[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 202 (Monday, October 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66331-66332]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23090]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0720; FRL-10015-61]

Pesticide Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or
Ecological Risk Assessments for Zinc Phosphide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft human
health and/or ecological risk assessments for the registration review
of zinc phosphide.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, to the docket identification (ID)
number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the Table in
Unit IV, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information contact: The Chemical Review
Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the Table in Unit
IV.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
exception occurred on : 2020-23090.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-23090.htm
email address: biscoe.me[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in the Table in Unit IV.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed comprehensive draft human health and/or
ecological risk assessments for all pesticides listed in the Table in
Unit IV. After reviewing comments received during the public comment
period, EPA may issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to
the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments and may request
public input on risk mitigation before completing a proposed
registration review decision for the pesticides listed in the Table in
Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's
registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge,
including its effects on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's human health and/or ecological risk assessments for the
pesticides shown in the following table and opens a 60-day public
comment period on the risk assessments.

  Table--Draft Risk Assessments Being Made Available for Public Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Chemical review
  Registration review case                                 manager and
        name and No.                Docket ID No.            contact
                                                           information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zinc Phosphide Case 0026....       EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0140  Kent
                                                          Fothergill,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                          (703) 347-
                                                          8299.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and/or
ecological risk assessments for the pesticides listed in the Table in
Unit IV. The Agency will consider all comments received during the
public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to a draft
human health and/or ecological risk assessment. EPA may then issue a
revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk
assessment, and respond to comments.
    Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 6, 2020.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-23090 Filed 10-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36574-36576]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0066; Notice 1]

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., (Volkswagen), has
determined that certain model year (MY) 2021 Audi motor vehicles do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems. Volkswagen filed a noncompliance
report dated July 26, 2021. Volkswagen subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
August 25, 2021, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces receipt of Volkswagen's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before July 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of

business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vince Williams, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Volkswagen determined that certain MY 2021 Audi A6 Sedan, A6
Allroad, A7, RS6 Avant, RS7, S6 sedan, and S7 motor vehicles do not
fully comply with paragraph S5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle
Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.135).
    Volkswagen filed an original noncompliance report dated July 26,
2021, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Volkswagen petitioned NHTSA on August 25,
2021, for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Volkswagen's petition is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 4,267 MY 2021 Audi A6 Sedan, A6 Allroad, A7, RS6
Avant, RS7, S6 sedan, and S7, manufactured between January 11, 2021,
and April 14, 2021, are potentially involved:

III. Noncompliance

    Volkswagen explains that a small number of the subject vehicles may
have a European-specification brake fluid reservoir cap instead of the
one required for the North American/United States market as required by
paragraph S5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 135. Specifically, the subject brake
fluid reservoir caps may not include the required warning label.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.4.3 of FMVSS 135, includes the requirements relevant
to this petition. Each vehicle equipped with hydraulic brakes shall
have a brake fluid warning statement that reads as follows, in letters
at least 3.2 mm (\1/8\ inch) high: ``WARNING: Clean filler cap before
removing. Use only __ fluid from a sealed container.'' (Inserting the
recommended type of brake fluid as specified in 49 CFR 571.116, e.g.,
``DOT 3.'' The lettering shall be permanently affixed, engraved, or
embossed, located so as to be visible by direct view, either on or
within 100 mm (3.94 inches) of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or
cap, and of a color that contrasts with its background, if it is not
engraved or embossed.

V. Summary of Volkswagen's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Volkswagen's Petition,'' are the views and arguments
provided by Volkswagen. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and
do not reflect the views of the Agency. Volkswagen describes the
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Volkswagen explains that it believes the subject noncompliance to
be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because ``the brake fluid
cap shows clearly the specification of the brake fluid required'' and
``provides clear symbols including one for caution and one for
referring to owner manual instructions. The manual indicates the proper
brake fluid specification for use in the vehicle.'' Volkswagen also
states that the ``brake fluid cap conforms to the requirements of
ISO9128''2006 which is a requirement of UN-ECE Regulations 13 and
13h.''
    Volkswagen contends that the following previous grants of
inconsequentiality petitions support NHTSA's granting of its petition
for the subject noncompliance:
     Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 84 FR 13095 (April 3,
2019).
     Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 69931 (November 21, 2013).
     Hyundai Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 73 FR 38290 (July 3, 2008).
    According to Volkswagen, ``service to the brake system involving an
exchange of the brake fluid is not a standard maintenance activity''
and repairs to the brake system ``requires basic technical knowledge
regarding the brake system and should be performed by a trained
technician.''
    Volkswagen states that it has not received any field or customer
complaints or notification of any accident or injuries related to the
subject noncompliance. Further, Volkswagen states that as of April 14,
2021, production of the subject vehicles has been corrected and the
vehicles ``at the factory have been corrected and unsold units will be
correct prior to sale.''
    Volkswagen concludes by stating its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety
and its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Volkswagen no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after
Volkswagen notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-13079 Filed 6-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 77839]
[DOCID:fr27de06-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54957; File No. SR-FICC-2006-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Providing Certain
Reports to Its Members

December 18, 2006.
    On April 21, 2006, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notice of the proposal was published
in the Federal Register on October 4, 2006.\2\ No comment letters were
received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54570 (Oct. 4, 2006), 71
FR 60591.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description

    The proposed rule change clarifies the frequency of certain reports
that FICC will provide to its members. FICC conforms the rules of both
its divisions, the Government Securities Division and the Mortgage
Backed Securities Division (``MBSD''), regarding FICC's providing
financial reports to members to the equivalent rule of FICC's
affiliated clearing agency, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'').\3\
FICC's revised rules will state that quarterly unaudited financial
statements will only be provided to members/participants for the first
three quarters of the calendar year.\4\ In addition, in conformity to
DTC's rules, FICC is deleting the time frames from its rules for
providing the financial reports to its members/participants.
Nevertheless, FICC will attempt to continue to make its annual audited
financial statements available to its members within 60 days of the
fiscal year end and will attempt to continue to make its quarterly
unaudited financial statements available within 30 days of the quarter
end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DTC Rule 15.
    \4\ An annual audited financial statement is provided to members
after the last calendar quarter of each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC is also changing the time frame in Article V, Rule 5, Section
3 of MBSD's Clearing Rulebook and EPN Rulebook regarding providing its
participants with the independent auditors' annual study and evaluation
of MBSD's internal accounting controls. While FICC will delete these
rule provisions in their entirety, FICC will make this study and
evaluation available to its members within a reasonable time after it
receives it from its independent accountants, which is DTC's practice.

II. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \5\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions. The Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with this obligation because the proposed rule
change conforms FICC's rules regarding providing unaudited quarterly
financial statements and the independent auditor's annual study of
internal controls with those of DTC and as such should promote the
national clearance and settlement system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FICC-2006-07) be, and hereby
is, approved.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-22091 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53196-53197]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23006]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 112

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-3631]

Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of
Produce for Human Consumption; Draft Guidance for Industry;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled
``Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of
Produce for Human Consumption.'' The draft guidance, when finalized,
will provide FDA's current thinking and recommendations to help covered
farms comply with the final regulation entitled ``Standards for the
Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human
Consumption'' (Produce Safety Rule), which established science-based
minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, and
holding of produce grown for human consumption.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by April 22, 2019 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on the draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-D-3631 for ``Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing,
and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption; Draft Guidance for
Industry.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-
addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your
request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samir Assar, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr.,
College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding
of Produce for Human Consumption.'' We are issuing the draft guidance
consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115).
The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking
of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person
and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternate
approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
    We intend to conduct four public meetings in diverse regions of the
United States to discuss the draft guidance, and we will provide
details about these public meetings in a notice published in the
Federal Register.
    The Produce Safety Rule (80 FR 74353) established science-based
minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, and
holding of produce grown for human consumption. The rule sets forth
procedures, processes, and practices that minimize the risk of serious
adverse health consequences or death, including those reasonably
necessary to prevent the introduction of known or reasonably
foreseeable biological hazards into or onto produce and to provide
reasonable assurances that the produce is not adulterated on account of
such hazards. Requirements of the rule focus on major routes of
contamination, including health and hygiene; biological soil amendments
of animal origin; domesticated and wild animals; and equipment, tools,
and buildings.
    This draft guidance provides recommendations, examples, and
information related to compliance and implementation of the following
subparts of the Produce Safety Rule:
    Subpart A--General Provisions
    Subpart C--Personnel Qualifications and Training
    Subpart D--Health and Hygiene
    Subpart F--Biological Soil Amendments of Animal Origin and Human
Waste
    Subpart I--Domesticated and Wild Animals
    Subpart K--Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding Activities
    Subpart L--Equipment, Tools, Buildings, and Sanitation
    Subpart O--Records
    Subpart P--Variances

    This draft guidance is based on FDA's current thinking and we
believe that additional information would assist us in developing the
final guidance. While we invite comments on all aspects of the draft
guidance, we seek specific comments, information, and data on the
following:
    For equipment and tools intended to or likely to contact covered
produce:
     When acquiring equipment and tools, how do you engage with
equipment and tool suppliers about the size, design, and construction
of your buildings so that they can accommodate the equipment and tools?
     What information or data can you provide about cleaning,
sanitizing, and maintenance practices and procedures for equipment and
tools that have wood, foam, or other porous or absorbent materials?
    For domesticated and wild animals:
     What data or information can you provide about factors or
conditions that would affect the likelihood of contamination of covered
produce by animals? Such factors include, for example, historical
information and conditions on or near farms that influence animal
habitats.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 112 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0816.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: October 17, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-23006 Filed 10-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 63047-63049]
[DOCID:fr22oc08-115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0266]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 26 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision standard. The Agency has concluded that granting
these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective October 22, 2008. The exemptions
expire on October 22, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://Docketsinfo.dot.gov.

Background

    On September 4, 2008, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (73 FR 51689). That notice listed 25 applicants' case
histories. The 25 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 25 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on October 6, 2008.
    In a previous notice (73 FR 48273), the Agency noted that a public
comment was received challenging the validity of some information that
Mr. James W. Lappan submitted in his application. At this time, FMCSA
has concluded investigations regarding Mr. James W. Lappan and has
determined that he

meets FMCSA's criteria for a Federal vision exemption.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides: A person is
physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person
has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye
without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/
40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity
of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective
lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian
in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals
and devices showing standard red, green, and amber (49 CFR
391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision standard,
but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation
and demonstrated their ability to drive safely.
    The 26 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this
category. They are unable to meet the vision standard in one eye for
various reasons, including amblyopia, prosthesis, optic nerve defect,
glaucoma, exotropia, and loss of vision due to trauma. In most cases,
their eye conditions were not recently developed. All but five of the
applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had
them since childhood. The five individuals who sustained their vision
conditions as adults have had them for periods ranging from 3 to 27
years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV. All these
applicants satisfied the testing standards for their State of
residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants
demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 26 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 35
years. In the past 3 years, two of the drivers had convictions for
traffic violations and three of them were involved in crashes.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the September 4, 2008
notice (73 FR 51689).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision,
but also their driving records and experience with the vision
deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision standard, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at docket number FMCSA-98-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively. (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920.
    Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash
rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two
different time periods vary only slightly. (See Bates and Neyman,
University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952.) Other
studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash
history coupled with other factors. These factors--such as age, sex,
geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history--are used
every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict
the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes. (See
Weber, Donald C., ``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple
Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American
Statistical Association, June 1971) A 1964 California Driver Record
Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded
that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and
nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study
used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers
in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 26 applicants, two of the applicants had a traffic violation for
speeding, and three of the applicants were involved in crashes. The
applicants achieved this record of safety while driving with their
vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted
their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants'
ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good
predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to
drive safely can be projected into the future.
    We believe the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These

conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as
interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding
have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years,
most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to
believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate
commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate
commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this
reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period
allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 25 applicants listed in
the notice of September 4, 2008 (73 FR 51689).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 26 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following:
    (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or
keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed.
    The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving,
for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received three comments in this proceeding. The comments were
considered and discussed below.
    One of the comments was a recommendation in favor of granting the
Federal vision exemption to Kevin Quastad, the second was a
recommendation in favor of granting the Federal vision exemption to all
applicants.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) expressed
opposition to FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs,
including the driver qualification standards. Specifically, Advocates:
(1) Objects to the manner in which FMCSA presents driver information to
the public and makes safety determinations; (2) objects to the Agency's
reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program; (3)
claims the Agency has misinterpreted statutory language on the granting
of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315); and finally (4) suggests
that a 1999 Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of vision
exemptions.
    The issues raised by Advocates were addressed at length in 64 FR
51568 (September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 (November 30, 1999), 64 FR
69586 (December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January 3, 2000), 65 FR 57230
(September 21, 2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001). We will not
address these points again here, but refer interested parties to those
earlier discussions.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 26 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts, Larry W. Barnes, Rick A. Benevides, Jack E. Benjamin, Allen S.
Bush, Todd A. Chapman, Delone W. Dudley, Irvin L. Eaddy, Herman Hicks,
James W. Lappan, Ralph Landers, Jeromy W. Leatherman, Ernest B. Martin,
Mark L. McWhorter, Charles D. Messier, Raymond C. Miller, Dennis E.
Palmer, Jr., Gary W. Phelps, Kevin L. Quastad, John E. Rains, James D.
St. Peter, Michael Sutton, Sylvester Silver, Sylvester Silver, William
R. Thomas, Terrence L. Trautman, and David Vallier, from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: October 14, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-25176 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 73)]
[Corrections]
[Page 20367]
[DOCID:fr15ap08-154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0230; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-043-AD;
Amendment 39-15419; AD 2008-06-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-
200, and A340-300 Series Airplanes

Correction

Sec. 39.13  [Corrected]

    In rule document E8-4671 beginning on page 13103 in the issue of
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, make the following correction:
    On page 13106, in Sec. 39.13, in table 3, the heading

``Table 3.--All Material Incorporated by reference''

    should read

``Table 3.--New Material Incorporated by reference''

[FR Doc. Z8-4671 Filed 4-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52955-52958]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24657]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82036; File No. SR-BX-2017-048]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Access and Redistribution Fee

November 8, 2017.
    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 October 26, 2017, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend and conform BX Equities Rule 7025
and Chapter XV, Section 3(c) of the Exchange's Options Rules, to define
key terms; to clarify the rule language; and to clarify its application
to Extranet Providers and Distributors in various contexts.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the

places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change concerns BX Rule 7025 (the ``Equities
Rule'') and Chapter XV, Section 3(c) of the Exchange's Options Rules
(the ``Options Rule,'' collectively the ``Rules''), currently entitled
``Extranet Access Fee.'' The Exchange first imposed an Extranet Access
Fee in 2009.\3\ The Exchange last amended the Extranet Access Fee in
January of 2015.\4\ Today, technology and the ecosystem have changed
such that the Rules need updating and clarification. Therefore, the
Exchange is proposing several parallel changes to the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59307 (Jan. 28,
2009), 74 FR 6069 (Feb. 4, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-005).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74045 (Jan. 13,
2015); 80 FR 2766 (Jan. 20, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange is proposing to rename both Rules and to
clarify their meaning through the use of defined terms. The Exchange is
adding definitions of the terms Equipment Configuration and Extranet
Provider to new subsections 7025(a) of the Equities Rule and Sec.
3(c)(1) of the Options Rule. The Exchange is also cross-referencing the
definition of Distributors currently set forth in Exchange Rule
7019(b).
    The term ``Equipment Configuration'' will be defined to mean ``any
line, circuit, router package, or other technical configuration used to
provide a connection to the Exchange market data feeds.'' The term
Equipment Configuration replaces the term ``Customer Premises Equipment
Configuration'' set forth in the current rules. The Exchange believes
that the term ``Customer Premises Equipment Configuration'' is
ambiguous and creates confusion about the ownership and location of
equipment through which direct access to market data feeds is provided.
By referring instead to ``Equipment Configuration,'' the Exchange
intends to specify that the ownership and location of the equipment is
inconsequential to the application of access and redistribution fees.
Rather, it is the number of configurations that matters, determining
the number of monthly access and redistribution fees to be assessed.
    For example, if an Extranet Provider supplies market data to five
recipients via five configurations, two of which are located in a
single Exchange facility (such as Carteret, New Jersey) and three of
which are located at different customer facilities, the Extranet
Provider will be assessed access and redistribution fees of $5,000 per
month. If an Extranet Provider supplies market data to one customer at
two separate locations via two configurations--one within a Exchange
facility and one located elsewhere--the Extranet Provider will be
assessed access and redistribution fees of $2,000 per month. If an
Extranet Provider supplies market data to four customers via four
configurations all located within an Exchange co-location facility, the
Extranet Provider will be assessed $4,000 per month in access and
redistribution fees. The Exchange is proposing to define the term
``Extranet Provider'' as ``any entity that has signed the Exchange
Extranet Connection Agreement and that establishes a telecommunications
connection in the Exchange's co-location facility.'' The Exchange
requires entities to sign the Exchange Extranet Connection Agreement
\5\ for the purpose of setting the terms and conditions for those
entities to place equipment in the Exchange's co-location facility in
order to establish a telecommunications connection directly to the
Exchange and to provide its own customers with access to the Exchange
market data feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Content/AdministrationSupport/AgreementsData/NASDAQOMXExtranetAgreement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in order to further enhance the clarity of the Exchange's
rules, the Exchange is proposing to cross-reference the definition of
``Distributor'' for purposes of this rule. Rule 7019(b) currently
defines Distributor as:

    [A]ny entity that receives a feed or data file of Exchange data
directly from the Exchange or indirectly through another entity and
then distributes it either internally (within that entity) or
externally (outside that entity). All distributors shall execute an
Exchange distributor agreement. The Exchange itself is a vendor of
its data feed(s) and has executed an Exchange distributor agreement
and pays the distributor charge.

    The Exchange is proposing to renumber and rearrange the existing
rule text of the Rules. The first two sentences of existing rule text
will become new subsection 7025(b) of the Equities Rule and Sec.
3(c)(1) of the Options Rule. The Exchange also proposes to improve the
clarity of subsection 7025(b) of the Equities Rule and Sec. 3(c)(2) of
the Options Rule by using the new definitions outlined above and by
specifying that the monthly fees referred to are the monthly access and
redistribution fees. As described earlier, the third sentence of
existing rule text is being modified and moved, respectively, to
paragraphs (1) and (A) of new subsections 7025(a) of the Equities Rule
and Sec. 3(c)(1) of the Options Rule as the improved definition of
``Equipment Configuration.'' The fourth and fifth sentences of existing
rule text will move to new subsection 7025(d) of the Equities Rule and
Sec. 3(c)(4) of the Options Rule with modest textual improvements but
no change in application of fees. The sixth sentence of existing rule
text will move to the final sentences of subsections 7025(b) and (c) of
the Equities Rule and Sec. 3(c)(2) and (c)(3) of the Options Rule with
minor textual enhancements to apply it with equal effect to Extranet
Providers and Distributors.
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add new subsection 7025(c) to the
Equities Rule and Sec. 3(c)(3) to the Options Rule to specify and
codify that similarly situated Distributors and Extranet Providers will
pay similar fees. Under subsection 7025(b) of the Equities Rule and
Sec. 3(c)(2) of the Options Rule, Extranet Providers are assessed a
monthly fee of $1,000 for each Equipment Configuration that offers
Exchange market data feeds. Similarly, under proposed subsection
7025(c) of the Equities Rule and Sec. 3(c)(3) of the Options Rule, the
same $1,000 monthly fee applies to Distributors to whom the same
Exchange market data feeds are published via a Direct Circuit
Connection to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that, as defined,
Extranet Providers and Distributors are similarly situated because both
entities connect directly to the Exchange, and both provide Exchange
market data feeds to their customers via those connections.\6\
Likewise, the customers of Extranet Providers and Distributors are
similarly situated in that they receive the same Exchange market data
feeds through similar means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Proposed Rules 7025(c) and Section 3(c) of Chapter XV of the
Otpions [sic] Rules apply only to Distributors that connect to
Nasdaq [sic] via a Direct Circuit Connection pursuant to Rule
7051(a). They do not apply to Distributors that are co-located with
Nasdaq [sic] pursuant to Rule 7034 and that connect to Nasdaq [sic]
as specified under that Rule. Nor do they apply to entities that
connect to Nasdaq [sic] remotely via Point of Presence Connectivity
under Rule 7051(c) as set forth in SR-NASDAQ-2017-97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, a Distributor with two Direct Circuit Connections to
the

Exchange, both of which emanate from a single Exchange co-location
facility (such as Carteret, New Jersey) and both of which receive
Exchange market data feeds, will be assessed access and redistribution
fees of $2,000 per month. A Distributor with two Direct Circuit
Connections to the Exchange that emanate from two separate locations
and that receives Exchange market data feeds over each connection will
be assessed access and redistribution fees of $2,000 per month. A
Distributor with two Direct Circuit Connections to the Exchange that
emanate from two separate locations and that receives Exchange market
data feeds over only one of the connections will be assessed access and
redistribution fees of $1,000 per month.
    The Exchange previously assessed and currently assesses this fee in
its capacity as operator of Nasdaq Technology Services, which had been
considered an Extranet Provider. The Exchange believes that defining
Extranet Providers and codifying the fee to Distributors (other than
Extranet Providers) is clearer to market participants. The Exchange
also understands that Distributors, like Extranet Providers, commonly
pass the fee on to their customers and therefore specifying that
Distributors employing a Direct Circuit Connection also pay the fee
will ensure consistent treatment between users enjoying the same
benefits via Extranet Providers on the one hand and Distributors on the
other, as described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it provides
for an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using its facility, and to
specify that the fees are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the application of identical Access and
Redistribution fees to Distributors and Extranet Providers as described
in the proposed rule change is fair and equitable and non-
discriminatory. As stated above, Distributors and Extranet Providers
both connect to the Exchange directly for the purpose of re-
distributing Exchange market data feeds to their own customers and both
enjoy similar benefits in doing so. Likewise, those customers, whether
receiving Exchange market data feeds via a Distributor or an Extranet
Provider receive those market data feeds in a similar fashion and with
similar benefits. Those benefits are considerable: Secure, rapid,
reliable access to the highest quality market data feeds on the trading
of equities and options on the Exchange.
    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is fair and equitable and not
discriminatory to apply equal access and redistribution fees to
Distributors, as it does to Extranet Providers. As stated above,
Distributors and Extranet Providers are similarly situated in that they
receive Exchange market data feeds directly from the Exchange and they
redistribute that data to their own customers. Likewise, the Exchange
believes that the customers of Extranet Providers and of Distributors
are similarly situated in the manner in which they receive Exchange
market data feeds.
    The Exchange believes that it is consistent with an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues and fees and not unfairly discriminatory
to charge the fees proposed under Rule 7025 and Section 3(c) of Chapter
XV of the Otpions [sic] Rules to Extranet Providers and Distributors
that are not co-located, but not to charge those same fees to
Distributors that are co-located. First, Distributors that are co-
located already pay fees set forth in Rule 7034 which include
connectivity and access to data. Second, if a co-located Distributor
were to send data feeds out of the co-location facility, the feeds
would be processed and normalized by the Distributor as opposed to by
the Exchange; in that case, the Distributor would not be using the
proximity for which Extranets and Direct Circuit Connection
Distributors are being assessed fees under Rule 7025 and Section 3(c)
of Chapter XV of the Options Rules.
    The Exchange is proposing to enhance the clarity of the language of
the Rules to ensure that customers understand the proper application of
the Rules as technology has changed and continues to change. The
Exchange believes that customers support the continued evolution of its
rules, and that regulators do and should support and facilitate this
evolution.

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that
applying equal fees to similarly situated Extranet Providers and
Distributors, enhancing the clarity of the Rules, and eliminating
ambiguity imposes no burden on competition and is, in fact, pro-
competitive. Extranet Providers and Distributors benefit from having a
more accurate and complete understanding of the Exchange's services and
fees when determining which if any of those competing services to
purchase voluntarily.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change places no
burden on competition because it specifies that identical fees will
apply to all similarly situated Distributors and Extranet Providers
that provide Exchange market data feeds to their own customers. As
described above, such Distributors and Extranet Providers offer the
same Exchange market data feeds in the same manner to similarly
situated customers. The Exchange offers similar benefits to
Distributors and Extranet Providers by offering them such access to
Exchange market data feeds.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection

of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2017-048 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-BX-2017-048. 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. 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-BX-2017-048 and should be
submitted on or before December 6, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24657 Filed 11-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 14445-14446]
[DOCID:fr25mr10-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0260]

Guidance for Industry on Submitting a Report for Multiple
Facilities to the Reportable Food Electronic Portal as Established by
the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance document entitled ``Submitting a Report for
Multiple Facilities to the Reportable Food Electronic Portal as
Established by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of
2007.'' The document provides guidance to the industry in complying
with the Reportable Food Registry requirements prescribed by the Food
and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), and more
specifically, this guidance provides information to the industry on
submitting a single reportable food report to FDA covering reportable
food located at more than one of a company's facilities.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any
time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA--305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written requests
for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Food Defense,
Communication and Emergency Response (HFS-005), Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels
to assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Faye Feldstein, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-005), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On September 27, 2007, the President signed into law the Food and
Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) (Public Law 110-85).
This law amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) by
creating a new section 417 (21 U.S.C. 350f), Reportable Food Registry.
Section 417 of the act requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (the Secretary) to establish within FDA a Reportable Food
Registry. The congressionally-identified purpose of the Reportable Food
Registry is to provide a ``reliable mechanism to track patterns of
adulteration in food [which] would support efforts by the Food and Drug
Administration to target limited inspection resources to protect the
public health'' (Section 1005(a)(4) of FDAAA). The Secretary has
delegated to the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration the
responsibility for administering the act, including section 417. To
further the development of the Reportable Food Registry, section 417 of
the act requires FDA to establish an electronic portal by which
instances of reportable food must be submitted to FDA by responsible
parties and may be submitted by public health officials. After receipt
of reports through the electronic portal, FDA is required to review and
assess the information submitted for purposes of identifying reportable
food, submitting entries to the Reportable Food Registry, issuing an
alert or notification as FDA deems necessary, and exercising other
existing food safety authorities under FDAAA to protect the public
health. The requirements under the Reportable Food Registry became
effective on September 8, 2009.
    In the Federal Register of June 11, 2009 (74 FR 27803), FDA
announced the availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Questions and
Answers Regarding the Reportable Food Registry as Established by the
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007'' and gave
interested parties an opportunity to submit comments by July 27, 2009.
The agency reviewed and evaluated these comments and issued a final
guidance on September 8, 2009. This document is a related final
guidance entitled ``Submitting a Report for Multiple Facilities to the
Reportable Food Electronic Portal as Established by the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of 2007'' and contains a question and
answer addressing the circumstance where reportable food is located at
more than one of a company's facilities.
    FDA is issuing this guidance as level 1 guidance. Consistent with
FDA's good guidance practices regulation (Sec.  10.115 (21 CFR
10.115)), the agency will accept comments, but it is implementing the
guidance document immediately, in accordance with Sec.  10.115(g)(2),
because the agency has determined that prior public participation is
not feasible or appropriate. As noted, the requirements under the
Reportable Food Registry became effective on September 8, 2009.
Clarifying the Reportable Food Registry requirements will facilitate
compliance and implementation, and will lessen the burden on industry
and FDA caused by unnecessary submission of multiple reports when one
reportable food situation affects more than one of a company's
facilities. The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on
this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any
person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternate
approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in the act. These collections of information are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information related to submitting reportable food
reports to FDA in section 417 of the act have been approved under OMB
Control No. 0910-0645.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 19, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-6578 Filed 3-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30836-30837]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13934]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31199; Amdt. No. 3805]

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective July 2, 2018. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 2, 2018.

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

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, 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 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 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 removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and,

where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making
some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) ;
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15, 2018.
John S. Duncan,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

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

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

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

Effective 19 July 2018

Kokhanok, AK, Kokhanok, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 1
Kokhanok, AK, Kokhanok, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1
Kokhanok, AK, Kokhanok, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Fayette, AL, Richard Arthur Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 2
Mountain View, CA, Moffett Federal Afld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14L, Orig
Mountain View, CA, Moffett Federal Afld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14R, Orig
Mountain View, CA, Moffett Federal Afld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32L, Orig
Upland, CA, Cable, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1B
Rangely, CO, Rangely, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig
Rangely, CO, Rangely, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig
New Haven, CT, Tweed-New Haven, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 18
New Haven, CT, Tweed-New Haven, VOR RWY 2, Amdt 23, CANCELED
Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 23, Amdt 1B
Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23, Orig-B
Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, VOR-A, Amdt 1B
Athens, GA, Athens/Ben Epps, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 2
Atlanta, GA, Newnan Coweta County, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Orig-A
Donalsonville, GA, Donalsonville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1C
Donalsonville, GA, Donalsonville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1B
Donalsonville, GA, Donalsonville Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 3B
Savannah, GA, Savannah/Hilton Head Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 28, Amdt 2
Iowa City, IA, Iowa City Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1
Iowa City, IA, Iowa City Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1
Iowa City, IA, Iowa City Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 4
Champaign/Urbana, IL, University Of Illinois-Willard, ILS OR LOC RWY
32R, Amdt 13A
Plymouth, IN, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-A
Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 1F
Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1D
Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-A
Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig-C
Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig
Hattiesburg, MS, Hattiesburg Bobby L Chain Muni, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY
13, Amdt 1B
Omaha, NE, Eppley Airfield, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 32R, Amdt 1A
Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 3
Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS OR LOC RWY 17, Amdt 3
Manchester, NH, Manchester, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, ILS RWY 35 SA CAT I,
ILS RWY 35 CAT II, ILS RWY 35 CAT III, Amdt 3
Olean, NY, Cattaraugus County-Olean, LOC RWY 22, Amdt 7
Olean, NY, Cattaraugus County-Olean, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 2
Olean, NY, Cattaraugus County-Olean, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 2
Watertown, NY, Watertown Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 3
Watertown, NY, Watertown Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1
Toledo, OH, Toledo Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1
Toledo, OH, Toledo Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 2
Toledo, OH, Toledo Executive, VOR RWY 4, Amdt 9D, CANCELED
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, COPTER LOC RWY 26, Amdt 2
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, COPTER VOR RWY 8, Orig
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, COPTER VOR/DME OR GPS 066, Amdt 1,
CANCELED
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, ILS RWY 26, Amdt 3B
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, VOR RWY 8, Amdt 12A
Meadville, PA, Port Meadville, LOC RWY 25, Amdt 6E
Meadville, PA, Port Meadville, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 1D
Meadville, PA, Port Meadville, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1E
Meadville, PA, Port Meadville, VOR RWY 7, Amdt 8B, CANCELED
Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, LOC RWY 17, Amdt 4B
Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1A
Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1A
Brownwood, TX, Brownwood Rgnl, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 1C
San Antonio, TX, Boerne Stage Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1B
San Antonio, TX, Boerne Stage Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig-A
Wharton, TX, Wharton Rgnl, NDB RWY 14, Orig-A
Wharton, TX, Wharton Rgnl, NDB RWY 32, Orig-A
Wharton, TX, Wharton Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-A
Wharton, TX, Wharton Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-A
Milwaukee, WI, Lawrence J Timmerman, VOR RWY 4L, Amdt 9C, CANCELED
Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 19, Orig-B

    RESCINDED: On June 5, 2018 (83 FR 25909), the FAA published an
Amendment in Docket No. 31195, Amdt No. 3801, to Part 97 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.33. The following
entry for Oakland, CA, effective July 19, 2018, is hereby rescinded
in its entirety:

Oakland, CA, Metropolitan Oakland Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 12, Amdt 2

[FR Doc. 2018-13934 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P