[Federal Register: February 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 6540-6542]
[DOCID:fr04fe08-75]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57213; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Extension of Crossing Sessions III and IV Pilots

 January 28, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 22, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, which renders it effective
upon filing with the Commission.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The NYSE proposes to extend until February 1, 2009 the following
pilot programs: Crossing Session III, for the execution of guaranteed
price coupled orders by member organizations to fill the balance of
customer orders at a price that was guaranteed to a customer prior to
the close of the Exchange's 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. trading session; and
Crossing Session IV, whereby an unfilled balance of an order may be
filled at a price such that the entire order is filled at no worse
price than the Volume Weighted Average Price (``VWAP'') for the subject
security.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the NYSE's Web
site (http://www.nyse.com), at the NYSE's Office of Secretary, and at

the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
Exchange has prepared summaries set forth in sections A, B, and C below
of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    In SR-NYSE-2002-40,\5\ the Commission approved the establishment of
two new crossing sessions (Crossing Sessions III and IV) in the
Exchange's Off-Hours Trading

Facility (``OHTF'') as a pilot program (``Pilot''), expiring on
December 1, 2004. In SR-NYSE-2005-01,\6\ the Commission approved an
extension of the Pilot to February 1, 2006. In SR-NYSE-2006-02,\7\ the
Commission approved an extension of the Pilot to February 1, 2007. In
SR-NYSE-2007-07 \8\ the Commission approved an extension of the Pilot
to February 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48857 (December 1,
2003), 68 FR 68440 (December 8, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2002-40).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51091 (January 28,
2005), 70 FR 6484 (February 7, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-01).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53275 (February 13,
2006), 71 FR 8626 (February 17, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-02).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55281 (February 12,
2007), 72 FR 7804 (February 20, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This filing seeks to extend the Pilot until February 1, 2009.
Crossing Sessions III and IV are described below.
Background
    The purpose of the original proposed rule change was to add two
additional ``Crossing Sessions'' (Crossing Sessions III and IV) to the
Exchange's OHTF. Before the proposed rule change, the OHTF consisted of
Crossing Sessions I and II. Crossing Session I permits the execution,
at the Exchange's closing price, of single-stock, single-sided closing
price orders and crosses of single-stock, and closing price buy and
sell orders. Crossing Session II permits the execution of crosses of
multiple-stock (``basket'') aggregate-priced buy and sell orders. For
Crossing Session II, trade reporting is accomplished by reporting to
the Consolidated Tape the total number of shares and the total market
value of the aggregate-price trades. There is no indication of the
individual component stocks involved in the aggregate-price
transactions.
Crossing Session III
    The Exchange is proposing to extend until February 1, 2009, the
Pilot in Crossing Session III. Crossing Session III is described in
Exchange Rule 907. This Pilot would continue to allow for the execution
on the NYSE of ``guaranteed price coupled orders'' whereby member
organizations could fill the unfilled balance of a customer order at a
price which was guaranteed to the customer prior to the close of the
Exchange's 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. trading session.
    Member firms, in serving their institutional customers, may offer
them a guarantee that a large size order will receive no worse than a
particular price. Such a practice is usually referred to as an
``upstairs stop,'' meaning that the firm guarantees that its customer's
order will be executed at no worse price than the agreed-upon,
guaranteed price, with the member firm trading for its own account, if
necessary, to effectuate the guarantee.
    Typically, a member firm will seek to execute as much of the order
as possible during the trading day at or below the ``stop'' price (in
the case of a buy order) or at or above the ``stop'' price (in the case
of a sell order). Any portion of the order not filled during the
trading day will be completed after hours, with the firm either buying
from, or selling to, its customer at a price which ensures that the
entire order is executed at a price which is no worse than the ``stop''
price.
    Member firms typically execute the unfilled balance of the order,
after the U.S. Consolidated Tape is closed, in the London over-the-
counter market, where trades are not reported in real time. The purpose
of this is simply to minimize the possibility that other market
participants may ascertain the firm's, or the customer's inventory
position, and possibly trade in the subject security to the detriment
of the firm that granted the ``upstairs stop.'' The Exchange believes
that it is more transparent to print the trade in the NYSE primary
market during U.S. Consolidated Tape hours.
Crossing Session IV
    The Exchange is also proposing to extend the Pilot in Crossing
Session IV (which is also described in Exchange Rule 907), until
February 1, 2009. Crossing Session IV is a facility whereby member
organizations may fill the unfilled balance of a customer's order at a
price such that the overall order is filled at a price that is no worse
than the VWAP (the volume weighted average price) for the subject
security on that trading day. The member organization would be required
to document its VWAP agreement with the customer and the basis upon
which the VWAP price would be determined.
Operation of Crossing Sessions
    As described in NYSE Information Memos 04-30 and 05-57 and Rule
907, Crossing Sessions III and IV would continue to operate as follows:
    (i) The original order as to which an ``upstairs stop'' or ``VWAP''
has been granted may be of any size;
    (ii) The customer must have received a ``stop'' (guaranteed price)
or VWAP for the entire order;
    (iii) The member firm must record all details of the order,
including the price it has guaranteed its customer or that the entire
order will be filled at no worse than the VWAP;
    (iv) An order or the unfilled balance of an order that would be
executed in Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV may be of any
size;
    (v) The customer's order must be executed in Crossing Session III
or Crossing Session IV at a price that ensures that the entire order is
executed at a price that is no worse than the guaranteed price or the
VWAP;
    (vi) Orders may be entered in Crossing Session III or Crossing
Session IV between 4 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., and must be identified as
either a Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV order;
    (vii) Member firms will receive an immediate report of execution
upon entering an order into Crossing Session III or Crossing Session
IV;
    (viii) Orders may be entered into Crossing Session III for
execution at prices outside the trading range in the subject security
during the 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. trading session;
    (ix) Orders may not be entered into Crossing Session III or
Crossing Session IV in a security that is subject to a trading halt at
the close of the regular 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. trading session; and
    (x) At 6:30 p.m., the Exchange will print trades reported through
Crossing Session III as guaranteed price coupled orders or in Crossing
Session IV as VWAP executions.
2. Statutory Basis
    NYSE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6 of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ Rule 19b-4(f)(6) also requires the Exchange to give the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied the pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. NYSE has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes the
waiver of this period will allow it to continue the Pilots without
undue delay, which it believes is in the public interest as it will
avoid inconvenience and interruption to the public. The Commission
believes such waiver is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest because it presents no new issues and would allow
the Pilots to operate without interruption. For this reason, the
Commission designates the proposal to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File

Number SR-NYSE-2008-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File number SR-NYSE-2008-07 and should be
submitted on or before February 25, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-1879 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6053-6054]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30765; Amdt. No. 3410]

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective February 3, 2011. 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 February 3, 2011.

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

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

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

The Rule

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

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 21, 2011.
John McGraw,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,

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

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

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

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

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

Effective 10 MAR 2011

Hayward, CA, Hayward Executive, VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 6C, CANCELLED
Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Mather, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L, Amdt 1A
San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, VOR RWY 19L, Amdt 9
San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, VOR-B, Amdt 6
Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6
Kalaupapa, HI, Kalaupapa, KALAUPAPA ONE Graphic DP
Kalaupapa, HI, Kalaupapa, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Kalaupapa, HI, Kalaupapa, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Anderson, IN, Anderson Muni-Darlington Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Winchester, IN, Randolph County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
Shreveport, LA, Shreveport Rgnl, RADAR-1, Amdt 4
Tallulah-Vicksburg, MS, LA, Vicksburg Tallulah Rgnl, LOC RWY 36,
Amdt 3
Bedford, MA, Laurence G. Hanscom Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Beverly, MA, Beverly Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Lawrence, MA, Lawrence Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
4
Norwood, MA, Norwood Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 6
Frankfort, MI, Frankfort Dow Memorial Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
South Haven, MI, South Haven Area Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Caledonia, MN, Houston County, GPS RWY 31, Orig, CANCELLED
Branson, MO, M. Graham Clark-Taney County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig
Branson, MO, M. Graham Clark-Taney County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig
Branson, MO, M. Graham Clark-Taney County, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Point Lookout, MO, M. Graham Clark, GPS RWY 11, Orig-C, CANCELLED
Point Lookout, MO, M. Graham Clark, VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 29, Amdt
2B, CANCELLED
Potosi, MO, Washington County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Hattiesburg, MS, Hattiesburg Bobby L Chain Muni, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY
13, Amdt 2
Hattiesburg, MS, Hattiesburg Bobby L Chain Muni, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY
13, Amdt 1
Wadesboro, NC, Anson County-Jeff Cloud Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 34,
Orig
Wadesboro, NC, Anson County-Jeff Cloud Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16,
Amdt 1
Wadesboro, NC, Anson County-Jeff Cloud Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34,
Amdt 2
Wadesboro, NC, Anson County-Jeff Cloud Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Berlin, NH, Berlin Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Berlin, NH, Berlin Rgnl, VOR/DME RWY 18, Amdt 2
Blairstown, NJ, Blairstown, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1
Blairstown, NJ, Blairstown, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Ticonderoga, NY, Ticonderoga Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1
Ticonderoga, NY, Ticonderoga Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1
Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, GPS RWY 27L, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED
Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, NDB RWY 9R, Amdt 3
Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9R, Amdt 1
Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27L, Orig
Columbus, OH, Ohio State University, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown Executive, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Mangum, OK, Scott Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Sallisaw, OK, Sallisaw Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
2
East Stroudsburg, PA, Stroudsburg-Pocono, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Aiken, SC, Aiken Muni, LOC RWY 7, Orig
Childress, TX, Childress Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Denton, TX, Denton Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Gruver, TX, Cluck Ranch, VOR/DME OR GPS-A, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Lubbock, TX, Lubbock Preston Smith Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, Amdt
17A
Bryce Canyon, UT, Bryce Canyon, BRYCE Two Graphic DP
Bryce Canyon, UT, Bryce Canyon, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Salt Lake City, UT, South Valley Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 5
Leesburg, VA, Leesburg Executive, ILS OR LOC RWY 17, Orig
Leesburg, VA, Leesburg Executive, LOC RWY 17, Amdt 3, CANCELLED
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 2
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16, Amdt 9
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 34, ILS RWY 34 (SA CAT
I), ILS RWY 34 (CAT II), ILS RWY 34 (CAT III), Amdt 14
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 1
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1
Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, VOR RWY 2, Amdt 6

    On January 10, 2011 (76 FR 06) the FAA published an Amendment in
Docket No. 30761; Amdt. No. 3406 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations under section 97.33. The following entries, effective 10
February 2011 * * *

Perkin, IL, Perkin Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-A
Perkin, IL, Perkin Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-A
Perkin, IL, Perkin Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 7A

    * * * have incorrect city and airport names. Each item should
begin * * *

Pekin, IL, Pekin Muni.

    The remaining information remains unchanged.
[FR Doc. 2011-2051 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 65)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17329-17331]
[DOCID:fr06ap10-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0109]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Big Bay Fourth of July Fireworks, San Diego Bay, San
Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone
on the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay in support of the Big Bay
July Fourth Show to Benefit the San Diego Armed Services YMCA. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of crew,
spectators, and other users and vessels of the waterway. Persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this temporary safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 6, 2010. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before May 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0109 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Corey McDonald, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone
619-278-7262, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0109), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2010-0109'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0109'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on

behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review
a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17,
2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Background and Purpose

    The San Diego Armed Services YMCA is sponsoring the Big Bay July
Fourth Fireworks Show, which will include a fireworks presentation
originating from four separate fireworks barges and pier. A safety zone
is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, and
other users and vessels of the waterway. The Coast Guard is proposing
to establish a temporary safety zone that would encompass all navigable
waters within 1,000 feet of each barge and pier during the fireworks
event.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes establishing a safety zone that will be
enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2010. This safety zone
is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, and
other users and vessels of the waterway. Persons and vessels would be
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative. The limits of the safety zone would include
all navigable waters within 1000 feet of the four fireworks barges and
pier. The approximate locations of the barges are:

Shelter Island Barge: 32[deg]42.83' N, 117[deg]13.20' W
Harbor Island Barge: 32[deg]43.33' N, 117[deg]12.00' W
Embarcadero Barge: 32[deg]43.00' N, 117[deg]10.80' W
Seaport Village Barge: 32[deg]42.23' N, 117[deg]10.05' W
Imperial Beach Pier: 32[deg]34.77' N, 117[deg]08.15' W

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This determination is
based on the small size and brief location of the safety zone. Vessel
traffic would be able to pass safely around the safety zone. Vessels
will not be allowed to transit through the established safety zone
during the specified times unless authorized to do so by the Captain of
the Port or his designated representative.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit through, or anchor within the four areas of San
Diego Bay or the Pacific Ocean from 8:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 4,
2010.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule would be in effect for only 45 minutes late in the evening when
vessel traffic is low. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the
safety zone. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish
a local notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast notice to
mariners (BNM) alerts via marine channel 16 VHF before the temporary
safety zone is enforced.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Petty Officer Corey McDonald,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard at
(619) 278-7262. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation,

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves establishing a safety zone and is categorically excluded
under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add a new temporary zone Sec.  165.T11-300 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-300  Safety Zone; Big Bay Fourth of July Fireworks, San
Diego Bay, San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone are all navigable
waters within 1000 feet of four fireworks barges and pier. The
approximate locations are:

Shelter Island Barge: 32[deg]42.83' N, 117[deg]13.20' W
Harbor Island Barge: 32[deg]43.33' N, 117[deg]12.00' W
Embarcadero Barge: 32[deg]43.00' N, 117[deg]10.80' W
Seaport Village Barge: 32[deg]42.23' N, 117[deg]10.05' W
Imperial Beach Pier: 32[deg]34.77' N, 117[deg]08.15' W

    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 8:45
p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2010. If the event concludes prior to the
scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease
enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
Designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local, State, and Federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander
(PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: March 17, 2010.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2010-7691 Filed 4-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


The Office of Pesticide Programs’ Monitoring for Atrazine

in Community Water Systems

Status Update - August 2009

Atrazine Drinking Water Monitoring Data

Currently, an intensive monitoring program to look for atrazine residues
in drinking water from approximately 150 community water systems (CWS)
is ongoing. These systems, located primarily in the Midwest, are among
the most vulnerable to atrazine exposure.

Through its review of these data, the Agency has confirmed that none of
the systems have exceeded OPP's level of concern, a 90-day average of
37.5 parts per billion (ppb) of atrazine and its degradates.  In fact,
the Agency has released 20 CWS from the program because these systems
have had no exceedences of EPA’s level of concern after five years of
monitoring.  EPA has added approximately 20 CWS into the program based
on data gathered under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

The data available are the following:

A summary of data submitted by the registrant from 2003 – 2007.

The complete raw data from the program from 2003-2008.

Both the summary and complete raw data are available in two locations:

OPP’s public docket for atrazine located at docket number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0367 on www.regulations.gov, and

On OPP’s Atrazine Updates Web page at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.ht
m

The raw data, contained in 7 spreadsheets, present atrazine drinking
water monitoring data that are required under the Agency’s 2003
Atrazine Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) and subsequent
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the atrazine registrants.  These
Atrazine Monitoring Program (AMP) data files contain the results of the
required sampling, by year, for all CWS that have been monitored over a
6-year period from 2003-2008.

Each data file includes a “ReadMe” worksheet that explains the data
contained in the file.  AMP data for 2003 and 2004 do not contain
simazine data.  AMP data from the latter half of 2005 onward contain
data for all triazine residues, including simazine.

If you need these data in a different format than the Excel™
spreadsheets for accessibility or other reasons, please contact the
Chemical Review Manager listed on the Agency’s atrazine website at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/index.htm.

Interpreting the Atrazine Drinking Water Monitoring Data

An EPA level of concern is specific to a particular issue (human health,
for example) and an exposure period.  For example, a long-term (or
chronic) level of exposure would be associated with an exposure over
many months or years, whereas an intermediate level of exposure would be
looking at potential health effects over a three-month period.  Through
the atrazine monitoring programs in place, EPA can evaluate all these
potential exposures.

Atrazine potential risk and how it is evaluated

Change in hormone levels is the most sensitive health effect observed in
an extensive battery of atrazine toxicity tests.  In other words, if the
Agency’s standard is protective of hormonal effects, it will protect
against all other effects that occur at higher levels.  The Agency’s
risk assessment supporting the re-registration of atrazine incorporates
standard safety factors to ensure protection of public health, as well
as an additional safety factor to ensure further protection for
children.

As a result, EPA’s risk assessment includes a 300-fold margin of
safety to help ensure that an exposure will not affect hormone levels,
and a 1000-fold margin of safety to help protect against long-term or
chronic effects.  In other words, the exposure that the Agency allows
under is at least 300 to 1000 times more protective than the level where
the Agency saw no adverse effects in the most sensitive animal species
tested.  EPA applies these additional safety factors as a precaution to
protect the public health of all consumers in the United States.

The risk assessment is based on the best and most current science
available.  Based on this risk analysis the Agency determined that
concentrations of atrazine and its metabolites in raw water below an
average of 37.5 ppb over a 90-day period ensures protection of pregnant
women and all others, and concentrations of atrazine in finished water
that do not exceed 3 ppb as an annual average protect consumers from
longer term chronic effects.

The following paragraphs describe the short-, intermediate-, and
long-term exposure levels that EPA has evaluated and found to be
protective of human health.

Short-term exposure--Within these data, you may see individual spikes of
atrazine concentrations of 59 parts per billion (ppb) or higher.  Based
on the Agency’s screening-level assessment conducted for the Atrazine
Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED), one-day
concentrations less than the Drinking Water Level of Concern (DWLOC) of
298 ppb do not exceed the Agency’s level of concern for acute effects.
 In other words, occasional readings of atrazine that are below 298 ppb
in water treated by municipalities do not pose a risk to human health.

Intermediate-term exposure--The Office of Pesticide Programs’ level of
concern for drinking water is an intermediate level of exposure where
the level is exceeded if, in a 90-day rolling average, the concentration
exceeds 37.5 ppb for atrazine and its degradates in raw water.  After
six years of monitoring, although some amount of atrazine may be
detected in community water systems, none of the 150 CWS in the
monitoring program have exceeded the 37.5 ppb level of concern as a
90-day rolling average in raw water.  This suggests that the
restrictions and use practices required by the Agency in 2003 are
working to reduce the amount of atrazine reaching water bodies, thereby
protecting public health.  If any CWS were to exceed this level twice
within a five-year period, EPA would prohibit atrazine use in the
watershed associated with the CWS.

„

…

«

¬

ì

í

,

-

ƒ

„

˜

Ÿ

¦

©

ª

«

Ú

ê

ì

ô

J

K

L

v

Â

K

L

 3 ppb would be of concern. The MCL is designed to protect all
population subgroups.

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  3