investor
confusion that may arise as a result of unconsolidated market data,
NYSE responded that it believed vendors would consolidate the data in
response to customer demand.\35\ In response to the concerns regarding
uncoordinated regulation, NYSE stated that it would be amenable to
coordinating regulation with NASD.\36\ NYSE agreed with the BMA's view
that the Exchange's members should not be required to report ABS trades
to TRACE.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See NYSE Response Letter 1 at 5-6.
    \34\ See id. at 5.
    \35\ See id. at 6.
    \36\ See id. In this regard, NASD and NYSE are in the process of
negotiating a data-sharing agreement wherein, among other things,
NYSE will agree to provide NASD certain information related to
transactions in unlisted TRACE-eligible bonds traded on NYSE. In
turn, NASD intends to consolidate this information into the computer
database housing NASD's audit trail.
    \37\ See id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Competition Issues

    The BMA raised various interrelated competition issues. For
example, the BMA asserted that, by trading unregistered debt
securities, the Exchange would be ``acting as a broker'' and
``competing with other brokers that also offer trading in the [same]
debt securities.'' \38\ While not objecting to NYSE's ``acting as
broker,'' the BMA claimed that this arrangement could give NYSE ``a
variety of competitive advantages over the brokers with which it will
be competing'' due to the Exchange's status as a self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') that regulates many of those brokers.\39\ The
BMA also expressed concern that broker-dealers could be forced to
become NYSE members or to acquire NYSE trading rights to have access to
liquidity in unregistered debt securities that would trade on ABS.\40\
The BMA also questioned the Exchange's ownership of ABS quotation and
trading data and argued that, at a minimum, ``any fees imposed by the
NYSE on the provision of such data must be reasonable and that the NYSE
should not benefit from data ownership rights that are superior to its
competitors.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ BMA Letter 2 at 2.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ See id. at 4-5.
    \41\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE refuted the BMA's assertion that the Exchange would be acting
as a broker, noting that it ``neither makes recommendations regarding
the purchase or sale of securities nor acts as agent for any person or
entity in connection with purchases or sales through ABS.''\42\ NYSE
added that all activity on the Exchange occurs pursuant to rules that
must be established pursuant to the procedural requirements of Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act and meet the substantive requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act.\43\ NYSE noted in particular that any
fees for accessing ABS trade data must comply with Section 6(b)(4) of
the Exchange Act,\44\ which requires the Exchange to allocate charges
equitably among members, issuers, and other persons using the
Exchange's facilities.\45\ The Exchange concluded that its status as an
SRO conveyed no inappropriate competitive advantage in trading
unregistered debt securities on ABS.\46 \
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ NYSE Response Letter 1 at 2.
    \43\ See id.
    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \45\ See id. at 4.
    \46\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq and the BMA also raised issues relating to inter-exchange
competition. Nasdaq argued that ``[t]he NYSE-proposed requirement that
ABS securities be limited to issuers with at least one class of equity
listed on the NYSE may place a substantial barrier to the trading of
ABS issues by other competing exchanges that lack an equity listing
relationship with the debt issuer.''\47\ Similarly, the BMA expressed
concern that any Commission action not result in a ``grant of monopoly
trading privileges to the NYSE.''\48\ The BMA also asked whether the
Commission intends to grant other exchanges the ability to trade, on an
unlisted basis, debt securities of issuers whose equity securities were
listed on other exchanges.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Nasdaq Letter at 2.
    \48\ BMA Letter 2 at 6.
    \49\ See id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter, Multiple-Markets, expressed concern that the
Exchange's proposed use of a single third-party vendor, Xcitek, to
supply NYSE with information about corporate bonds and their issuers,
would give Xcitek an unfair advantage over competing vendors.\50\
Multiple-Markets also argued that debt securities trading pursuant to
the Exchange's proposal should be rated by at least two nationally
recognized statistical rating organizations (``NRSROs'') before being
admitted to trading on the Exchange on an unlisted basis, and the
withdrawal of such ratings should result in a suspension of
trading.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Multiple-Markets Letter at 5-6.
    \51\ See id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Blue Sky Issues

    Finally, the BMA expressed concern that debt securities delisted
pursuant to the Exchange's proposal and shifted to ``traded'' status
could lose their ``blue sky exemption.''\52\ To address this

concern, NYSE represented that it would contact in writing all issuers
of currently listed debt to highlight the issue and provide such
issuers the option of maintaining their listed status.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See BMA Letter 2 at 6. Under Section 18 of the Securities
Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77r, certain securities are exempt from state
registration requirements or ``blue sky laws,'' including those that
are listed, or authorized for listing, on certain national
securities exchanges and securities of the same issuer that are
equal in seniority or senior to such securities.
    \53\ See NYSE Response Letter 2 at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\54\ In particular, the Commission
believes that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Section
6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\55\ which requires, among other things,
that a national securities exchange's rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; to promote just and
equitable principles of trade; to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system; and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that NYSE Rule 1400 is reasonably designed
to implement the terms and conditions of the Commission's Section 36
Exemption Order into the Exchange's rules. The Commission also believes
that Rule 1401's qualitative and quantitative criteria for initial and
continued inclusion for trading on the Exchange are reasonable and
consistent with the Exchange Act. These criteria are similar to those
in existing NYSE rules that govern the listing of debt securities on
the Exchange and have previously been approved by the Commission.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34019 (May 5,
1994), 59 FR 24765 (May 12, 1994) (SR-NYSE-93-49) (approving changes
to NYSE bond listing standards). NYSE currently permits only debt
securities with an outstanding market value or principal amount of
at least $5 million to be listed on the Exchange and suspends the
trading of listed debt securities when the outstanding market value
or principal amount falls below $1 million. See Sections 102.03 and
703.06 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has carefully considered the comments received and
believes that none of the commenters raised any issue that should
preclude approval of this proposal. The Commission agrees with the
Exchange's view that trading unregistered debt securities on the
Exchange would not result in an OTC facility that must, as such, be
subject to NASD oversight. Such trading will be effected by NYSE
members, pursuant to NYSE rules, and using systems owned and operated
by NYSE.
    NASD expressed concerns that market fragmentation might be
exacerbated as a result of approval of this filing and the NYSE
Exemption Request. Nasdaq also expressed the view that the corporate
bond market would be better served by a single regulator. In addition,
Multiple-Markets argued that a combined trade reporting system would be
beneficial to investors. The Commission does not believe that these
commenters' broad anticipatory concerns should preclude approval of
NYSE's proposal. The Commission, however, will continue to monitor the
growth of intermarket competition in the corporate bond markets and, in
the event market fragmentation becomes a concern, will consider
appropriate means to address the consolidation of market information
for corporate bonds.
    The BMA noted that current NASD rules would require transactions in
unregistered bonds effected on the Exchange to be reported to TRACE.\57
\ However, NASD recently filed a proposed rule change with the
Commission to amend its rules to provide that transactions in TRACE-
eligible securities \58\ executed on NYSE pursuant to the Section 36
Exemption Order would be exempt from TRACE reporting for a two-year
pilot period. In a separate action, the Commission today is approving
that NASD proposal.\59\ Therefore, transactions in unregistered
corporate debt securities on NYSE will not have to be double-reported
to TRACE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See NASD Rule 6220.
    \58\ See NASD Rule 6210(a).
    \59\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54768 (November 16,
2006) (notice of filing and accelerated approval of SR-NASD-2006-
110).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also raised various competitive issues with NYSE's
proposal. The BMA claimed that NYSE's ability to sell trade data would
give it ``a significant competitive advantage,'' and broker-dealers
``will be required to pay significant additional charges to obtain
information for which they are currently already paying TRACE.''\60\
The BMA observed that many broker-dealers that trade corporate debt
securities OTC are not currently members of NYSE, and argued that
Commission approval of this proposal ``could effectively force those
firms to become members of the NYSE or to acquire NYSE trading
rights.''\61\ Finally, the BMA opined that ``there has historically
been a conflict between an exchange's role as a financial intermediary
and its role as a regulator of financial intermediaries.''\62\ Nasdaq
argued that limiting NYSE's proposal only to corporate debt securities
issued by an entity having an equity security listed on the Exchange
``may place a substantial barrier to the trading of ABS issues by other
competing exchanges that lack an equity listing relationship with the
debt issuer.''\63\ Similarly, the BMA questioned whether, and under
what conditions, the Commission would permit other exchanges to trade
unregistered corporate debt securities.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ BMA Letter 2 at 3.
    \61\ Id. at 5.
    \62\ Id. at 4.
    \63\ Nasdaq Letter at 2.
    \64\ See BMA Letter 2 at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that NYSE's proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act,\65\ which requires that the rules
of an exchange not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The
Exchange Act sets out a comprehensive regulatory scheme for exchanges.
Among other things, any fees charged by an exchange for market data on
trades executed on its facilities must be fair and reasonable, not
unreasonably discriminatory, and equitably allocated among its members
and other persons using its facilities.\66\ While an exchange is
entitled to limit participation to those persons who have qualified for
membership, the Exchange Act permits denials of membership only for
specific legitimate reasons.\67\ The Commission, among other things,
oversees exchanges to ensure that they are enforcing their rules in a
manner consistent with the Exchange Act and that any changes to an
exchange's rules are consistent with the Exchange Act. The Commission
concludes that the commenters have raised no competitive issue that
would preclude approval of this proposal. The Commission believes that
NYSE's entry into this segment of the corporate bond market is broadly
pro-competitive and in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \66\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \67\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe that the Section 36 Exemption Order
gives NYSE an unfair competitive advantage over other exchanges. Other
exchanges may petition the Commission for similar relief that would
permit their members to trade unregistered debt securities on exchange
facilities subject to the

conditions imposed by the Commission in NYSE's case.
    The Commission further believes that requiring a debt security that
trades pursuant to the proposed rule change to be rated by NRSROs, as
Multiple-Markets suggests, is not necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, as the decision whether to impose such a requirement
is a matter typically left to the business discretion of the individual
markets.\68\ Similarly, with respect to the commenter's concern about
NYSE's proposed use of a third-party data vendor to supply information
regarding the actions of corporate bond issuers, selection of a
particular vendor is generally within the business judgment of the
Exchange.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Multiple-Markets Letter at 5.
    \69\ See id. The Commission notes that it is not sanctioning a
particular vendor by approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission does not believe that there are any blue
sky issues that would preclude approval of this proposal. Currently,
any security listed on the Exchange is exempt from state blue sky laws.
A debt security that is delisted by the Exchange and, instead, traded
on an unlisted basis could lose its blue sky exemption. However, NYSE
has represented that it would not involuntarily delist the debt
security of any issuer (provided that the security otherwise met all
applicable listing requirements).\70\ Therefore, this proposal will not
cause undue hardship for any issuer that relies on the Exchange's
listing of its debt security to obtain a blue sky exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See NYSE Response Letter 2 at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Exchange Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\71\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2004-69), as
amended, is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\72\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E6-19723 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 11744-11745]
[DOCID:fr19mr09-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1826-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Illinois; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Illinois (FEMA-1826-DR), dated March 2, 2009,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 2, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 2, 2009, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Illinois resulting from a severe winter storm during the period
of January 26-28, 2009, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207
(the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of Illinois.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under
Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted,
Federal funding under that program will also be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that Nancy M. Casper of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal
Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Illinois have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Alexander, Gallatin, Hardin, Johnson, Massac, Pope, Pulaski,
Saline and Union Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Illinois are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to

Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster
Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster
Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and
Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance
(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.)

Nancy Ward,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-6010 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: August 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 47212-47213]
[DOCID:fr16au06-80]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0507; FRL-8087-2]

Inorganic Chlorates Reregistration Eligibility Decision

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  This notice announces the availability of EPA's Inorganic
Chlorates Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED). The Agency's risk
assessments and other related documents also are available in the
inorganic chlorates Docket. Of the inorganic chlorates listed as active
ingredients (i.e., sodium chlorate, calcium chlorate, potassium
chlorate, and magnesium chlorate), only sodium chlorate is present as
an active ingredient in currently registered products. Sodium chlorate
is a non-selective herbicide used in both agricultural and non-
agricultural settings. The majority of the agricultural use is on
cotton as a defoliant/desiccant. The non-agricultural uses include
building perimeters, fence rows, and parking lots. The Inorganic
Chlorates RED also includes an assessment of risk resulting from
chlorate concentrations in drinking water, which occur as a result of
certain drinking water treatment practices. EPA has reviewed sodium
chlorate through the public participation process that the Agency uses
to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration and
tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is
ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Molly Clayton, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0507. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive Arlington, VA. The hours

of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2.  Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to
ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. EPA
has completed a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for the
inorganic chlorates under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. Of the inorganic
chlorates listed as active ingredients, only sodium chlorate is present
as an active ingredient in currently registered products. Sodium
chlorate is a non-selective, contact herbicide, and is used on both
agricultural and non-agricultural use sites. Sodium chlorate is also
used in drinking water disinfection processes. Sodium chlorate-
containing pesticide products are eligible for reregistration, provided
the risks are mitigated either in the manner described in the RED or by
any other means that achieve equivalant risk reduction. Upon submission
of any required product specific data under section 4(g)(2)(B) and any
necessary changes to the registration and labeling (either to address
concerns identified in the RED or as a result of product specific
data), EPA will make a final reregistration decision under section
4(g)(2)(C) for products containing sodium chlorate.
    EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in
effect when the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in
August 1996, to ensure that these existing pesticide residue limits for
food and feed commodities meet the safety standard established by the
new law. Tolerances are considered reassessed once the safety finding
has been made or a revocation occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the
requisite safety finding for the sodium chlorate tolerances included in
this notice.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004, (69 FR 26819)(FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be
commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
Due to its uses, risks, and other factors, the inorganic chlorates,
which include sodium chlorate as the only active ingredient, were
reviewed through the modified 4-Phase public participation process.
Through this process, EPA worked extensively with stakeholders and the
public to reach the regulatory decisions for sodium chlorate.
    The reregistration program is being conducted under Congressionally
mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely
decisions and to involve the public. Few substantive comments were
received during the earlier comment periods for this pesticide, and/or
all issues related to this pesticide were resolved through
consultations with stakeholders. The Agency therefore is issuing the
inorganic chlorates RED without a comment period.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended , directs that, after
submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in product
specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering
products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''
    Section 408(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for
pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether
the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2)
or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to be completed by August 3, 2006.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: August 9, 2006.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-13342 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18806-18808]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06793]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30891; Amdt. No. 3526]

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective March 28, 2013. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169; or
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 15, 2013.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

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

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

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

Effective 2 MAY 2013

Sand Point, AK, Sand Point, BORLAND ONE, Graphic DP
Sand Point, AK, Sand Point, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Bentonville, AR, Bentonville Muni/Louise M. Thaden Field, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale Executive, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Jacksonville, FL, Jacksonville Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 14, Amdt 2A
Orlando, FL, Orlando Sanford Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 10
Pompano Beach, FL, Pompano Beach Airpark, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Zephyrhills, FL, Zephyrhills Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig-A
Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 18
Patterson, LA, Harry P Williams Memorial, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 24,
Amdt 2B
Faribault, MN, Faribault Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt1
Faribault, MN, Faribault Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt1
Minneapolis, MN, Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 12
Pipestone, MN, Pipestone Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Pipestone, MN, Pipestone Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Camdenton, MO, Camdenton Memorial, VOR-A, Amdt 5
Columbia, MO, Columbia Rgnl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 2, Amdt 15
Fort Leonard Wood, MO, Waynesville-St. Robert Rgnl Forney Fld, ILS
OR LOC RWY 14, Amdt 1
Kaiser Lake Ozark, MO, Lee C Fine Memorial, LOC/DME RWY 22, Amdt 2
Kaiser Lake Ozark, MO, Lee C Fine Memorial, VOR RWY 4, Amdt 7
Osage Beach, MO, Grand Glaize-Osage Beach, VOR RWY 32, Amdt 6
Poplar, MT, Poplar Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig
Poplar, MT, Poplar Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1
Mount Olive, NC, Mount Olive Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Mount Olive, NC, Mount Olive Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig
New Bern, NC, Coastal Carolina Regional, VOR RWY 22, Amdt 3
Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 5L, Amdt 2
Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 5R, Amdt 2
Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23L, Amdt
2
Raleigh/Durham, NC, Raleigh-Durham Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23R, Amdt
2
Pembina, ND, Pembina Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig
Pembina, ND, Pembina Muni, VOR-A, Orig
Pembina, ND, Pembina Muni, VOR OR GPS RWY 33, Amdt 6B, CANCELED
Albuquerque, NM, Albuquerque Intl Sunport, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-
A, CANCELED
Albuquerque, NM, Albuquerque Intl Sunport, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt
1A, CANCELED
Kingston, NY, Kingston-Ulster, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22R, Amdt 1C
Mount Gilead, OH, Morrow County, VOR-A, Amdt 4
Mount Vernon. OH, Knox County, VOR-A, Amdt 8
Weatherford, OK, Thomas P Stafford, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1
Weatherford, OK, Thomas P Stafford, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, GPS RWY 8, Orig, CANCELED
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig
Altoona, PA, Altoona-Blair County, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 3, Amdt 1
Madison, SD, Madison Muni, NDB RWY 15, Amdt 10, CANCELED
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas/Fort Worth Intl, CONVERGING ILS RWY
17C, Amdt 7
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas/Fort Worth Intl, CONVERGING ILS RWY
35C, Amdt 2
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas/Fort Worth Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35C,
ILS
RWY 35C (CAT II), ILS RWY 35C (CAT III), ILS RWY 35C (SA CAT I),
Amdt 2
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas/Fort Worth Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35C,
Amdt 3
Clarksville, VA, Lake Country Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig-A
Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Rgnl/Woodrum Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 10

Effective 30 MAY 2013

Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 31R, Amdt 5B

[FR Doc. 2013-06793 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P