[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32219-32222]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12660]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2013-0391]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Temporary Change for Recurring Fifth Coast Guard
District Fireworks Displays, Middle River; Baltimore County, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing a temporary change to the
enforcement periods and regulated areas of safety zone regulations for
a recurring fireworks display within the Fifth Coast Guard District.
This regulation applies to a recurring fireworks display event that
take place in Baltimore County, MD. Safety zone regulations are
necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during
the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in
portions of the Middle River during the event.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Baltimore Waterways Management
Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. 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.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, 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 at
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, 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 email 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,
type the docket number [USCG-2013-0391] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    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.

2. 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,
type the docket number (USCG-2013-0391) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. 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.

3. 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).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the 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.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Fireworks display events are frequently held on or adjacent to
navigable waters within the boundary of the Fifth Coast Guard District.
For a description of the geographical area of each Coast Guard Sector--
Captain of the Port Zone, please see 33 CFR 3.25. The Table to Sec.
165.506, event (b)(3), establishes the enforcement date for the annual
Independence Day holiday fireworks event held in Baltimore County, MD.
That date is generally the July-Saturday before July 4. The Eastern
Yacht Club, which is the sponsor for this event, holds this event
annually.
    On July 6, 2013, the Eastern Yacht Club will sponsor its annual
fireworks event. This event will take place in Baltimore County, MD on
the waters of the Middle River. The regulation at 33 CFR 165.506 is
enforced annually for this event. Also, a fleet of spectator vessels is
expected to gather near the event site to view the fireworks. To
provide for the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting
vessels, the Coast Guard temporarily restricts vessel traffic in the
event area from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on the date of the event. The
regulation at 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the duration of the
event. Vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive
permission from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore or the
designated on-scene patrol personnel.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This regulation proposes to temporarily change the enforcement
period for a safety zone for an annually recurring fireworks event,
described at (b)(3) of the Table to 33 CFR 165.506, that is normally
scheduled to occur each year on July--Saturday before Independence Day
holiday.
    This regulation temporarily changes the date for the fireworks
event. The date is changed to July--Saturday after Independence Day
holiday. The temporary safety zone will be enforced from 8 p.m. to
10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2013, and will restrict general navigation in the
regulated area during the event. Except for participants and vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore or the
designated on-scene patrol personnel, no person or vessel will be
allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area. This regulation is
needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety
of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. 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,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    Although this regulation would restrict access to this area, the
effect of this proposed rule will not be significant because: (i) the
safety zone will only be in effect from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6,
2013, (ii) the Coast Guard will give advance notification via maritime
advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly, and (iii)
although the safety zone will apply to a section of the Middle River,
vessel traffic will be able to transit safely around the safety zone.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed rule will affect the following entities,
some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to operate, transit, or anchor in the specified portions of
the Middle River, from 8 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2013. This
proposed safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The
regulated area is of limited size, (ii) this proposed rule will only be
in effect for 2\1/2\ hours, and (iii) although the safety zone will
apply to a section of the Middle River, vessel traffic will be able to
transit safely around the safety zone. Before the enforcement period,
the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to
users of the waterway, to allow mariners to make alternative plans for
transiting the affected area.
    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.

3. 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. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. 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.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. 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.

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. 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.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    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.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. 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 that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves implementation of regulations at 33 CFR part 165 that
establish safety zones on navigable waters of the United States for
fireworks events. This rule is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 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, 160.5; Pub. L.

107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  165.506, in the Table to Sec.  165.506, make the following
amendments:
0
a. Under ``(b) Coast Guard Sector Baltimore--COTP Zone,'' suspend
number 3, which will be enforced on June 29th.
0
b. Under ``(b) Coast Guard Sector Baltimore--COTP Zone,'' add number 24
on July 6th, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.506  Safety Zones; Fifth Coast Guard District Fireworks
Displays.

* * * * *

                         Table to Sec.   165.506
 [All coordinates listed in the Table to Sec.   165.506 reference Datum
                                NAD 1983]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Number              Date            Location       Regulated area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Coast Guard Sector Baltimore--COTP Zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
24................  July 6th........  Middle River,     All waters of
                                       Baltimore         the Middle
                                       County, MD,       River within a
                                       Safety Zone.      300 yard radius
                                                         of the
                                                         fireworks barge
                                                         in approximate
                                                         position
                                                         latitude
                                                         39[deg]17'45''
                                                         N, longitude
                                                         076[deg]23'49''
                                                         W,
                                                         approximately
                                                         300 yards east
                                                         of Rockaway
                                                         Beach, near
                                                         Turkey Point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: May 15, 2013.
Kevin C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2013-12660 Filed 5-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category
                             CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE
                              EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598

                                   SGE00290
SGE00290
                DCN:   ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.


[ Federal Register: June 12, 2002 ( Volume 67, Number 113)] [ Notices] [ Page 40290] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [ wais. access. gpo. gov] [ DOCID: fr12jn02 68]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP 2002 0071; FRL 7176 3]

Terrestrial Field Dissipation Workshop; Notice AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA and Canada's Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA) will hold a 3 day workshop to discuss a proposed harmonized pesticide guideline for terrestrial field dissipation studies beginning on July 23, 2002, and ending on July 25, 2002. This notice announces the location and times for the workshop and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.

DATES: The workshop meetings will be held on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, and Wednesday, July 24, 2002, from 9 a. m. to 5 p. m., and Thursday, July 25, 2002, 9 a. m. to noon. The meetings on July 23 and July 25 2002, are open to the public. The meeting on July 24, 2002, is an internal meeting.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Double Tree Hotel, Crystal City, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. Space is limited.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Corbin, Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 703) 605 0033; fax number: ( 703) 305 6309; e mail address: corbin. mark@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to pesticide registrants and to all others who are involved in pesticide matters. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of This Document and Other Related Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// www. epa. gov/. To access this document on the Home Page, select    Laws and Regulations,''    Regulations and Proposed Rules,'' and then look up the entry for this document under the    Federal Register'' Environmental Documents. You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. For additional information on the goals, purpose, and agenda for the terrestrial field dissipation workshop, refer to the following Web site: http:// esc. syrres. com/ fdw/. 2. In person. The Agency has established an administrative record for this workshop under docket control number OPP 2002 0071. The administrative record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this notice, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to the workshop. This administrative record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the administrative record, which includes printed, paper versions of any period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is ( 703) 305 5805.

C. Goals/ Purpose/ Agenda The goals of the workshop include the following: 1. Resolve Science Advisory Panel issues and industry ( Crop Life America/ Crop Life Canada) comments on the 1998 draft harmonized guidelines/ protocol. 2. Involve industry, government, academic, and other interested parties in providing feedback on and obtaining resolution of the remaining issues pertaining to the revised guidelines/ protocol. 3. Finalize the harmonized guidelines/ protocol.

List of Subjects Environmental protection.

Dated: June 6, 2002. Elizabeth Leovey, Acting Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 02 14771 Filed 6 11 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 S


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77579-77580]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24911]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER24-334-000]

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

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Oak Lessee, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214

of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 27, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: November 6, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24911 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 96 (Thursday, May 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27440-27441]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10594]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-P-0162]

Determination That NORMODYNE (Labetalol Hydrochloride) Injection,
5 Milligrams per Milliliter, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of
Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has
determined that NORMODYNE (labetalol hydrochloride) injection, 5
milligrams per milliliter (mg/mL), was not withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA
will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and it will allow
FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the product as long as
they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Koepke, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants
must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are
seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same
strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a version of
the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed
drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)).

FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
    NORMODYNE (labetalol hydrochloride) injection, 5 mg/mL, is the
subject of NDA 018686, held by Schering Corp., and initially approved
on August 1, 1984. NORMODYNE is indicated for control of blood pressure
in severe hypertension.
    In a letter dated September 28, 2004, Schering Corp. notified FDA
that NORMODYNE (labetalol hydrochloride) injection, 5 mg/mL, was being
discontinued and requested withdrawal of NDA 018686 for NORMODYNE
(labetalol hydrochloride), and FDA moved the drug product to the
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book. In the
Federal Register of June 16, 2006 (71 FR 34940), FDA announced that it
was withdrawing approval of NDA 018686, effective June 16, 2006.
    Nexsen Pruet, LLC, submitted a citizen petition dated February 4,
2021 (Docket No. FDA-2021-P-0162), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that
the Agency determine whether NORMODYNE (labetalol hydrochloride)
injection, 5 mg/mL, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that NORMODYNE (labetalol hydrochloride) injection,
5 mg/mL, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The
petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that
this drug product was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the
withdrawal NORMODYNE (labetalol hydrochloride) injection, 5 mg/mL, from
sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data
for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the
available evidence and determined that this drug product was not
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list NORMODYNE (labetalol
hydrochloride) injection, 5 mg/mL, in the ``Discontinued Drug Product
List'' section of the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product
List'' delineates, among other items, drug products that have been
discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or
effectiveness. FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of
approved ANDAs that refer to this drug product. Additional ANDAs for
this drug product may also be approved by the Agency as long as they
meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of
ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be
revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA
applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: May 14, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-10594 Filed 5-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38268-38269]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26367]

Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee Series of Public
Subcommittee Meetings

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

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the Agency's Motor Carrier Safety
Advisory Committee (MCSAC) will hold subcommittee meetings on Monday
and Tuesday, July 11 and 12, 2011, and Monday and Tuesday, August 1 and
2, 2011. The meetings will be open to the public for their duration.
The subcommittee will discuss how electronic on-board recorder (EOBR)
manufacturers could comply with the Agency's communications standards
for the transmittal of data files from EOBRs to enforcement officials
and related technical issues. This meeting is not a forum for a
discussion of broader non-technical EOBR issues. The subcommittee's
objective is to prepare a letter report and recommendations on the same
for consideration by the full MCSAC, which, in turn, will provide
recommendations to the Agency.

TIME AND DATES: Both meetings will be held on Monday and Tuesday, July
11-12, 2011, and Monday and Tuesday, August 1 and 2, 2011, from noon on
Monday to 5 p.m., Eastern Time (E.T.), and on Tuesday from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m., E.T. The July 11 and 12, 2011, meeting will be held at the Hilton
Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, in the
Washington and Jefferson Rooms on the 2nd floor. The August 1 and 2,
2011, meeting will be held at a location in the Washington, DC, area to
be announced via posting on the MCSAC Web site (mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov) in
advance of the meeting.
    Matters To Be Considered: The subcommittee will consider ideas and
concepts that EOBR manufacturers could use to achieve compliance with
the Agency's communications standards for the transmittal of data files
from EOBRs to enforcement officials. The subcommittee will be comprised
of several MCSAC members and certain

subject matter experts invited to provide technical assistance to the
full MCSAC on ideas and concepts that EOBR manufactures could use to
achieve compliance with the Agency's communications standards for the
transmittal of data files from EOBRs to enforcement officials and
related technical issues.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Adviser
to the Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

MCSAC

    Section 4144 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L.
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005) required the Secretary of
Transportation to establish a Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee.
The committee provides advice and recommendations to the FMCSA
Administrator on motor carrier safety programs and regulations, and
operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App 2).EOBRs
    On April 5, 2010 (75 FR 17208), FMCSA published a final rule that
revised the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to incorporate new
performance standards for EOBRs used to capture electronically drivers'
duty status or hours of service (HOS). These devices will take the
place of automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs), the subject of
a 1988 rule that established the technical requirements under 49 CFR
395.15.

MCSAC Subcommittee (EOBR Technical Issues)

    FMCSA has approved a subcommittee dedicated to EOBR technical
issues. Specifically, FMCSA believes it would be helpful to have a
MCSAC subcommittee work with subject matter experts to identify ideas
and concepts that EOBR manufacturers could use to achieve compliance
with communications portion of the April 2010 final rule. In the time
since the final rule was published, stakeholders in the CMV safety
enforcement and EOBR supplier communities have expressed concern that
certain provisions of the technical specifications are not clear and
that additional information or guidance may be needed so that
manufacturers can deliver fully compliant devices to their motor
carrier clients. The chairman of the MCSAC subcommittee is a member of
the full MCSAC and has been duly appointed. As authorized by the MCSAC
Charter and in order to bring a full range of expertise to the
subcommittee, the subcommittee membership consists of both MCSAC
members and non-MCSAC members. The subcommittee does not have
independent authority and will submit all reports and recommendations
to the full MCSAC, which, in turn, will provide recommendations to the
Agency.

II. Meeting Participation

    The meeting will be open to the public for its duration. Public
comments may be heard at 4:30 p.m. on each meeting day.
    You may submit written comments identified by Docket ID Number
FMCSA-2006-26367 by July 12, 2011, for the July 11 meeting and by
August 1, 2011, for the August 1 meeting using any of the following
methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T, Monday
through Friday except Federal holidays.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Do not submit the same comment by more than one method. To allow
effective public participation before the comment period deadline,
FMCSA encourages use of the Web site listed above (Federal eRulemaking
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov).

III. Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For assistance with services for individuals with disabilities or
to request special assistance, please send your request to the address
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice,
or e-mail your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by Thursday, June 30
for the July 11 meeting or Thursday, July 28 for the August 1 meeting.

    Issued on: June 23, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-16271 Filed 6-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17820-17821]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-173-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on April 10, 2018, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700,
filed in Docket No. CP18-173-000 a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.205 and 157.213(b) of the Commission's regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA), requesting authorization to construct and
operate one new horizontal storage well, designated Well 12622, and
related pipeline and appurtenances at Columbia's Weaver Storage Field,
located in Ashland, Holmes, Knox, and Richland Counties, Ohio. Columbia
estimates the cost of the proposed project to be approximately
$2,800,000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may
also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Linda
Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration,
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700,
Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at
(832) 320-6685, or by email at [email protected].
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: April 18, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08476 Filed 4-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36984-36985]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Release Airport Property at St. Petersburg-
Clearwater International (PIE), St. Petersburg, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release certain
airport properties of approximately 16.88 acres at St. Petersburg-
Clearwater International (PIE), St. Petersburg, FL from the conditions,
reservations, and restrictions as contained in a Quitclaim Deed
agreement between the FAA and the Pinellas County, dated 11 March 1941.
The release of property will allow Pinellas County to dispose of the
property for Florida Department of Transportation roadway right of way
project.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at St. Petersburg-
Clearwater International Airport (PIE), and the FAA

Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400,
Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be
delivered or mailed to: Jenny Iglesias-Hamann, Community Planner,
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Iglesias-Hamann, Community
Planner, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National
Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.
    The property is located Multiple parcels along Roosevelt Road (SR
686) adjacent to airport. The parcels are currently designated
Aeronautical and Non-Aeronautical. The property will be released of its
federal obligations in support of the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) Gateway Express Project. The fair market value of
thess parcels has been determined to be $12,205,865.
    Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by
appointment only, for inspection at the St. Petersburg-Clearwater
International Airport (PIE) and the FAA Airports District Office.

Bart Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-13554 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


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

E. Effective Supervisory System

    As stated above, the proposed rule change would hold a remote
inspection of a location to the same standards applicable to on-site
inspections.\201\ Specifically, the proposed rule change would
reiterate that the requirement to conduct inspections of locations is
one part of the member firm's overall obligation to have an effective
supervisory system and therefore a participating member firm would be
required to maintain its ongoing review of the activities and functions
occurring at all locations, whether or not the member firm conducts
inspections remotely.\202\ In addition, where a participating member
firm's remote inspection of a location identifies any red flags, the
proposed rule states that the participating member firm may need to
impose additional supervisory procedures for that location or may need
to provide for more frequent monitoring of that location, including
potentially a subsequent on-site visit on an announced or unannounced
basis.\203\ No commenter offered specific support for, or opposition
to, this proposed provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(d).
    \202\ Id.
    \203\ Id. FINRA has emphasized, in guidance issued to member
firms, that a well-designed branch inspection program is important
to both a firm's supervisory program as well as a firm's risk
management program. For example, Regulatory Notice 11-54 stated,
``[a]n effective risk assessment process will help drive the
frequency, intensity and focus of branch office inspections; it
should also serve as an important consideration in the decision to
conduct the [inspection] on an announced or unannounced basis.
Therefore, branch offices should be continuously monitored with
respect to changes in their overall business, products, people and
practices.'' See FINRA Regulatory Notice 11-54 (Nov. 2011), https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/11-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is reasonable and will serve as an
appropriate reminder to participating member firms that any location
subject to a remote inspection is still subject to the same standard
for review as that of an on-site inspection. As such, there should be
no diminution in on-going supervision, regardless of the method a
participating member firm uses to inspect its locations. The proposed
rule change should also help ensure that participating member firms are
aware that even if a location is eligible for a remote inspection at
one point in time, a participating member firm may need to take
additional steps (e.g., an on-site visit on an announced or unannounced
basis) should it become aware of any red flags associated with that
location.\204\ For these reasons, the proposed rule change is
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(b); see also Notice at 28628.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Documentation Requirement

    As stated above, the proposed rule change would require that a
participating member firm maintain and preserve a centralized record
for each year of the Pilot that identifies: (1) all locations that were
inspected remotely; and (2) any locations for which the participating
member firm determined to impose additional supervisory procedures or
more frequent monitoring.\205\ FINRA stated that requiring the
retention of such written reports would act as an important safeguard
for the Pilot.\206\ No commenter expressly supported or objected to
these proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(e). A participating member firm's
documentation would be required to include whether an on-site
inspection was conducted at such location because of the results of
a remote inspection. Id.
    \206\ See Notice at 28635.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Documenting locations that were inspected remotely, as well as
locations where additional supervisory procedures or more frequent
monitoring were imposed, is reasonable and should provide regulators
with relevant information when conducting their examination and risk
monitoring responsibilities. Specifically, this information should help
regulators assess the reasonableness of a participating member firm's
use of remote inspection as one component of a reasonably designed
supervisory system. For these reasons, the proposed documentation
requirement is reasonable.

G. Data Collection

1. Quarterly Data and Information
    As stated above, the proposed rule change would require
participating member firms to collect and submit

certain data and information to FINRA on a quarterly basis.
Specifically, it would cover information about the number and nature of
inspections completed during the quarter, and a list of the significant
findings, among other things.\207\ The proposed rule change also would
require that a participating member firm establish, maintain, and
enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to
comply with the data and information collection, and transmission
requirements of the Pilot.\208\ FINRA stated that it believes that
``formalized, uniform collection of data is critical'' for it to
meaningfully assess the effectiveness of remote inspections and shape
potential permanent amendments to FINRA Rule 3110(c).\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(1).
    \208\ Proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(4) is also referenced in proposed
Rule 3110.18(c) (Written Supervisory Procedures), discussed above.
    \209\ See Notice at 28632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters agreed that the data and information
requirements would benefit the Pilot by providing FINRA the information
it needs to make informed decisions about potential future rule changes
regarding remote inspections.\210\ Two commenters suggested
modifications to the proposed rule change, stating that requiring
quarterly reporting was too onerous.\211\ In particular, one of these
commenters stated that quarterly reporting ``creates an outsized burden
on smaller, middle-market, and regional firms'' due to the detailed
data and information required.\212\ The other commenter described the
expected burden on larger firms and requested FINRA change the
reporting frequency to twice a year.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ See, e.g., SIFMA at 2; CAI at 3; Wells Fargo at 2; Raymond
James I at 2; NASAA I at 8; FSI at 4; letter from Gail Merken, Chief
Compliance Officer, Janet Dyer, Chief Compliance Officer, John
McGinty, Chief Compliance Officer, Fidelity Investments; Janet Dyer,
Chief Compliance Officer, National Financial Services LLC; and John
McGinty, Chief Compliance Officer, Fidelity Distributors Company
LLC, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated May 25,
2023, at 1; letter from Barbara Armeli, Managing Director, Chief
Compliance Officer, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and Lynn Konop,
Managing Director, Chief Compliance Officer, TD Ameritrade, Inc., to
Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated May 25, 2023, at 1;
letter from Gail Merken, Chief Compliance Officer, Janet Dyer, Chief
Compliance Officer, John McGinty, Chief Compliance Officer, Fidelity
Investments; Janet Dyer, Chief Compliance Officer, National
Financial Services LLC; and John McGinty, Chief Compliance Officer,
Fidelity Distributors Company LLC, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated August 29, 2023, at 1-2. See also generally Cetera
I at 1.
    \211\ See letter from Mark Seffinger, Chief Compliance Officer;
LPL Financial, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated
May 25, 2023 (``LPL I'') at 2; letter from Christopher A. Iacovella,
President & Chief Executive Officer, American Securities
Association, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated May
25, 2023 (``ASA I'') at 2.
    \212\ ASA I at 2.
    \213\ LPL I at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA declined to amend the required frequency of data
and information reporting.\214\ FINRA stated that it ``believes that
the cadence and amount of comprehensive data are appropriate and
necessary for FINRA to effectively study trends and firms' experiences
with their remote inspection programs in a timely manner.'' \215\
However, FINRA also stated that it is exploring ways for participating
member firms to provide the data and information to FINRA in a more
efficient and timely manner.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 14.
    \215\ Id.
    \216\ Id.; see also FINRA Response to Comments I at 14 n.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter recommended that FINRA amend the proposed rule change
to require participating member firms provide ``all findings'' made
during remote inspections or, at a minimum, ``all significant
findings'' as opposed to ``most significant findings.'' \217\ The
commenter reasoned that allowing subjectivity and discretion in data
reporting would undermine the uniformity of the data and hinder FINRA's
ability to assess trends and developments.\218\ The commenter
maintained that ``all findings'' would therefore be appropriate because
any finding significant enough to be documented in an inspection report
should be reported.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ See NASAA I at 8-9; see also letter from Andrew Hartnett,
NASAA President and Deputy Commissioner, Iowa Insurance Division,
North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc., to
Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant Secretary, Commission, dated August 29,
2023 (``NASAA II'') at 2.
    \218\ See NASAA I at 8.
    \219\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA amended the proposed rule change to require
participating member firms to report ``significant findings'' rather
than ``most significant findings.'' \220\ FINRA, however, declined to
require participating member firms to report ``all findings'' because
it would yield overly broad data, making it ``challenging to discern
key trends in a meaningful way.'' \221\ FINRA stated that providing
participating member firms ``the agency to assess what constitutes
their significant findings'' would enhance FINRA's ability to review a
discrete set of data that would focus on key areas of concern, which
would help it assess the effectiveness of remote inspections.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 15; see also supra note 82
(describing the definition of ``significant findings.''). FINRA has
used the same definition for ``significant finding'' in the Notice,
Amendment No. 1, and FINRA Response to Comments I. Id.
    \221\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 15-16; see also Notice at
28632. FINRA noted that it could obtain any additional findings in a
participating member firm's inspection reports during a FINRA
examination. See FINRA Response to Comments I at 16.
    \222\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 15; see also supra note 82
(describing the definition of ``significant findings.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same commenter acknowledged FINRA's amendment and requested
that FINRA define the term ``significant findings'' with more precision
to avoid varying subjective judgments that might skew the data used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the Pilot.\223\ In response, FINRA stated
that it provided several clarifying examples of findings that may
prompt escalation or further internal review, including the use of
unapproved communication mediums, customer complaints, or undisclosed
outside business activities or private securities transactions.'' \224\
FINRA further explained that it decided to include flexibility in the
definition of ``significant findings'' because a finding that is
significant for one participating member firm ``may differ from another
participant due to their respective attributes (e.g., size, business
model, organizational structure) and tailored supervisory system.''
\225\ Moreover, findings that may suggest a pattern could be deemed
``significant'' for purposes of the proposed Pilot.\226\ As a result,
FINRA stated that it believes that participating member firms ``should
have the ability to exercise their reasonable judgment of what findings
are significant based on the relevant facts and circumstances.'' \227\
FINRA stated it believes that this proposed approach is consistent with
the principle-based framework of Rule 3110.\228\ In addition, while the
commenter suggested that FINRA take a more prescriptive approach, FINRA
reiterated its belief that the proposed rule change's definition of
``significant findings'' would provide a balanced approach to obtain
meaningful data and information to appropriately assess the

effectiveness of a participating member firm's inspection program.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ NASAA II at 2-3. The commenter stated that, without a more
precise standard, participating member firms will inevitably reach
different conclusions. Id. at 3. In addition, this commenter
repeated the request to require participating member firms provide
``all findings'' to FINRA. Id. at 2.
    \224\ See FINRA Response to Comments II at 8 n.25.
    \225\ Id. at 8.
    \226\ Id. at 9 n.28.
    \227\ Id. at 8-9.
    \228\ Id. at 9.
    \229\ Id. In particular, the commenter suggested that there be a
``more precise standard (or set of standards) for when a ``finding''
is ``significant.'' NASAA II at 3, n.12 (pointing to the ``very
clear reporting standards in FINRA Rule 4530). In response, FINRA
declined to change the definition, stating the current approach is
consistent with the principle-based framework of FINRA Rule 3110.
See FINRA Response to Comments II at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quarterly reporting of Pilot data should allow FINRA to review and
assess data about participating member firms' inspection programs in a
timely manner. While a quarterly reporting obligation is more
burdensome than a less frequent one, participation in the Pilot is
voluntary, and a quarterly schedule should help FINRA to study trends
in the data and information and more promptly identify any regulatory
oversight concerns than with a less frequent reporting interval. A more
frequent reporting cycle would also provide FINRA with more up-to-date
data to evaluate a participating member firm's continued participation
in the Pilot.
    A commenter expressed concerns about the potential subjectivity of
the data and information that would be collected during the Pilot if
parties were required to report only ``significant findings.'' However,
FINRA has made a reasonable distinction between the quantity and the
quality of the data it would seek from participating member firms
during the Pilot, and narrowing the focus to study significant areas of
concern should help serve the Pilot's purpose to assess the
effectiveness of remote inspections. Also, to help alleviate concerns
around subjectivity, FINRA defined ``significant finding'' in the
proposed rule change and provided examples to further clarify its
meaning, which will help standardize reporting of data by participating
member firms.\230\ The proposed principle-based approach to this aspect
of data reporting should allow firms flexibility to determine what
types of findings need to be reported based on their unique business
models. Further, as FINRA stated, whether a finding is significant may
change depending on the relevant facts and circumstances. Moreover,
findings that may suggest a pattern could be deemed ``significant'' for
purposes of the proposed Pilot even where they might not be considered
significant individually. Thus, having reasonable flexibility is
beneficial. Accordingly, FINRA's principle-based approach to
interpreting the term ``significant finding'' is reasonable. For these
reasons, the Commission finds the proposed data and information
collection provision is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ See supra note 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Additional Data and Information if the First Year of the Pilot is
Less Than a Full Year
    As stated above, if Pilot Year 1 covers less than a full calendar
year, the proposed rule change would require a participating member
firm to provide additional data and information to cover the period of
time between January 1 and the day prior to the effective date of the
Pilot.\231\ FINRA stated that this would enable it to capture, in the
aggregate, complete inspection counts (including remote and on-site)
for the entire calendar year in addition to the quarterly data it would
receive during the Pilot.\232\ Aside from general comments in support
of the Pilot's data and information requirements discussed above, no
commenter offered specific support for, or opposition to, this
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(2); see also Amendment No. 1.
The additional data and information would include: (1) the number of
locations with an inspection completed between January 1 of the
first Pilot Year and the day before the effective date of the Pilot;
(2) the number of locations referenced in item (1) that were
inspected remotely between January 1 of the first Pilot Year and the
day before the effective date of the Pilot; and (3) the number of
locations referenced in item (1) that were inspected on-site between
January 1 of first Pilot Year and the day before the effective date
of the Pilot. In addition, Amendment No. 1 imposed two new
obligations to collect and produce data and information to FINRA.
Specifically, participating member firms would also be required to
collect and provide to FINRA the following: (4) the number of
locations referenced in item (2) where findings were identified, the
number of those findings, and a list of the significant findings;
and (5) the number of locations referenced in item (3) where
findings were identified, the number of those findings, and a list
of the significant findings.
    \232\ See Notice at 28632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change should provide FINRA with a fuller picture
of the nature, amount, and outcomes of the inspections conducted by
participating member firms and allow FINRA to aggregate the data and
information provided with the quarterly data received during the Pilot
to obtain a full picture of inspections completed for the entire
calendar year. More specifically, the requirement to provide this
additional data and information to FINRA should help address the
potential gap of time that would result in FINRA lacking complete data
if the first year of the Pilot is less than a full calendar year. The
data and information should also provide FINRA with useful information
regarding those remote inspections conducted under the temporary relief
of FINRA Rule 3110.17 if those inspections are completed between
January 1 and the day before the effective date of the Pilot.
Therefore, the proposed data and information collection should improve
FINRA's ability to assess the effectiveness of the Pilot during its
pendency. For these reasons, the proposed data and information
collection provision is reasonable.
3. Additional Data and Information for Calendar Year 2019
    As originally proposed, the proposed rule change would have
required that a participating member firm collect and provide to FINRA
data about inspections completed in 2019.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(3). The data and information
would include: (1) the number of locations with an inspection
completed during calendar year 2019; and (2) the number of locations
referenced in item (1) where findings were identified, the number of
those findings, and a list of the most significant findings. Id. As
originally proposed, the proposed rule change required a list of the
``most significant findings,'' which FINRA amended to ``significant
findings.'' See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter expressed support for the collection of 2019 data,
stating that it would ``significantly enhance'' FINRA's ability to more
broadly judge the efficacy of remote supervisions.\234\ Two other
commenters similarly acknowledged the value in obtaining this data and
information from participating member firms, but raised concerns that
some member firms may no longer maintain inspection reports from 2019
since inspection reports are generally only required to be maintained
for a period of three years.\235\ These two commenters stated that a
member firm should not be excluded from participation in the Pilot if
it is unable to provide the 2019 data to FINRA, despite having complied
with the applicable record retention requirement. Instead, they
recommended that FINRA amend the proposed rule change to require
participating member firms to collect and provide to FINRA the 2019
data ``if available in the firm's records'' and to require member firms
to make a ``best efforts'' attempt to collect it.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ NASAA I at 8.
    \235\ See CAI at 3; FSI at 4-5. Both commenters cite FINRA Rule
3010(c)(2), which states: ``An inspection and review by a member . .
. must be reduced to a written report and kept on file by the member
for a minimum of three years, unless the inspection is [of a non-
branch location] and the regular periodic schedule is longer than a
three-year cycle, in which case the report must be kept on file at
least until the next inspection report has been written.''
    \236\ FSI at 5; see also CAI at 3 (``[T]here is concern that the
requirement to provide such information from 2019 may exclude
certain firms from being able to participate since they may not be
able to provide information for 2019 inspections.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA amended the proposed rule change to require

participating member firms to ``act in good faith using best efforts''
to collect and provide the 2019 data to FINRA (``good faith
exception'').\237\ As such, FINRA stated that if a participating member
firm is unable to provide these data, the member firm would not
necessarily be precluded from participating in the Pilot. FINRA
acknowledged that not all member firms will have maintained the 2019
data, but strongly encouraged firms that plan to participate in the
Pilot to retain their 2019 data, as it would enhance the value of the
Pilot for any future rulemaking regarding remote inspections.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(h)(3); see also Amendment No. 1.
    \238\ FINRA Response to Comments I at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter opposed this amendment to the proposed rule change,
stating that it was insufficient. This commenter recommended that FINRA
further amend the proposed rule change to require any member firm
seeking to avail itself of this exception to ``document the precise
steps in support of [its] `best efforts in good faith' '' to recover
its 2019 data.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ NASAA II at 4 (reasoning that it is unlikely an exception
is needed because firms routinely retain data for far longer than is
required by rule; however, if FINRA keeps this exception, the
commenter's suggested language would help protect the integrity of
the Pilot against firms that are ``slipshod'' in their document
retention (or are actively seeking to evade the Pilot
requirements)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA stated that because the concepts of ``good
faith'' and ``best efforts'' are commonly understood legal standards,
there is no need to require a participating member firm to document the
steps it took to recover its 2019 data.\240\ Furthermore, FINRA stated
that while some participating member firms may keep their inspection
reports beyond the minimum rule-based retention period, they are not
required to do so.\241\ Thus, FINRA declined to amend the proposed rule
change.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ See FINRA Response to Comments II at 10.
    \241\ Id.
    \242\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is reasonable and should help ensure that
FINRA has the data and information it needs to best meet a key
objective for the Pilot--to determine the effectiveness of the Pilot.
Since 2019 is the last full calendar year that member firms were
required to include an on-site visit in their inspections, the 2019
data should represent a baseline of data about on-site inspections
against which FINRA could measure changes due to using remote
inspections. Specifically, the proposed rule change would enable FINRA
to compare the 2019 data with the quarterly data that would be
collected during the Pilot to identify and assess any differences. Some
participating member firms may not have maintained 2019 inspection
reports beyond the time period required by FINRA Rule 3110(c)(2) and
such member firms should not be excluded from participating in the
Pilot for that reason. As such, FINRA reasonably determined that such
member firms may continue to participate if they act in good faith
using best efforts to provide the data and information in order to
maintain a level of accountability and mitigate concerns that a
participating member firm would purposely withhold this information.

H. Other Safeguards and Limitations Provisions

1. Length of Pilot
    As stated above, under the proposed rule change the Pilot would
expire three years after its effective date. FINRA stated that it
believes the Pilot would provide FINRA the appropriate amount of time
and population sample to better evaluate the use of remote inspections
in the current hybrid work environment.\243\ No commenter expressly
supported or objected to these proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ See Notice at 28635.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed length of the Pilot should suffice to allow FINRA to
evaluate the efficacy of the Pilot, and to consider any adjustments as
necessary. For these reasons, the scope of the Pilot provision is
reasonable.
2. Method of Pilot Participation
    As stated above, the proposed rule change would set forth the
process for opting in and out of the Pilot.\244\ FINRA stated that it
believes the proposed process would lend continuity to the data and
information collected during the Pilot.\245\ No commenter expressly
supported or objected to these proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(i). A member firm seeking to
participate would be required to provide FINRA an opt-in notice at
least five calendar days before the beginning of the Pilot Year and
agree to participate and comply with the Pilot requirements for the
duration of such Pilot Year. A participating member firm would be
deemed to have elected and agreed to participate in the Pilot in
subsequent Pilot Years until the Pilot expires. To opt out, a
participating member firm would need to provide FINRA with notice at
least five calendar days before the end of the current Pilot Year.
    \245\ See Notice at 28633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed process for opting in and out of the Pilot is
reasonable and should help FINRA obtain consistent data and information
from participating member firms, helping it assess the Pilot's
effectiveness. Specifically, setting minimum commitments for
participation and requiring a set time period for opting out should
help ensure that FINRA will receive a full set of data from any
participating member firm for any given Pilot Year. In addition, such
commitments should help safeguard against a participating member firm
trying to exit the Pilot in order to avoid submitting problematic data
or complying with other conditions in the Pilot. For these reasons, the
Pilot participation provision is reasonable.
3. Failure To Satisfy Conditions and Determination of Ineligibility
    As stated above, the proposed rule change would deem a
participating member firm that failed to satisfy the safeguards and
limitations of the Pilot, including the requirement to timely collect
and submit data, ineligible to participate in the Pilot, thus requiring
it to conduct on-site inspections of each location.\246\ In addition,
as stated above, the proposed rule change would give FINRA discretion
to make a determination in the public interest and for the protection
of investors that a member firm is no longer eligible to participate in
the Pilot if the member firm fails to comply with the Pilot's
requirements.\247\ FINRA stated that it proposed this second provision
to address concerns regarding allowing FINRA to more effectively assess
whether particular member firms pose a higher risk when monitoring for
compliance with the Pilot.\248\ Specifically, FINRA stated that the
proposed rule change would permit FINRA to exclude higher risk firms
and locations that were not otherwise excluded from participation by
the Pilot's other safeguards and limitations.\249\ No commenter
expressly supported or objected to these proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(j).
    \247\ See proposed Rule 3110.18(k).
    \248\ See Notice at 28633; see also, e.g., letter from Melanie
Senter Lubin, President, NASAA, to J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary, Commission, regarding FINRA-2022-021, dated
August 23, 2022, at 8-9 (relaying concerns regarding FINRA's ability
to monitor the Pilot).
    \249\ See Notice at 28633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot's safeguards and limitations, discussed herein, are
reasonable and should help reduce the potential risk of non-compliance
among member firms participating in the Pilot. Member firms who fail to
satisfy the conditions of the Pilot should not be eligible to
participate in the Pilot or conduct remote inspections and should be
required to conduct all inspections on-site. Additionally, FINRA would
have the flexibility to address situations

where a participating member firm may pose a heightened risk of non-
compliance but has not been otherwise excluded by the safeguards and
limitations of the Pilot. For these reasons, proposed Rule 3110.18(j)
and proposed Rule 3110.18(k) are reasonable.

III. Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, which requires, among other
things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act \251\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2023-007),
as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25886 Filed 11-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56835-56836]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22551]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-9647; 34-73131; File No. 265-28]

Investor Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-
Frank Investor Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory
Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice
that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit
written statements to the Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, October 9, 2014 from 10:00
a.m. until 4:00 p.m. (EDT). Written statements should be received on or
before October 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. The
meeting will be Webcast on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.
Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Statements

     Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an email message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File No. 265-28 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

     Send paper statements to Kevin M. O'Neill, Deputy
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. 265-28. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method.
    Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1580,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Sharma, Senior Special Counsel,
Office of the Investor Advocate, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public,
except during portions of the meeting reserved for meetings of the
Committee's subcommittees. Persons needing special accommodations to
take part because of a disability should notify the contact person
listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a
discussion of a recommendation of the Investor as Purchaser
subcommittee and Investor Education subcommittee on the definition of
accredited investor; a discussion of a recommendation of the Investor
as Owner subcommittee on impartiality in the disclosure of preliminary
voting results; an update on possible recommendations of the Market
Structure subcommittee on the settlement cycle; a briefing by
Commission staff on municipal finance bond market transparency; a
discussion of issuer adoption of fee-shifting bylaws for intra-
corporate litigation (which may include presentations by outside
experts and/or Commission staff); and nonpublic subcommittee meetings.

    Dated: September 17, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-22551 Filed 9-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 24, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74860-74861]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31341 Amdt. No. 3931]

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 November 24, 2020. 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 November 24, 2020.

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, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

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

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

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

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in

the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97;

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 13, 2020.
Wade Terrell,
Aviation Safety Manager, Flight Procedures & Airspace Group Flight
Technologies and Procedures Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

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

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

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

Effective 31 December 2020

Courtland, AL, Courtland, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 1B, CANCELLED
Bentonville, AR, Bentonville Muni/Louise M Thaden Field, VOR-A, Amdt
14, CANCELLED
Defuniak Springs, FL, 54J, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1B
Defuniak Springs, FL, 54J, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 2A
Orlando, FL, Kissimmee Gateway, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Mc Rae, GA, Telfair-Wheeler, NDB RWY 21, Amdt 10A, CANCELLED
Montezuma, GA, 53A, NDB RWY 18, Amdt 2A, CANCELLED
Marion, IL, KMWA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1D
Marion, IL, KMWA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1D
Minneapolis, MN, KMIC, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig
Minneapolis, MN, KMIC, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14L, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Minneapolis, MN, KMIC, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig
Minneapolis, MN, Crystal, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Minneapolis, MN, KMIC, VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 9E, CANCELLED
Laconia, NH, Laconia Muni, NDB RWY 8, Amdt 9B, CANCELLED
Rochester, NH, KDAW, NDB RWY 33, Amdt 4D
Memphis, TN, General Dewitt Spain, VOR RWY 17, Orig-B, CANCELLED
Millington, TN, Charles W Baker, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 2A, CANCELLED

    Rescinded: On November 02, 2020 (85 FR 69149), the FAA published
an Amendment in Docket No. 31337 Amdt No. 3927, to Part 97 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.35. The following
entry for Petersburg, WV, effective October 16, 2020, is hereby
rescinded in its entirety:

Petersburg, WV, W99, COPTER RNAV (GPS) X RWY 31, Orig-A

[FR Doc. 2020-25767 Filed 11-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P