[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 75 (Friday, April 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21500-21503]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08174]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Orders Limiting Operations at John F. Kennedy International
Airport and New York LaGuardia Airport; High Density Traffic Airports
Rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

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

ACTION: Notice of extension of limited waiver of the minimum slot usage
requirement.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA has determined to extend through October 24, 2020, the
coronavirus (COVID-19)-related limited waiver of the minimum slot usage
requirement at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), New York
LaGuardia Airport (LGA), and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
(DCA) that the FAA has already made available through May 31, 2020.
Similarly, the FAA has determined to extend through October 24, 2020,
its coronavirus-related policy for prioritizing flights canceled or
otherwise not operated as originally intended at designated
International Air Transport Association (IATA) Level 2 airports in the
United States, for purposes of establishing a carrier's operational
baseline in the next corresponding season. These IATA Level 2 airports
include Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD), Newark Liberty
International Airport (EWR), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX),
and San Francisco International Airport (SFO). These extensions through
October 24, 2020, are available on the same terms as the relief that
the FAA already has announced through May 31, 2020.

DATES: Effective upon publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Dragotto, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
3808; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In a notice that the FAA issued on March 11, 2020, and published in
the Federal Register on March 16, 2020 (85 FR 15018), the FAA announced
certain relief through May 31, 2020, in light of impacts on air travel
demand related to the outbreak of novel 2019 coronavirus (also known as
``SARS-CoV-2,'' causing the disease COVID-19) (``coronavirus''). As
announced in that notice, through May 31, 2020, the FAA will waive the
minimum usage requirement as to any slot associated with a scheduled
nonstop flight between JFK, LGA, or DCA, respectively, and other points
that is canceled as a direct result of coronavirus-related impacts.\1\
In addition, that notice announced that the FAA will prioritize flights
canceled due to coronavirus at designated IATA Level 2 airports in the
United States--including ORD, EWR, LAX, and SFO--through May 31, 2020,
for purposes of establishing a carrier's operational baseline in the
next corresponding season.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although DCA and LGA are not designated as IATA Level 3
slot-controlled airports given that these airports primarily serve
domestic destinations, the FAA limits operations at these airports
via rules at DCA and an Order at LGA that are equivalent to IATA
Level 3. The FAA clarifies that the relief provided in the March 11
notice and in this decision extends to all allocated slots,
including slots allocated by exemption.
    \2\ The FAA notes that a minimum usage requirement does not
apply at designated IATA Level 2 airports in the United States.
Moreover, established procedures under the IATA Worldwide Slot
Guidelines allow for the prioritization of such cancelations in
subsequent corresponding seasons consistent with the FAA's policy
statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In granting this relief, the FAA asserted its expectation that
foreign airport slot coordinators would accommodate U.S. carriers with
reciprocal relief. The FAA further stated that it would continue to
monitor the situation and might augment the waiver as circumstances
warrant.
    On March 22, 2020, the FAA issued a notice inviting stakeholders to
show cause why the FAA should or should not extend the relief provided
in the March 11, 2020, notice through the Summer 2020 scheduling
season, which

ends on October 24, 2020. See 85 FR 16989 (Mar. 25, 2020). In the March
22, 2020 show cause notice, the FAA reviewed the increased disruption
to demand for air travel caused by the coronavirus since the March 11,
2020 notice, and summarized the petitions of many carriers and IATA
seeking additional relief from the 80 percent minimum slot usage
requirement at U.S. airports through the Summer 2020 scheduling season.
    Since the March 22, 2020 show cause notice, the disruption from the
coronavirus public health emergency has continued to grow in the United
States and worldwide. On March 27, 2020, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a worldwide Level 3 Warning to
avoid nonessential international travel due to widespread ongoing
transmission of COVID-19. On March 29, 2020, the President announced an
extension through April 30, 2020, of the ``Slow the Spread'' campaign
that includes social distancing guidelines and a recommendation to
avoid discretionary travel. ``Stay-at-home'' orders have been
introduced or extended across much of the United States, including for
all locations of U.S. slot-controlled and designated IATA Level 2
airports, to varying degrees and durations. Many other countries are
also implementing travel restrictions and mandatory quarantines,
closing borders, and prohibiting non-citizens from entry.
    Consistent with the FAA's tentative determination, on March 31,
2020, the Council of the European Union (EU) enacted a measure to
extend relief from the minimum slot usage requirements applicable at
slot-controlled airports in the EU through the Summer 2020 scheduling
season. In addition, several other foreign coordinators have likewise
extended, or announced the intent to extend, relief from minimum slot
usage rules through the end of the Summer 2020 season.
    The FAA continues to receive cancelation notices at slot-controlled
airports in the United States, which include JFK, LGA, and DCA, as well
as U.S. airports designated as IATA Level 2, for flights to and from
areas with significant coronavirus outbreaks. Nearly every carrier at
the U.S. slot-controlled and IATA level 2 airports has experienced
significant COVID-19 related schedule impacts, with many carriers
indicating that they expect to operate 20% or less of their previously
planned and published schedules over the coming months.

Summary of Comments and Information Submitted

    The FAA received comments from 31 stakeholders, including IATA,
Airlines for America (A4A), the Cargo Airline Association (CAA),
SkyTeam Airline Alliance, numerous U.S. and foreign carriers,\3\
Airports Council International--North America (ACI-NA), the City of
Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA), the Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority (MWAA), and the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey (PANYNJ). One additional comment was received from the Hong Kong
Schedule Coordination Office regarding the FAA's stated policy
concerning reciprocity, noting Hong Kong's provision of relief from the
minimum usage requirement for carriers impacted by COVID-19 through the
end of the Summer 2020 scheduling season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Individual carriers from whom comments were received include
Air New Zealand, LOT Polish Airlines, Kuwait Airways, Royal
Jordanian, Scandinavian Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Delta
Air Lines, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, American Airlines, Avianca,
Xiamen, Viva Aerobus, Iberia, JetBlue, Air France, Alitalia,
Finnair, Aer Lingus, Southwest Airlines, Etihad, British Airways,
United Airlines, and Lufthansa Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the airlines and airline industry advocates expressed
support for an extension through the end of the Summer 2020 scheduling
season. IATA submits that it forecasts negative impacts from
coronavirus on airline revenue amounting to a 259 billion USD loss in
passenger revenues worldwide and a 50 billion USD loss in the North
American market due to a -27% change in passenger demand. IATA asserts
that ``[t]he ability for the airline industry to survive depends on
government support and accommodation'' as ``airlines are being forced
to ground entire fleets and halt international flying entirely in an
effort to survive the devastating impact of this crisis.'' IATA notes
that the minimum usage rule is ``well suited to normal operations, but
its implementation under such exceptional circumstances is unnecessary
and only forces flying that is neither economically or environmentally
responsible or sustainable.'' Analysis provided by IATA in support of
its position demonstrates that a deep economic recession would be
expected to further delay recovery of the airline industry beyond the
Summer 2020 season.
    Several airlines provided data demonstrating the dramatic decrease
in passenger demand for travel through 2020 compared to the same
periods in 2019, the details of which they have deemed proprietary.\4\
The FAA finds that this data is consistent with the aggregate data
provided by IATA and in some cases individual carriers have reported
demand at even lower levels than reflected in IATA's report. U.S.
carriers have also asserted that the impacts on air travel demand from
the COVID-19 crisis are expected to persist well into the summer and an
extension of the waiver will allow airlines to create plans to protect
jobs, ensure continued air service to the communities served, and
position the airline industry for a robust economic recovery. Several
foreign carriers also noted that, due to current travel restrictions,
they have had to cancel all flights for certain periods. Most carriers
point to the uncertainty associated with the public health emergency
and indicate that providing relief from the usage requirement will
enable carriers to resume flights as quickly as possible in the
aftermath of this public health emergency. Some carriers noted plans to
increase frequencies at U.S. slot-controlled airports, which will now
be postponed as recovery from ``these life-changing events'' is
expected to take a significant period of time. Airlines assert that the
temporary suspension of minimum slot usage rules will provide necessary
flexibility to tailor operating plans to the evolving situation and
adjust resources in preparation for the future recovery of demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Five carriers, including U.S. and foreign carriers,
submitted detailed information on the reduction in passenger demand
related to COVID-19. Each of these carriers marked portions of
comments, or entire comments, as proprietary and confidential, and
the FAA will maintain the confidentiality of this information to the
extent permitted by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the CAA and others specifically note that in this time
of emergency it would be in the public interest for the FAA to
temporarily reallocate to cargo airlines the slots not used for
passenger operations during this time period. CAA elaborates that
``[a]s the nation copes with the pandemic and implements `shelter-in-
place' policies, supply chain continuity (including consumer staples,
medical and health-related supplies) has become a key element of the
private sector's response to the pandemic, and many of these goods
travel by air.''
    While mindful of industry impacts, the airport authorities and
their advocates, including ACI-NA, CDA, MWAA, and PANYNJ, collectively
oppose an extension for the full duration of the Summer 2020 season at
this time. The PANYNJ and MWAA expressed support for an extension
through June 30, 2020, with the

possibility of further relief per ongoing review as the situation
evolves. MWAA explains that this more limited action would provide
justifiable relief to the air carriers operating at DCA, and does not
preclude the FAA from extending such relief beyond June 30, 2020,
should it continue to be necessary. MWAA further asserts that ``waiver
decisions should be tailored to address the unusual and unpredictable
condition at issue, with the goal to facilitate the swift restoration
of the connectivity and economic benefits of air travel as soon as
practicable.'' ACI-NA and the CDA similarly comment that ``uncertainty
around the evolving pandemic and recovery supports the FAA taking a
more precise and targeted approach to slot waivers, as opposed to a
broad general waiver, particularly given that most of the slot-
controlled facilities covered under this waiver are at predominantly
domestic airports.'' ACI-NA further notes that ``some air carriers may
be in a diminished financial condition when the recovery begins and
therefore may be further incentivized to add capacity more slowly than
demand warrants in order to bolster their market pricing power and
enhanced yields.''
    The PANYNJ commented that it seeks to ensure that valuable
infrastructure is put to use as soon as demand warrants. In support of
its position, PANYNJ asserts that based on published schedule data, a
majority of carriers have made ``sweeping near-term schedule
adjustments, though none extending beyond May or June.'' Thus,
according to PANYNJ, a waiver of slot requirements extending through
October 24, 2020 is not justified by current scheduling behavior.

Discussion

    The FAA agrees with the position of the airport authorities that
waiver decisions should be tailored to address the unusual and
unpredictable condition at issue, with a goal of facilitating the swift
restoration of the connectivity and economic benefits of air travel as
soon as practicable. The FAA finds that this threshold has been met
under the exceptional circumstances surrounding the coronavirus public
health emergency, including with respect to the situation domestically.
Ample evidence supports a conclusion that the airline industry is
likely to need flexible relief for the duration of the Summer 2020
scheduling season.
    The FAA is unpersuaded by comments opposing an extension through
the end of the Summer 2020 season based on the uncertainty of the
recovery timeline. The FAA finds that the proposed alternative
extension of one additional month of relief through June 30, with
ongoing review for further relief, would unduly burden airlines with
added uncertainty. The FAA recognizes that demand is unlikely to
immediately return to historic levels as soon as travel restrictions
and stay at home orders are lifted. Therefore, the FAA concludes that,
beyond the pendency of the coronavirus public health emergency, further
accommodating a reasonable buffer period thereafter is appropriate to
allow airlines the ability to recall employees, inspect aircraft,
market flights, and take other actions necessary to resume normal
operations.
    Indeed, as noted by the PANYNJ, global air carriers have
collectively grounded thousands of aircraft and laid-off or furloughed
up to 90% of their workforce. The FAA notes that some airports have
also experienced operational changes to adjust to temporary flight
reductions such as closing terminals or gates to manage remaining
flights more efficiently. These factors will have a significant impact
on the speed with which air service can be re-mobilized. Airlines will
need flexibility in the recovery period expected to follow this
unprecedented disruption. As commenters noted, extending relief through
the Summer 2020 season is prudent, with the information presently
available and under the circumstances that are reasonably foreseeable
at this time, to allow carriers to continue to provide service at a
level that reflects depressed demand trends until it is feasible to
return to previous levels of flying. Further, providing prospective
relief through the end of the Summer 2020 season is expected to
incentivize the continued advance return of slots, making them
available for temporary reallocation to carriers that are in a position
to offer critical public services until slot holders are able to resume
normal pre-coronavirus operating levels.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Consistent with usual practice, the Slot Office has been
granting non-historic approval for additional cargo, passenger,
repatriation, and other flights based on flight cancelations
responsive to the March 11, 2020, usage waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FAA notes that published schedule data is preliminary
and subject to change; it is therefore not a reliable marker of future
airline behavior as the industry awaits the FAA's final decision
following the March 22 show cause notice. FAA weekly Cirium schedule
information confirms considerable volatility as airlines change and
update schedules frequently. Absent an extended grant of relief,
airlines would not have the certainty necessary to adjust their
schedules beyond May 31, 2020, especially for domestic flights.
    The FAA finds that the benefits to the airline industry of
providing relief through the end of the Summer 2020 scheduling season
significantly outweigh the risks identified in comments opposing that
relief. Therefore, the FAA will not penalize airlines for flights
canceled or otherwise not operated as originally intended at slot-
controlled airports or designated IATA Level 2 airports, stemming from
drastically reduced passenger demand caused by the extraordinary and
unforeseen coronavirus public health emergency.\6\ This decision does
not preclude carriers from resuming operations during the Summer 2020
scheduling season should circumstances shift toward recovery more
rapidly than currently anticipated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The FAA notes that some flights may not yet be published for
sale during the full Summer 2020 scheduling season; the FAA
therefore, clarifies in this notice that the reference to
``cancelations'' is used to refer to any scheduled flight or slot
approved by the FAA that will not be operated as a direct result of
COVID-19 impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA agrees with comments from CAA and others that, consistent
with established rules in effect at slot-controlled airports in the
United States and the FAA's usual practices, it is in the public
interest to make unused slots available on a temporary basis to
carriers that are providing important public services during this
public health emergency. The FAA has already approved additional
flights on a non-historic basis at JFK given the number of flight
cancelations. The FAA therefore encourages carriers to return any slots
that may not be used during the Summer 2020 scheduling season to the
FAA as soon as possible for temporary reallocation.

Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing information, the comments that
the FAA has received, and absent a showing of good cause to take
alternative action, the FAA has determined to extend through October
24, 2020, the coronavirus-related limited waiver of the minimum slot
usage requirement at JFK, LGA, and DCA that the FAA has already made
available through May 31, 2020, on the same terms as the FAA announced
in granting that relief.\7\ Similarly, the FAA

has determined to extend through October 24, 2020, its coronavirus-
related policy for prioritizing flights canceled or otherwise not
operated as originally intended at designated IATA Level 2 airports in
the United States, for purposes of establishing a carrier's operational
baseline in the next corresponding season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The FAA is responsible to develop plans and policy for the
use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the
use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and
the efficient use of airspace. See 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1). The FAA
manages slot usage requirements under the authority of 14 CFR 93.227
at DCA and under the authority of Orders at JFK and LGA. See
Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International Airport, 83
FR 46865 (Sep. 17, 2018); Operating Limitations at New York
LaGuardia Airport, 83 FR 47065 at 47066 (Sep. 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The coronavirus continues to present a highly unusual and
unpredictable condition that is beyond the control of carriers.
Passenger demand continues to decrease dramatically as a result of the
coronavirus. The ultimate duration and severity of coronavirus impacts
on passenger demand in the United States and internationally remain
unclear. Even after the outbreak is contained, impacts on passenger
demand are likely to continue for some time. The FAA has therefore
concluded that an extension of relief through October 24, 2020, is
appropriate to provide carriers with maximum flexibility during this
unprecedented situation and to support the long-term viability of
carrier operations at slot-controlled and IATA Level 2 airports in the
United States.\8\ Continuing relief for this additional period is
reasonable to mitigate the impacts on demand for air travel resulting
from the spread of the coronavirus worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Nothing in this decision relieves carriers of any minimum
air service obligations arising under DOT Order 2020-4-2, posted in
Docket DOT-OST-2020-0037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA reiterates its expectation that foreign slot coordinators
will provide reciprocal relief to U.S. carriers. To the extent that
U.S. carriers fly to a foreign carrier's home jurisdiction and that
home jurisdiction does not offer reciprocal relief to U.S. carriers,
the FAA may determine not to grant a waiver to that foreign carrier. A
foreign carrier seeking a waiver may wish to ensure that the
responsible authority of the foreign carrier's home jurisdiction
submits a statement by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>confirming
reciprocal treatment of the slot holdings of U.S. carriers.
    Carriers should advise the FAA Slot Administration Office of
coronavirus-related cancelations as soon as possible and return the
slots to the FAA by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to obtain relief.
The information provided must include the dates for which relief is
requested, the flight number, origin/destination airport, scheduled
time of operation, the slot identification number, as applicable, and
supporting information demonstrating that flight cancelations directly
relate to the coronavirus outbreak.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 9, 2020.
Lorelei Peter,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2020-08174 Filed 4-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 10819]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05493]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2331-083]

Duke Energy Carolinas; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations,
18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy
Projects has reviewed an application submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas
(licensee) to allow Thomas Sand Company, in Cherokee County, South
Carolina, the use of Ninety-Nine Islands Hydroelectric (FERC No. 2331)
project lands and waters to conduct hydraulic sand mining. The project
is located on the mainstem of the Broad River between the upstream
Cherokee Falls Project (FERC No. 2880) and downstream Lockhart Project
(FERC No. 2620) in Cherokee County, South Carolina. The reservoir is
approximately 4 miles long, with approximately 1 mile of transitional
flowing habitat upstream of the impounded reach. The project does not
occupy federal lands.
    An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared as part of
Commission staff's review of the proposal. In the application, Thomas
Sand anticipates removing 42,000 tons of sand each year from a 33 acre
area of the project reservoir. The dredge would pump sand to an upland
processing area outside of the project area. This EA contains
Commission staff's analysis of the probable environmental impacts of
the proposed action and concludes that approval of the proposal would
not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment with implementation of the staff
recommendations.
    The EA is available for electronic review and reproduction at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number (P-2331) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER> or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    For further information, contact Michael Calloway at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 18, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05493 Filed 3-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53783-53786]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21883]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87198; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2019-064]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Amend Certain Cutoff Times for On-Close Orders Entered for
Participation in the Nasdaq Closing Cross and Adopt a Second Reference
Price for Limit-On-Close Orders

October 2, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On July 31, 2019, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'' or
``Nasdaq'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend certain cutoff times for on-close orders
entered for participation in the Nasdaq Closing Cross and adopt a
Second Reference Price for limit-on-close orders. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 19,
2019.\3\ On September 6, 2019, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change, which amended and superseded the proposed
rule change as originally filed.\4\ The Commission received no comment
letters on the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons,
and is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86642 (August 13,
2019), 84 FR 42964.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposal to:
(1) Specify the time during which market-on-close orders can be
cancelled or modified; (2) remove proposed changes to the Nasdaq
Pricing Schedule in Equity 7, Section 118; (3) include additional
description, examples, and justification related to the proposed
rule change; and (4) make technical, clarifying, and conforming
changes. Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2019-064/srnasdaq2019064-6088461-191827.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Nasdaq Closing Cross is the Exchange's process for determining
the price at which orders would be executed at the close and for
executing those orders.\5\ Currently, the Exchange

disseminates the Order Imbalance Indicator (``NOII'') for the Nasdaq
Closing Cross beginning at 3:55 p.m. ET or five minutes prior to the
early closing time on a day when the Exchange closes early.\6\ The NOII
is an electronically disseminated message containing information about
market-on-close (``MOC''),\7\ limit-on-close (``LOC''),\8\ and
imbalance only (``IO'') \9\ orders, as well as close eligible interest
\10\ and the price at which those orders would execute at the time of
the NOII dissemination.\11\ The Exchange recently also adopted rules
for the early order imbalance indicator (``EOII''), which the Exchange
will begin disseminating at 3:50 p.m. ET or ten minutes prior to the
early closing time on a day when the Exchange closes early \12\ and
will contain a subset of the information comprising the NOII.\13\ The
Exchange intends to implement the EOII in conjunction with the changes
in the current proposal.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 4754(a)(6).
    \6\ See Rule 4754(b)(1)(B).
    \7\ A MOC order is an order entered without a price that can be
executed only during the Nasdaq Closing Cross. See Rule 4702(b)(11).
    \8\ A LOC order is an order entered with a price that can be
executed only in the Nasdaq Closing Cross, and only if the price
determined by the Nasdaq Closing Cross is equal to or better than
the price at which the LOC order was entered. See Rule 4702(b)(12).
    \9\ An IO order is an order entered with a price that can be
executed only in the Nasdaq Closing Cross and only against MOC
orders or LOC orders. See Rule 4702(b)(13).
    \10\ Close eligible interest is any quotation or any order that
can be entered into the system and designated with a time-in-force
of SDAY, SGTC, MDAY, MGTC, SHEX, or GTMC. See Rule 4754(a)(1).
    \11\ See Rule 4754(a)(7).
    \12\ See Rule 4754(b)(1)(A).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85292 (March 12,
2019), 84 FR 9848 (March 18, 2019) (SR-NASDAQ-2019-010).
    \14\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, pursuant to Rule 4702(b)(11)(A), MOC orders can be
entered, cancelled, or modified between 4:00 a.m. ET and immediately
prior to 3:55 p.m. ET. Between 3:55 p.m. ET and immediately prior to
3:58 p.m. ET, a MOC order can be cancelled or modified only if the
participant requests that the Exchange correct a legitimate error in
the order.\15\ MOC orders cannot be cancelled or modified at or after
3:58 p.m. ET for any reason. The Exchange proposes to amend this rule
to provide that MOC orders can be cancelled or modified between 4:00
a.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:50 p.m. ET and that, between 3:50
p.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:58 p.m. ET, a MOC order can be
cancelled or modified only if the participant requests that the
Exchange correct a legitimate error in the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A legitimate error for a MOC, LOC, or IO order includes an
error in the side, size, symbol, or price, or the duplication of an
order, as set forth in the applicable rule for each order type. See
id. at 5 n.9. See also Rule 4702(b)(11)(A), (12)(A), and (13)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, pursuant to Rule 4702(b)(13)(A), an IO order can be
entered between 4:00 a.m. ET until the time of execution of the Nasdaq
Closing Cross, but cannot be cancelled or modified at or after 3:55
p.m. ET. Between 3:55 p.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:58 p.m. ET,
however, an IO order can be cancelled or modified if the participant
requests that the Exchange correct a legitimate error in the order. IO
orders cannot be cancelled or modified at or after 3:58 p.m. ET for any
reason. The Exchange proposes to amend this rule to provide that IO
orders cannot be cancelled or modified at or after 3:50 p.m. ET, except
that, between 3:50 p.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:58 p.m. ET, an IO
order can be cancelled or modified if the participant requests that the
Exchange correct a legitimate error in the order.
    Currently, pursuant to Rule 4702(b)(12)(A), LOC orders can be
entered, cancelled, or modified between 4:00 a.m. ET and immediately
prior to 3:55 p.m. ET. A LOC order can be entered between 3:55 p.m. ET
and immediately prior to 3:58 p.m. ET (``Late LOC order'') provided
that there is a First Reference Price.\16\ Between 3:55 p.m. ET and
immediately prior to 3:58 p.m. ET, LOC orders can be cancelled (but not
modified) only if the participant requests that the Exchange correct a
legitimate error in the order. Currently, a Late LOC order will be
accepted at its limit price, unless its limit price is higher (lower)
than the First Reference Price for a Late LOC order to buy (sell), in
which case the Late LOC order will be handled consistent with the
participant's instruction that the Late LOC order is to be either: (1)
Rejected; or (2) re-priced to the First Reference Price, provided that
if the First Reference Price is not at a permissible minimum increment,
the First Reference Price will be rounded (i) to the nearest permitted
minimum increment (with midpoint prices being rounded up) if there is
no imbalance, (ii) up if there is a buy imbalance, or (iii) down if
there is a sell imbalance.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``First Reference Price'' is currently defined as ``the
Current Reference Price in the first Order Imbalance Indicator
disseminated at or after 3:55 p.m. ET.'' See Rule 4754(a)(9).
``Current Reference Price'' means: (i) The single price that is at
or within the current Nasdaq market center best bid and offer at
which the maximum number of shares of MOC, LOC, and IO orders can be
paired; (ii) if more than one price exists under (i), the price that
minimizes any imbalance; (iii) if more than one price exists under
(ii), the entered price at which shares will remain unexecuted in
the cross; and (iv) if more than one price exists under (iii), the
price that minimizes the distance from the bid-ask midpoint of the
inside quotation prevailing at the time of the order imbalance
indicator dissemination. See Rule 4754(a)(7)(A).
    \17\ The default configuration for participants that do not
specify otherwise is to have Late LOC orders re-priced rather than
rejected. See Rule 4702(b)(12)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4702(b)(12)(A) to provide that
LOC orders can be cancelled or modified between 4:00 a.m. ET and
immediately prior to 3:50 p.m. ET. Between 3:50 p.m. ET and immediately
prior to 3:55 p.m. ET, a LOC order can be entered but can only be
cancelled or modified if the participant requests that the Exchange
correct a legitimate error in the order. Between 3:55 p.m. ET and
immediately prior to 3:58 p.m. ET, a LOC order can only be cancelled or
modified if the participant requests that the Exchange correct a
legitimate error in the order.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 4702(b)(12)(A) to permit a
Late LOC order to be entered if there is either a First Reference Price
or a Second Reference Price. In connection with this proposed change,
the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of First Reference Price
in Rule 4754(a)(9) to refer to the Current Reference Price in the EOII
disseminated at 3:50 p.m. ET, or ten minutes prior to the early closing
time on a day the Exchange closes early. The Exchange also proposes to
add a new definition of Second Reference Price in Rule 4754(a)(11) to
refer to the Current Reference Price in the NOII disseminated at 3:55
p.m. ET, or five minutes prior to the early closing time on a day the
Exchange closes early.
    Moreover, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4702(b)(12)(A) to
provide that a Late LOC order to buy (sell) will be accepted at its
limit price, unless its limit price is higher (lower) than the higher
(lower) of the First Reference Price and the Second Reference Price, in
which case the Late LOC order will be handled consistent with the
participant's instruction that the Late LOC order is to be either: (1)
Rejected; or (2) re-priced to the higher (lower) of the First Reference
Price and the Second Reference Price.\18\ If the First Reference Price
for a security is zero, Late LOC orders to buy (sell) will be priced at
the lower (higher) of the Second Reference Price and the order's limit
price. If the

Second Reference Price for a security is zero, Late LOC orders to buy
(sell) will be priced at the lower (higher) of the First Reference
Price and the order's limit price. If both the First Reference Price
and Second Reference Price are zero, all Late LOC orders to buy or sell
will be rejected.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ If either the First Reference Price or the Second Reference
Price is not at a permissible minimum increment, the First Reference
Price or the Second Reference Price, as applicable, will be rounded:
(i) To the nearest permitted minimum increment (with midpoint prices
being rounded up) if there is no imbalance; (ii) up if there is a
buy imbalance; or (iii) down if there is a sell imbalance. See
proposed Rule 4702(b)(12)(A). As is currently the case, the default
configuration for participants that do not specify otherwise will be
to have Late LOC orders re-priced rather than rejected. See id.
    \19\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, for additional
description and examples of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to replace the term ``Eligible
Interest'' with the defined term ``Close Eligible Interest'' in the
definition of ``Near Clearing Price'' in Rule 4754(a)(7)(E)(ii) to
correct an inadvertent error.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\21\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to expand the time
periods during which MOC, LOC, and IO orders can be cancelled or
modified only if the participant requests that the Exchange correct a
legitimate error in the order (i.e., from between 3:55 p.m. ET and
immediately prior to 3:58 p.m. ET, to between 3:50 p.m. ET and
immediately prior to 3:58 p.m. ET). The Commission believes that the
proposal could reduce the possibility of large price movements in the
Nasdaq Closing Cross process that may result from modifications and
cancellations of MOC, LOC, and IO orders starting at 3:50 p.m. ET in
response to the EOII.\23\ The Commission also notes that the time
periods for entering MOC, LOC, and IO orders remain unchanged, and
participants may consider information in the EOII and NOII, as
applicable, in entering these orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The proposal could also result in an increased number of
MOC, LOC, and IO orders that participate in the Nasdaq Closing Cross
because it restricts the cancellation and modification of these
orders by providing for a longer period of time during which these
orders can only be cancelled or modified if the participant requests
that the Exchange correct a legitimate error in the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as discussed above, the Exchange proposes to permit
the entry of Late LOC orders provided that there is either a First
Reference Price or a Second Reference Price, and to permit a Late LOC
order to be priced at the more aggressive of the First Reference Price,
Second Reference Price, or its limit price. The Commission believes
that the proposal may encourage additional participation in the Nasdaq
Closing Cross by allowing participants to consider the information
disseminated in both the EOII and NOII in making decisions with respect
to the use of Late LOC orders. Moreover, the proposal may increase
participation in the Nasdaq Closing Cross because, under the proposal,
a Late LOC order with a limit price that is more aggressive than the
Second Reference Price would not be rejected or re-priced if its limit
price is less aggressive than the First Reference Price.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Currently, a Late LOC order with a limit price that is more
aggressive than the Second Reference Price (which is currently
defined as the ``First Reference Price'') is either rejected or re-
priced to the Second Reference Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes the proposal to replace the term
``Eligible Interest'' with the defined term ``Close Eligible Interest''
in the definition of ``Near Clearing Price'' in Rule 4754(a)(7)(E)(ii)
is consistent with the Act because using a defined term would render
the rule text more precise and accurate.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule
Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 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-NASDAQ-2019-064 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-NASDAQ-2019-064. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-064, and should be submitted
on or before October 29, 2019.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No.
1 in the Federal Register. As discussed above, in Amendment No. 1, the
Exchange revised the proposal to: (1) Specify the time during which MOC
orders can be cancelled or modified; (2) remove proposed changes to the
Nasdaq Pricing Schedule in Equity 7, Section 118; (3) include
additional description, examples, and justification related to the
proposed rule change; and (4) make technical, clarifying, and
conforming changes. The Commission believes that Amendment No. 1 does
not raise any novel regulatory issues or make any significant
substantive changes to the

original proposal, which was subject to a full notice and comment
period during which no comments were received. The Commission also
notes that Amendment No. 1 provides additional accuracy, clarity, and
justification to the proposal. Accordingly, the Commission finds good
cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\25\ to approve the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\26\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2019-064), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21883 Filed 10-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29657-29659]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31427; Amdt. No. 4007]

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective May 16, 2022. 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 May 16, 2022.

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

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums
and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its
associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP

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

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

The Rule

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2022.
Thomas J. Nichols,
Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service, Manager, Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

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

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

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

Effective 16 June 2022

Colby, KS, KCBK, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 2
Ponca City, OK, KPNC, ILS OR LOC RWY 17, Amdt 3B
Ponca City, OK, KPNC, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1B

Effective 14 July 2022

Iliamna, AK, PAIL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 3
Mc Grath, AK, PAMC, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2C
Quinhagak, AK, PAQH, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1A
Decatur, AL, KDCU, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 1B
Decatur, AL, KDCU, ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 18, Orig, CANCELLED
Mobile, AL, KMOB, ILS OR LOC RWY 15, ILS RWY 15 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY
15 (SA CAT II), Amdt 32A
Mobile, AL, KMOB, ILS OR LOC RWY 33, Amdt 7C
Mobile, AL, KMOB, RADAR-1, Amdt 5B
Mobile, AL, KMOB, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 2C
Mobile, AL, KMOB, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1C
Mobile, AL, KMOB, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 2D
Mobile, AL, KMOB, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1D
Benton, AR, KSUZ, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 1
Benton, AR, KSUZ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1
Benton, AR, KSUZ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1
Burlington, CO, KITR, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig
Jacksonville, FL, KJAX, ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 14, Amdt 7C
Miami, FL, KMIA, ILS OR LOC RWY 26L, Amdt 18
Miami, FL, KMIA LOC RWY 26R, Amdt 2
Miami, FL, KMIA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26R, Amdt 5
Miami, FL, KMIA, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 26L, Amdt 4
Canton, GA, KCNI, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 4B, CANCELLED
Gainesville, GA, KGVL, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 5D, CANCELLED
Coeur D'Alene, ID, KCOE, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-A
Effingham, IL, 1H2, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-E
Fairfield, IL, KFWC, NDB RWY 9, Amdt 3D
Flora, IL, KFOA, LOC RWY 21, Orig-G
Robinson, IL, KRSV, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1B
Robinson, IL, KRSV, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-B
Robinson, IL, KRSV, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1B
South Bend, IN, KSBN, ILS OR LOC RWY 9R, Amdt 10B
South Bend, IN, KSBN, ILS OR LOC RWY 27L, ILS RWY 27L (SA CAT I),
ILS RWY 27L (CAT II), Amdt 36A
South Bend, IN, KSBN, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9L, Amdt 1B
South Bend, IN, KSBN, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9R, Amdt 1B
South Bend, IN, KSBN, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1C

South Bend, IN, KSBN, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27L, Orig-C
South Bend, IN, KSBN, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27R, Amdt 1A
South Bend, IN, KSBN, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1B
South Bend, IN, South Bend Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 9A
Dodge City, KS, KDDC, VOR RWY 32, Amdt 5C
Hugoton, KS, KHQG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-B
Hugoton, KS, KHQG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig-B
Hugoton, KS, KHQG, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Pittsburg, KS, KPTS, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 2
Pittsburg, KS, KPTS, VOR RWY 4, Amdt 3G, CANCELLED
Jackson, KY, KJKL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1
Lewisport, KY, KY8, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 2
Lewisport, KY, KY8, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Mayfield, KY, M25, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 2
New Orleans, LA, KMSY, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 20A
New Orleans, LA, KMSY, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 11, Amdt 1B
Frederick, MD, KFDK, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1
Carrabassett, ME, B21, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1B
Majuro Atoll, MH, PKMJ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig-F
Majuro Atoll, MH, PKMJ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig-F
Detroit, MI, KYIP, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Orig
Detroit, MI, KYIP, ILS OR LOC RWY 5R, Amdt 16, CANCELLED
Detroit, MI, KYIP, ILS OR LOC RWY 23, Orig
Detroit, MI, KYIP, ILS OR LOC RWY 23L, Amdt 8, CANCELLED
Detroit, MI, KYIP, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Detroit, MI, KYIP, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5R, Amdt 2, CANCELLED
Detroit, MI, KYIP, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig
Detroit, MI, KYIP, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23L, Amdt 2, CANCELLED
Detroit, MI, Willow Run, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 11
Escanaba, MI, KESC, ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 3A
Iron Mountain Kingsford, MI, KIMT, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-C
Iron Mountain Kingsford, MI, KIMT, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig-C
Iron Mountain Kingsford, MI, KIMT, VOR RWY 31. Amdt 16C
Menominee, MI, KMNM, ILS OR LOC RWY 3, Amdt 3A
Menominee, MI, KMNM, VOR-A, Amdt 3C, CANCELLED
Troy, MI, KVLL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 3A
Troy, MI, KVLL, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4B
Detroit Lakes, MN, KDTL, VOR RWY 14, Amdt 2, CANCELLED
Cleveland, OH, KBKL, ILS OR LOC RWY 24R, Amdt 2
Columbus, OH, KOSU, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A
Miami, OK, KMIO, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2C, CANCELLED
La Grande, OR, KLGD, NDB-B, Amdt 2A
Sunriver, OR, S21, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Erie, PA, KERI, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 2A
Conway, SC, KHYW, NDB RWY 4, Orig-C, CANCELLED
Conway, SC, KHYW, NDB RWY 22, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED
Canadian, TX, KHHF, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 2A
Dumas, TX, KDUX, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1
Dumas, TX, KDUX, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1
Gruver, TX, E19, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-B
Gruver, TX, E19, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig-C
Pampa, TX, KPPA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-C
Pampa, TX, KPPA, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 3A, CANCELLED
Panhandle, TX, T45, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-C
Perryton, TX, KPYX, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-D
Spearman, TX, E42, VOR/DME RWY 2, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Pasco, WA, KPSC, ILS OR LOC RWY 21R, Amdt 13C
Pasco, WA, KPSC, VOR RWY 30, Amdt 5C
Richland, WA, KRLD, LOC RWY 19, Amdt 9A
Sturgeon Bay, WI, KSUE, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 2
Sturgeon Bay, WI, KSUE, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1

[FR Doc. 2022-10444 Filed 5-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7441-7442]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-27366]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0003: Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1272]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

Correction

    In notice document 2012-27366, appearing on pages 67016-67018 in
the issue of Thursday, November 8, 2012, make the following
corrections:
    1. On page 67016, in the Table titled ``Osage County, Oklahoma, and
Incorporated Areas,'' the entry for the ``Maps Available for Inspection
Online at:'' Link is corrected to read as follows: http://riskmap6.com/Community.aspx?cid=229&sid=4

    2. On page 67018, in the Table titled ``Kay County, Oklahoma and
Incorporated Areas,'' the entry for the ``Maps Available for Inspection
Online at:'' Link is corrected to read as follows: http://riskmap6.com/Community.aspx?cid=208&sid=4
    3. On page 67018, in the Table titled ``Travis County, Texas, and
Incorporated Areas,'' the entry for the ``Maps Available for Inspection
Online at:'' Link is corrected to read as follows: http://riskmap6.com/Community.aspx?cid=476&sid=5

[FR Doc. C1-2012-27366 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505- 01-D


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

    \111\ EAM Rights are non-transferable in that the holders of EAM
Rights may not lease or sell these rights (unlike PMM and CMM
Rights, which are transferable). See note 110 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     New Rule 100(a)(16) ``Electronic Access Member'' would
be relocated from Section 13.1(l) of the Current Constitution.
Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but
the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
     Rules 100(a)(15)-(17) ``European-style option,''
``Exchange Act'' and ``Exchange Rights,'' respectively, would be
renumbered as Rules 100(a)(17)-(19).
     New Rule 100(a)(20) ``Exchange Transaction'' would be
relocated from Section 13.1(r) of the Current Constitution.
Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but
the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
     Rules 100(a)(18), (18A) and (19) ``exercise price,''
``expiration date'' and ``Federal Reserve Board,'' respectively,
would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(21), (21A) and (22).
     New Rule 100(a)(23) ``good standing'' would be
relocated from Section 13.1(s) of the Current Constitution.
Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but
the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
     Rules 100(a)(20) and (21) ``he,'' ``him'' or ``his''
and ``long position,'' respectively, would be renumbered as Rules
100(a)(24) and (25).
     Rule 100(a)(22) ``LLC Agreement'' would be deleted as
that term would no longer be used in the Rules, as amended by this
rule change.
     Rules 100(a)(23)-(35) ``Member,'' ``Membership,''
``market makers,'' ``Market Maker Rights,'' ``Non-Customer,'' ``Non-
Customer Order,'' ``offer,'' ``opening purchase transaction,''
``opening writing transaction,'' ``Voluntary Professional,''
``options contract,'' ``OPRA,'' ``order'' and ``outstanding,''
respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(26)-(38).
     Rule 100(a)(36) ``PMM Rights'' currently refers to
Article VI of the Current LLC Agreement. The proposed change would
relocate the concept of PMM Rights from the Current LLC Agreement to
this Rule, and would state that PMM Rights means the transferable
rights held by a Primary Market Maker or a ``non-member owner'' (as
that term is defined in Rule 300(a)).\112\ The number of authorized
PMM Rights as set forth in Section 6.1(a) of the Current LLC
Agreement would also be relocated to this Rule, so that the amended
Rule would further provide that the number of authorized PMM Rights
will be 10 PMM Rights. Finally, the Rule would also be renumbered as
Rule 100(a)(39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See note 110 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     New Rule 100(a)(40) ``Primary Market Maker'' would be
relocated from Section 13.1(bb) of the Current Constitution.
Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but
the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
     Rules 100(a)(37), (37A), (37B), (37C), (38)-(48)
``primary market,'' ``Priority Customer,'' ``Priority Customer
Order,'' ``Professional Order,'' ``Public Customer,'' ``Public
Customer Order,'' ``put,'' ``Quarterly Options Series,'' ``quote''
or ``quotation,'' ``Rules of the Clearing Corporation,'' ``SEC,''
``series of options,'' ``short position,'' ``Short Term Option
Series'' and ``SRO,'' respectively, would be renumbered as Rules
100(a)(41), (41A), (41B), (41C), (42)-(52).
     New Rule 100(a)(53) ``System'' would be relocated from
Section 13.1(gg) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term
is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but the definition is
only found in the Current Constitution.
     Rules 100(a)(49)-(51) ``type of option,'' ``uncovered''
and ``underlying security,'' respectively, would be renumbered as
Rules 100(a)(54)-(56).

    The Exchange proposes to add as new paragraphs (d) and (e) in Rule
300 certain protections in the Current Governing Documents that relate
to the Market Maker Rights. First, new paragraph (d) preserves the
concept of Core Rights from the Current Governing Documents, and would
state that any increase in the number of authorized PMM Rights or
authorized CMM Rights must be approved by the affirmative vote of the
holders of at least a majority of the then outstanding PMM Rights,
voting as a class, and the affirmative vote of the holders of at least
a majority of the then outstanding CMM Rights, voting as a class.\113\
Second, new paragraph (e) would state that any amendments to the LLC
Agreement or the Bylaws that would alter or change the powers,
preferences or special rights of one or more series of PMM Rights or
CMM Rights must also be approved by the holders of a majority of such
PMM

Rights or CMM Rights, as applicable. As such, paragraph (e) would
preserve the existing amendment rights from the Current Governing
Documents to the extent they relate to the Market Maker Rights
holders.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See note 25 above.
    \114\ See Current LLC Agreement, Section 8.1 and Current
Constitution, Section 10.1. The Exchange notes that the proposed
amendment rights for the Market Maker Rights holders in Rule 300(e)
are broader than the ones contained in the Current Governing
Documents because they will apply for all amendments that affect the
powers, preferences or special rights of one or more series of PMM
Rights or CMM Rights, rather than solely to the amendments that
adversely affect these Market Maker Rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing in .02 of Supplementary Material to Rule
303, which sets forth concentration limits for owning multiple PMM
Rights, to clarify that a Primary Market Maker, together with any
affiliate, is prohibited from gaining ownership rights or voting rights
in excess of 20% of the outstanding PMM Rights. The current Rule
contains the same limitation, but refers back to the Exchange's Current
LLC Agreement and Current Constitution instead of explicitly providing
for the 20% ownership and voting limitation on the Primary Market Maker
and its affiliates.\115\ The proposed change would delete the
references to the Current Governing Documents and replace it with the
explicit 20% limitation. The Exchange also proposes to relocate the
same explicit 20% limitation on CMM Rights from Section 6.5(a) of the
Current LLC Agreement into .02 of Supplementary Material to Rule 303 to
clarify that this restriction applies to both Primary Market Makers and
Competitive Market Makers. The proposed language as it relates to CMM
Rights would therefore provide that, for the avoidance of doubt, no
Competitive Market Maker, together with any affiliate, may gain
ownership or voting rights in excess of 20% of the then outstanding CMM
Rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See Current LLC Agreement, Section 6.5(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to delete references to ``LLC Agreement''
in Rule 307(b)(4) ``Sale and Transfer of Market Maker Rights'' and .01
of Supplementary Material to Rule 307. These provisions refer to the
concentration limits. As noted in the LLC Agreement section above, all
provisions related to the trading privileges associated with the
Exchange Rights located in the Current Governing Documents, including
the concentration limits, would be set forth solely in the Rules as the
Current LLC Agreement would be replaced by the proposed LLC Agreement.
    In the introductory paragraph of Rule 308, the Exchange proposes to
add a requirement that, in the context of a lease of Market Maker
Rights, the holder of Market Maker Rights must retain the Core Rights
associated with such Market Maker Rights and not transfer such voting
rights to the lessee. This requirement is imported from Section 12.4(b)
of the Current Constitution, which requires that the Core Rights remain
with the lessor in the context of a lease. Section 12.4(b) further
provides that under a lease agreement, the lessor may retain the voting
rights with respect to the PMM Rights and CMM Rights or may transfer
such voting rights to the lessee. Today, the voting rights associated
with the PMM Rights and CMM Rights are with respect to the election of
Exchange Directors and the Core Rights.\116\ As discussed in the LLC
Agreement section above, the voting rights with respect to the election
of Exchange Directors will be eliminated under the Proposed Rule
Change, so the only voting rights that will remain are with respect to
the Core Rights, which voting rights are not transferable under a lease
agreement. As such, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 308(b)(4),
which currently requires Market Maker Right lease agreements to include
provisions covering, as between the parties, which party shall exercise
the voting rights of the Exchange membership. In particular, the
Exchange proposes to delete in Rule 308(b)(4) the clause ``which party
shall exercise the voting rights of the Membership and'' to reflect
that there will no longer be any transferable voting rights associated
with the Exchange membership given that the only voting rights that
will remain are with respect to the Core Rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See Current LLC Agreement, Section 6.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Rule 312 ``Limitation on Affiliation between the Exchange and
Members,'' the Exchange proposes to replace references to ``Exchange
Director'' and ``Constitution'' with ``Member Representative Director''
and ``By-Laws,'' respectively, for the reasons discussed above. The
proposed changes in Rule 713(a), Rule 720(a)(1), and .01 and .02 of
Supplementary Material to Rule 1901 reflect the renumbering of the
defined terms ``offer,'' ``quotations,'' ``Priority Customer Orders,''
``Professional Orders,'' ``Priority Customer'' and ``Non-Customer
Orders.''
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 802(b) to add a new
subparagraph (2), which would provide that if a Primary Market Maker
fulfills its obligations as a Primary Market Maker under the Rules, the
Exchange will not reallocate the options classes to which such Primary
Market Maker is appointed, unless otherwise requested by the Primary
Market Maker. The foregoing, however, would not limit or affect the
Exchange's responsibility under Rule 802(d) to reallocate any options
classes in the interests of a fair and orderly market. This proposal is
consistent with the manner in which products are allocated to PMMs on
the Exchange today. Currently, when ISE lists new options classes, it
allocates them to one of its PMMs under Rule 802. Pursuant to delegated
authority by the Board, an Allocation Committee, which consists of
employees of the Exchange, makes allocation decisions according to the
guidelines contained in Rule 802. The Allocation Committee has not
reallocated the products appointed to a PMM since the Exchange's
inception for reasons other than as provided in the proposed rule. As
such, the proposed changes are simply to memorialize a longstanding
practice on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \117\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(1) of the Act \118\ in particular, in that it enables the
Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry
out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by
its exchange members and persons associated with its exchange members,
with the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder,
and the rules of the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that this
proposal furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(3) and (b)(5) of the
Act \119\ in particular, in that it is designed to assure a fair
representation of Exchange members in the selection of its directors
and administration of its affairs and provide that one or more
directors would be representative of issuers and investors and not be
associated with a member of the exchange, broker, or dealer; and is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \118\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \119\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt the Board and
committee structure and related nomination and election processes set
forth in New Governing Documents are consistent with the Act, including

Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that a
national securities exchange be organized to carry out the purposes of
the Act and comply with the requirements of the Act. In general, the
proposed changes would make the Exchange's Board and committee
composition requirements, and related nomination and election
processes, more consistent with those of its affiliates, BX, NSM and
Phlx. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed changes would
contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange and would enable
the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out
the purposes of the Act and comply with the provisions of the Act by
its members and persons associated with members.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that the New Governing
Documents support a corporate governance framework that is designed to
insulate the Exchange's regulatory functions from its market and other
commercial interests so that the Exchange can carry out its regulatory
obligations in furtherance of Section 6(b)(1) of the Act. Specifically,
the Exchange believes that creation of a ROC, modeled on the approved
ROCs of other Nasdaq Exchanges, and the inclusion of the Chief
Regulatory Officer in the proposed Bylaws, would underscore the
importance of the Exchange's regulatory function and specifically
empower an independent committee of the Board to oversee regulation and
meet regularly with the Chief Regulatory Officer. Furthermore, proposed
language in the New Governing Documents specifically providing that the
Exchange's business and the Board's evaluations would include actions
and evaluations that support and take into account its regulatory
responsibilities under the Act, reinforce the notion that the Exchange
is not solely a commercial enterprise, but an SRO subject to the
obligations imposed by the Act. The restriction on using Regulatory
Funds to pay dividends to the Sole LLC Member further underscores the
independence of the Exchange's regulatory function. Finally, the
Exchange believes that the proposed requirements to include Public
Directors on the Board (at least two Directors) and that on the ROC
(all three Directors) would help to ensure that no single group of
market participants will have the ability to systematically
disadvantage other market participants through the exchange governance
process, and would foster the integrity of the Exchange by providing
unique, unbiased perspectives. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
the new board and committee structure contemplated by the proposed New
Governing Documents is designed to insulate the Exchange's regulatory
functions from its market and other commercial interests so that the
Exchange can carry out its regulatory obligations in furtherance of
Section 6(b)(1) of the Act.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed 20% requirement for
Member Representative Directors and the proposed method for selecting
Member Representative Directors would ensure fair representation of
Exchange members on the Board and allow members to have a voice in the
Exchange's use of its self-regulatory authority. In particular, the
Exchange notes that the Member Nominating Committee would be composed
solely of persons associated with Exchange members and is selected
after consultation with representatives of Exchange members. In
addition, the new Bylaws include a process by which Exchange members
can directly petition and vote for representation on the Board. For the
foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to
remove the Exchange Director positions and related concepts from its
organizational documents is consistent with fair representation
requirement under the Act. Specifically, Exchange members will continue
to be represented on the Board and on key standing committees, and will
have a voice in the selection of Member Representative Directors
through the Member Nominating Committee and through their ability to
petition and vote on alternate candidates. As noted above, the trading
privileges associated with the Exchange Rights, as well as the Market
Maker Rights, which are currently located in the Exchange's
organizational documents, are already substantively in the Exchange's
rulebook, and the Rules would be clarified to the extent such Rules
refer back to the Current Governing Documents.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed Board and composition
requirements set forth in the New Governing Documents is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6(b)(3) of the Act, because the Public
Director positions on the Board and on the ROC would include the
representatives of issuers and investors with no material business
relationship with a broker dealer or the Exchange. Further, the
Exchange believes that the proposed compositional balance of the
proposed committees continues to provide for the fair representation of
members in the administration of the affairs of the Exchange. In
particular, all members of the new Member Nominating Committee must be
associated persons of an Exchange member. In addition, at least 20% of
the new QMC must be composed of Member Representative members.
Moreover, the proposed compositional requirements provide that the
Nominating Committee and the QMC must be compositionally balanced
between Industry members and Non-Industry members. The proposed
compositional requirements are designed to ensure that members are
protected from unfair, unfettered actions by an exchange pursuant to
its rules, and that, in general, an exchange is administered in a way
that is equitable to all those who trade on its market or through its
facilities.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the new corporate governance
framework and related processes proposed by the New Governing Documents
are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because they are
identical to the framework and processes used by the Nasdaq Exchanges,
which have been well-established as fair and designed to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that adopting
the New Governing Documents based on the NSM model would streamline the
Nasdaq Exchanges' governance process, create equivalent governing
standards among HoldCo's SROs and also provide clarity to its members,
which is beneficial to both investors and the public interest.
    Finally, the proposed amendments to the Rules as discussed above
are non-substantive changes to clarify the rule text where the Rule
referred only to the Current LLC Agreement or to the Current
Constitution, and also the technical amendments to renumber certain
Rules.

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

    Because the Proposed Rule Change relates to the corporate
governance of the Exchange and not to the operations of the Exchange,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (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-ISE-2017-32 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-32. 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-ISE-2017-32 and should be
submitted on or before May 23, 2017.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08813 Filed 5-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43036]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3382-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3382-EM), dated August 28, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 31, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of
August 28, 2017.

    Allen, Acadia, Iberia, Natchitoches, Rapides, Sabine, and Vernon
Parishes for emergency protective measures (Category B), including
direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance 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.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-19373 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                                               REGION 4
                                               ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
                                                   61 FORSYTH STREET, SW
                                           ATLANTA, GEORGIA  30303-3104

                                October 3, 2022

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Clarification of Federal Register Document: Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; GA; Redesignation of the Atlanta, Georgia 2015 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment 87 FR 52487, (August 26, 2022)

FROM:	Pearlene Williams-Miles
	Air Regulatory Management Section

TO:	Docket EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0290, FRL-10107-01-R4 (GA-184)

The purpose of this memorandum is to address minor errors and inconsistencies that exist in the August 26, 2022, publication of Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; GA; Redesignation of the Atlanta, Georgia 2015 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment (87 FR 52487).

Georgia's redesignation request, which is the subject of this rulemaking, was transmitted to EPA on February 28, 2022. The submission requested redesignation of the Atlanta, Georgia 2015 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the "Atlanta Area" or "Area") to attainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) and to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Area. EPA is approving the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the years of 2018 and 2033 for the Area, incorporating the maintenance plan into the SIP, and redesignating the Area to attainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs for the Area. EPA proposed approval of the State's plan in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 26, 2022. See 87 FR 52487.

It has come to EPA's attention that several errors and inconsistencies exist within the August 26, 2022, proposed rule.
 On page 52498 in the sentence above Table 6, it states, "The NOx and VOC MVEBs for the Area are identified in Table 5, below," however, the table documented should be Table 6.
 On page 52499, in the first column, and in the first paragraph under section VIII, the last sentence states, "The maintenance plan establishes NOx and VOC MVEBs for the 2018 and 2033 for the Area and..." In this sentence, the word "year" is missing ahead of "2018." A similar error occurs in the second sentence of the first paragraph under section IX.
 On page 52495, in the third column, and in the second sentence of the second full paragraph, the statement, "Georgia projected 2033 locomotive emissions from 2018 emissions using growth and annual factors[,]" should utilize the word, "control" instead of "annual," according to page 42 of the SIP in the second paragraph under "Marine, Aircraft, and Locomotives.
 On page 52495, in the third column, and in the third sentence of the second full paragraph, it states "Summer day and annual emissions for 2018 and 2033 from aircraft at Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson International Airport were provided by KB Environmental Sciences..." however emissions were provided by Crawford, Murphy & Tilly," according to the third paragraph under "Marine, Aircraft, and Locomotives on page 42 of the SIP.
 On page 52497, in the third column, at the five bullets listed near the bottom of the page, the third point states, "Expansion of RACM/RACT to areas(s) of transport within the State." This third point is not listed in the SIP and should regarded as an invalid. The first row in Table 6 on page 52498, "NOx On-Road Emissions." For 2033, the value shows 37.57, however should be more accurately represented as 36.43.
 Lastly, footnote 14 on page 52493, provides a link to an EPA document that describe the Tier 2 Vehicle standards; however, the link is unfunctional. The information regarding Tier 2 may be appropriately found at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-control-air-pollution-new-motor-vehicles-tier.

The aforementioned errors and inconsistencies are minor in nature and do not impede EPA's decision to finalize Georgia's request to redesignate the Area outlined in the August 26, 2022, NPRM. See 87 FR 52487. EPA merely provides this information for transparency and clarity. The details of Georgia's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in NPRM. Comments on the NPRM were due on or before September 26, 2022. EPA did not receive any comments on the August 26, 2022, NPRM. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Pearlene Williams-Miles at<PHONE_NUMBER>.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61657-61658]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27965]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1197; Notice of Availability Docket No. 17-AEA-25]

Notice of Availability of Categorical Exclusion and Record of
Decision (CATEX/ROD) for LGA RNAV (GPS) Runway 13 Procedure

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA, Eastern Service Area is issuing this notice to advise
the public of the availability of the Categorical Exclusion/Record of
Decision (CATEX/ROD) for the LaGuardia Airport (LGA) RNAV (GPS) Runway
13 (RWY 13) procedure. The FAA reviewed the action and determined it to
be categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan W. Almasy, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia

30337,<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/environmental_issues/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The LGA RNAV (GPS) RWY 13 procedure provides
a de-conflicted approach procedure when weather or winds require LGA to
land RWY 13. Without this procedure, when the weather minimums fall
below 1,500 feet, and 3-mile visibility and use of an ILS is required,
Newark (EWR), Teterboro (TEB), and LGA cannot operate at the same time.
Traffic at one of the three airports must be stopped to permit the
other two airports to operate. The FAA is proposing to use the RNAV
procedure for approximately 1,500 operations annually (0.8 percent of
all LGA landings) to de-conflict the New York metro airspace. The FAA
reviewed the action and determined it to be categorically excluded from
further environmental documentation according to FAA Order 1050.1F,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. The applicable
categorical exclusion is section 5-6.5(i.).

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 15, 2017.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2017-27965 Filed 12-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 62494]
[DOCID:fr21oc08-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-32-000]

Barton Windpower, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

October 14, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Barton Windpower, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 30, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24956 Filed 10-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P