[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68840-68841]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21898]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 35026; 812-15497]

Baseline CRE Income Fund and Baseline Partners, LLC

September 28, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from sections
18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of
the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an
order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the
Act.
    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit
certain registered closed-end investment companies to issue multiple
classes of shares and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service
fees and early withdrawal charges.
    Applicants: Baseline CRE Income Fund and Baseline Partners, LLC.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 17, 2023, and
amended on September 5, 2023.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October
23, 2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the
Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Gregory Davis, Esq., Ropes & Gray LLP, [email protected], and
George B. Raine, Esq., Ropes & Gray LLP, [email protected];
with a copy to Patrick Cardon, Baseline Partners, LLC,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trace W. Rakestraw, Senior Special
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of Investment Management, Chief
Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application,
dated September 5, 2023, which may be obtained via the Commission's
website by searching for the file number at the top of this document,
or for an Applicant using the Company name search field on the SEC's
EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also
call

the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21898 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 49570]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21389]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4388-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Montana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Montana (FEMA-4388-DR), dated August 30, 2018, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 18, 2018.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Montana is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 30, 2018.
    Petroleum County for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-21389 Filed 10-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-11-P


[Federal Register: February 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 9336-9337]
[DOCID:fr23fe06-51]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-OW-8035-9]

Notice of Availability of Final Recommended Aquatic Life Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Diazinon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
availability of final recommended aquatic life ambient water quality
criteria for diazinon. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to
develop and publish, and from time to time revise, recommended criteria
for water accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. These
criteria provide EPA's recommendations to states and authorized tribes
as they establish their water quality standards as state or tribal law
or regulation. An EPA ambient water quality criterion does not
substitute for EPA regulations, nor is it a regulation. It does not
impose legally binding requirements on the EPA, states, authorized
tribes or the regulated community. State and tribal decision makers
have discretion to adopt approaches that differ from EPA's guidance.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the criteria document entitled, Ambient Aquatic
Life Water Quality Criteria for Diazinon--Final (EPA-822-F-05-001) may
be obtained from EPA's Water Resource Center by phone at (202) 566-
1729, or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by conventional
mail to: EPA Water Resource Center, 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. You can also download the document from
EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/diazinon/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Stevens, U.S. EPA, Office of
Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division (4304T), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Interested Entities

    Entities potentially interested in today's notice are those that
produce, use, or regulate diazinon. Categories and entities interested
in today's notice include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Examples of interested
                 Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/Local/Tribal Government.............  Water Quality Officials.
Insecticide Producers.....................  U.S. and International
                                             Chemical Companies.
Insecticide Users.........................  Growers of fruit, vegetable,
                                             nut, and ornamental crops.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in this
notice. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is aware could
potentially be interested in this notice. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be interested.

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

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for the
diazinon final recommended ambient aquatic life water quality criteria
under Docket ID No. OW-2003-0062. The official public docket also
consists of the draft criteria document, and scientific views received.
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA

Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-
2426. To view these documents and materials, please call ahead to
schedule an appointment. Every user is entitled to copy 266 pages per
day before incurring a charge. The Docket may charge 15 cents a page
for each page over the 266-page limit plus an administrative fee of
$25.00.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. Background and Today's Notice

A. What Are Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria?

    An EPA recommended water quality criterion is a level of a
pollutant or other measurable substance in water that, when met, will
protect aquatic life and/or human health. Section 304(a) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to develop and publish and, from time to
time, revise recommended water quality criteria to accurately reflect
the latest scientific knowledge. Water quality criteria developed under
section 304(a) provide guidance to states and tribes in adopting water
quality criteria into their water quality standards under section
303(c). Once adopted by a state or tribe, the water quality standards
then are a basis for developing regulatory controls on the discharge or
release of pollutants. EPA's section 304(a) criteria also provide a
scientific basis for EPA to develop any necessary federal water quality
regulations under section 303(c) of the CWA.
    The recommended criteria in today's notice are based on the factors
specified in section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, including the kind
and extent of effects of the pollutant on human health and aquatic
organisms. EPA's recommended criteria are used by states and tribes in
developing their regulatory criteria under section 303(c) of the CWA.
Under the Clean Water Act, regulatory criteria must protect the
designated use, independent of the economic and technical feasibility
of meeting the criteria. Economic and technical feasibility factors are
considered by states and tribes when they adopt designated uses into
their water quality standards under section 303(c) of the Act and when
states, tribes, and EPA consider variance requests for regulatory
controls. Moreover, states and tribes may also consider alternative
scientifically-defensible approaches to adopting criteria into their
water quality standards.

B. What Is Diazinon and Why Are We Concerned About It?

    Diazinon is an organophosphorus pesticide traditionally used
throughout the U.S. to control insects in agricultural areas,
households and urban settings. However, as of December 31, 2004, all
residential uses of diazinon products in the United States have been
phased out or cancelled.
    Diazinon is mobile and moderately persistent in the environment.
Due to its chemical properties and widespread

use, diazinon is frequently found in effluents from wastewater
treatment plants and in storm water runoff in both urban and
agricultural areas. Diazinon is toxic to aquatic life, particularly
invertebrates. For these reasons, EPA has developed aquatic life
ambient water quality criteria to protect against adverse effects of
diazinon.

C. What Are the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for
Diazinon?

Freshwater
    Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the:
    One-hour average concentration of diazinon does not exceed 0.17
micrograms per liter more than once every three years on the average
(Acute Criterion), and
    Four-day average concentration of diazinon does not exceed 0.17
micrograms per liter more than once every three years on the average
(Chronic Criterion).
Saltwater
    Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the:
    One-hour average concentration of diazinon does not exceed 0.82
micrograms per liter more than once every three years on the average
(Acute Criterion), and
    Four-day average concentration of diazinon does not exceed 0.82
micrograms per liter more than once every three years on the average
(Chronic Criterion).

D. Why Is EPA Notifying the Public About the Final Diazinon Ambient
Water Quality Criteria?

    On December 31, 2003, EPA notified the public that draft aquatic
life criteria for diazinon were available and solicited scientific
views on those criteria (68 FR 75555). Based on data and information
submitted, EPA revised the draft criteria and is now making the final
aquatic life criteria recommendations. While these criteria
recommendations do not, in themselves, impose any requirements, states
and authorized tribes can use them to develop water quality standards.

E. What New Data and Changes Have Been Included in the Final Criteria
Recommendations?

    New data on the toxicity of diazinon to the invertebrate species,
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus, were submitted to EPA during the comment and
scientific view period (Hall and Anderson 2004). These new data were
reviewed per EPA's Guidelines for deriving numerical national water
quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses
(Stephan et al., 1985) and found to be acceptable. These data were
included in the data set used to derive the final acute freshwater
criteria in Table 1 of the final criteria document.
    Comparison of the new data for the Gammarus pseudolimnaeus to
existing data for another species in the genus Gammarus (Gammarrus
faciatus) showed a range in sensitivity between the two species in the
genus. Furthermore, the apparent sensitivity of Gammarus faciatus was
notably greater than other invertebrate species. Based on these
findings, EPA requested a review of the original G. faciatus toxicity
test data by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) laboratory where the
original testing was conducted. The USGS review of the Gammarus
faciatus toxicity test documentation revealed that the acute toxicity
values reported for the test, both in the original publication (Johnson
and Finley, 1980) and in a subsequent compilation publication (Mayer
and Ellersick, 1986) were in error. The USGS advised EPA, in writing,
that the acute LC50 for Gammarus faciatus should be reported as 2.0
micrograms per liter, not as 0.2 micrograms per liter (Ingersoll,
2004). This correction in the acute toxicity LC50 for Gammarus faciatus
is included in Table 1 of EPA's final criteria document.
    The addition of the new toxicity data for Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
and the change to the toxicity data for Gammarus faciatus result in a
change in the genus mean acute value (GMAV) for Gammarus from 0.2
micrograms per liter to 5.8 micrograms per liter (see Table 1 and 3 in
the final criteria document). The new data and correction also change
the rank order of the GMAVs (Gammarus GMAV rank changes from 1 to 4)
and, ultimately, the final recommended acute freshwater criteria value,
from 0.10 micrograms per liter to 0.17 micrograms per liter.
    Based on scientific views received and additional internal review,
EPA also changed the final chronic saltwater criterion. In the draft
criteria document, the saltwater Final Chronic Value (FCV), derived
using the procedures outlined in the Guidelines, was 0.82 micrograms
per liter. However, the saltwater FCV value was lowered to the Species
Mean Chronic Value (SMCV) of the sheepshead minnow on the basis of it
being a commercially or recreationally important species. EPA received
scientific views indicating that while sheepshead minnow is an
ecologically important species, it is not recognized as recreationally
or commercially important. Consideration of these views resulted in
EPA's conclusion that use of the SMCV as the basis of the saltwater
criterion is unwarranted. Thus, the final saltwater species four-day
average concentration of diazinon is based on the Final Chronic Value
calculated by dividing the Final Acute Value (1.64 micrograms per
liter) by the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio (2.0). Reconsideration of the
sheepshead minnow data changes the final recommended chronic saltwater
criteria value from 0.40 micrograms per liter to 0.82 micrograms per
liter.

References

Hall, L.W. and R.D. Anderson. 2004. Acute Toxicity of Diazinon to the
Amphipod, Gammarus pseudolimnaeus. University of Maryland, Agricultural
Experiment Station, Queenstown, MD.
Ingersoll, C. 2004. Diazinon toxicity data for Gammarus fasciatus
reported in Johnson and Finley (1980) and in Mayer and Ellersieck
(1986). Letter dated October 5, 2004 from U.S. Department of the
Interior to E.V. Ohanian, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Johnson, W.W. and M.T. Finley. 1980. Handbook of acute toxicity of
chemicals to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Resource Publication 137.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Mayer, F.L. Jr. and M.R. Ellersick, 1986. Manual of acute toxicity:
Interpretation and data base for 410 chemicals and 66 species of
freshwater animals. Resource Publication No. 160, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman and
W.A. Brungs. 1985. Guidelines for deriving numerical national water
quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their
uses. PB85-227049. National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
VA.

    Dated: February 15, 2006.
Ephraim S. King,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
 [FR Doc. E6-2557 Filed 2-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 164 (Friday, August 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 48292]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2018-0100]

Petition for Extension of Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on July 27, 2021, Norfolk
Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for an amendment of a waiver of compliance from
certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained
at 49 CFR part 232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other
Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices. The relevant
FRA Docket Number is FRA-2018-0100.
    Specifically, NS requests to amend an existing waiver from the
requirements of 49 CFR 232.203, Training requirements, to allow
electronic air brake test refresher training via customized simulation
software in place of hands-on training. The current waiver applies to
conductors and supervisors and is limited to an 18-month pilot program
for freight car repair personnel reporting for duty at Birmingham,
Alabama; Elkhart, Indiana; Enola, Pennsylvania; Kansas City, Missouri;
Macon, Georgia; Norfolk, Virginia; and Portsmouth, Ohio.
    As the pilot period has concluded, NS requests to amend the waiver
to allow electronic air brake test training as an optional replacement
for hands-on training for refresher training of freight car repair
personnel on the entire NS system. In support of its request, NS states
that (1) all personnel intended for inclusion have already received
electronic training; (2) feedback from electronically-trained personnel
has been positive; (3) delivering training electronically achieves
safety benefits; and (4) NS has improved the training since the
original pilot waiver was granted.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by October 12, 2021 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic
form of any written communications and comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to
better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-18509 Filed 8-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29353]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11435]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties From All Terms,
Conditions, Reservations and Restrictions of a Quitclaim Deed Agreement
Between City of Tallahassee and the Federal Aviation Administration for
the Tallahassee International Airport, Tallahassee, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release certain
airport properties 44.66 acres at the Tallahassee International
Airport, Tallahassee, FL from the conditions, reservations, and
restrictions as contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA
and the City of Tallahassee, dated March 14, 1990. The release of
property will allow the City of Tallahassee to dispose of the property
for non-aeronautical purposes. The City of Tallahassee requests the
release of a 44.66 acre tract located along Capital Circle SW in
Tallahassee, Florida to facilitate the widening of State Road 263 for
municipal development. This capital improvement project is funded by
the Florida Department of Transportation. The parcel is currently
designated as aeronautical property. The property will be released of
its federal obligations given the land is no longer required by The
City of Tallahassee. The Fair Market Value (FMV) of this parcel has
been determined to be $2,020,050.00.
    Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by
appointment only, for inspection at the Tallahassee International
Airport and the FAA Airports District Office.

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.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the Tallahassee
International Airport, 3300 Capital Circle SW, Suite One, Tallahassee,
FL 32310-8732 and the FAA Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark
Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, FL 32819-9058. Written comments on the
Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Stephen Wilson,
Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 8427 South Park
Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, FL 32819-9058.
    In addition, a copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Eric Houge, Airport Engineer, Tallahassee
International Airport, 3300 Capital Circle SW, Suite One, Tallahassee,
FL 32310-8732.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Wilson, Program Manager, (407)
487-7229, Orlando Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle,
Suite 524, Orlando, FL 32819-9058.

    Issued in Orlando, FL on May 26, 2021.
Bartholomew Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.

    Revision Date 11/22/00.
[FR Doc. 2021-11435 Filed 5-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12007-12010]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05042]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0300]

John D. Noonan; Denial of Hearing; Final Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is denying a request
for a hearing submitted by Dr. John D. Noonan (Dr. Noonan), and is
issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) debarring Dr. Noonan for 2 years from providing services in
any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product
application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Dr. Noonan was
convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal law for conduct relating to
the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act and that the type
of conduct underlying the conviction undermines the process for the
regulation of drugs. In determining the appropriateness and period of
Dr. Noonan's debarment, FDA has considered the relevant factors listed
in the FD&C Act. Dr. Noonan has failed to file with the Agency
information and analyses sufficient to create a basis for a hearing
concerning this action.

DATES: The order is effective March 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Doty, Office of Scientific
Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 11, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District

of New York, Dr. Noonan, a physician, pled guilty to a misdemeanor
under the FD&C Act, namely misbranding a drug in violation of sections
301(k), 502(i)(3) and 303(a)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(k),
352(i)(3), 333(a)(1)) and 18 U.S.C. 2. The basis for this conviction
was conduct surrounding his injection of patients seeking treatment
with BOTOX/BOTOX Cosmetic (BOTOX) with a product, TRI-toxin,
distributed by Toxin Research International, Inc. BOTOX is a biological
product derived from Botulinum Toxin Type A that is manufactured by
Allergan, Inc., and was approved by FDA for use on humans for the
treatment of facial wrinkles in 1991. According to the records of the
criminal proceedings, Dr. Noonan's colleague in the same medical
practice, The Plastic Surgery Group (TPSG), directed a nurse to obtain
31 vials of TRI-toxin, an unapproved drug product, which was
represented by its distributor as ``Botulinum Toxin Type A.'' Dr.
Noonan then proceeded to inject approximately 10 patients, who believed
they were being injected with BOTOX, with TRI-toxin as a substitute.
    Dr. Noonan is subject to debarment based on a finding, under
section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
335a(b)(2)(B)(i)(I)): (1) That he was convicted of a misdemeanor under
Federal law relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C
Act and (2) that the type of conduct underlying the conviction
undermines the process for the regulation of drugs. By notice to Dr.
Noonan dated November 30, 2010, FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs
(ORA) proposed to debar him for 4 years from providing services in any
capacity to a person having an approved or pending drug product
application.
    In a letter dated December 30, 2010, through counsel, Dr. Noonan
requested a hearing on the proposal. In his request for a hearing, Dr.
Noonan acknowledges his conviction under Federal law, as alleged by
FDA. By letter dated January 28, 2011, Dr. Noonan submitted materials
and arguments in support of his request. Dr. Noonan acknowledges that
he was convicted of a Federal misdemeanor, as found in the proposal to
debar, but argues that he should not be debarred for reasons related to
the factual basis set forth in the proposal to debar. In particular,
with respect to the considerations for determining the appropriateness
and period of debarment under section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act, he
argues that there are genuine and substantial issues of fact for
resolution at a hearing, namely factual issues bearing on whether he
participated in or even knew of certain conduct that resulted in his
violation of the FD&C Act.
    Hearings are granted only if there is a genuine and substantial
issue of fact. Hearings will not be granted on issues of policy or law,
on mere allegations, denials, or general descriptions of positions and
contentions, or on data and information insufficient to justify the
factual determination urged or the action requested (see 21 CFR
12.24(b)).
    The Chief Scientist has considered Dr. Noonan's arguments, as well
as the proposal to debar itself, and concludes that, although Dr.
Noonan has failed to raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact
requiring a hearing, the appropriate period of debarment is 2 years.

II. Arguments

    In support of his hearing request, Dr. Noonan first asserts that he
is not subject to debarment under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the
FD&C Act. He contends that he pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of
the FD&C Act (see section 303(a)(1)), which is a strict liability
offense, and that thus there was no demonstration or admission of
criminal intent or knowledge underlying the conviction. Dr. Noonan
concludes, therefore, that the conduct underlying his conviction did
not undermine the process for the regulation of drugs.
    Section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act specifically provides
for the debarment of individuals convicted of Federal misdemeanors
related to the regulation of drug products under the FD&C Act. Given
that misdemeanor violations of the FD&C Act themselves are strict
liability offenses, it stands to reason that criminal intent is not a
critical component to debar an individual under section
306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I). During his criminal proceedings, Dr. Noonan pled
guilty to misbranding and causing the misbranding of a drug in
violation of sections 301(k), 502(i)(3) and 303(a)(1) of the FD&C Act
by offering an unapproved drug, TRI-toxin, for sale as an approved drug
product, BOTOX. Dr. Noonan's conduct undermined the process for the
regulation of drugs in that it permitted an unapproved drug to be
substituted for an approved drug without the knowledge of the patient.
As a result, Dr. Noonan is, in fact, subject to debarment under section
306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act.
    Dr. Noonan next challenges the manner in which ORA applied the
considerations under section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act in determining
the appropriateness and period of his debarment. In the proposal to
debar Dr. Noonan, ORA stated that there are four applicable
considerations under section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act: (1) The nature
and seriousness of his offense under section 306(c)(3)(A); (2) the
nature and extent of management participation in the offense under
section 306(c)(3)(B); (3) the nature and extent of voluntary steps
taken to mitigate the impact on the public under section 306(c)(3)(C);
and (4) prior convictions involving matters within the jurisdiction of
FDA under section 306(c)(3)(F). ORA found with respect to Dr. Noonan
that the first two considerations weigh in favor of debarment and noted
that the third and fourth considerations would be treated as favorable
factors for him. In making all of its findings under section 306(c)(3)
of the FD&C Act, ORA characterized Dr. Noonan's conduct based on
records from his criminal proceedings.
    Under section 306(c)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act, in determining the
appropriateness and period of debarment, FDA considers ``the nature and
seriousness of the offense involved.'' In the proposal to debar, ORA
relied on the criminal information to which Dr. Noonan pled guilty to
find that the conduct underlying his convictions:

created a risk of injury to consumers due to the use of an
unapproved drug, undermined [FDA's] oversight of an approved drug
product by representing that [he] used the approved drug while
actually substituting an unapproved drug in its place, and seriously
undermined the integrity of [FDA's] regulation of drug products.

Under section 306(c)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act, ORA also considered the
``nature and extent of [Dr. Noonan's] management participation in the
offense'' and specifically found that he was a corporate principal who
``pleaded guilty to misbranding TRI-toxin'' and ``participated in the
[TPSG's] unlawful conduct of administering [an] unapproved drug on
multiple occasions to patients.'' ORA concluded, therefore, that the
nature and seriousness of Noonan's offenses and the nature and extent
of management participation were unfavorable factors with respect to
him.
    Dr. Noonan counters ORA's findings with respect to those two
considerations in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act with the following
arguments: (1) That he did not admit any criminal intent or intentional
wrongdoing when he pled guilty to a misdemeanor offense under the FD&C
Act; (2) that, in fact, another physician at TPSG took unilateral
action in ordering the TRI-toxin and directing a nurse to substitute it
for BOTOX; (3) that the TRI-toxin vials that they used for injecting
patients with TRI-toxin

were identical to the vials he used for BOTOX before the substitution;
and (4) that since the conviction for the underlying misdemeanor was of
an individual, that there was no management participation and that,
thus, the nature and extent of management participation is inapplicable
as a factor in determining appropriateness and period of debarment. Dr.
Noonan concedes that he pled guilty to the misdemeanor offense because
he was, in fact, guilty of offering TRI-toxin for sale to their
patients as BOTOX. He argues, however, that the criminal records do not
establish any intent or knowledge on his part and that thus the conduct
underlying his conviction does not warrant debarment in light of the
considerations in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act.
    As noted previously, ORA relied on the records of Dr. Noonan's
criminal proceedings for its findings in the proposal to debar. There
is nothing definitive in the criminal records before FDA to contradict
Dr. Noonan's assertions with respect to the nature of his involvement
in the misdemeanor offense to which he pled guilty. The criminal
information to which Dr. Noonan pled guilty alleges that TPSG, as
opposed to Dr. Noonan, began ordering TRI-toxin for use in the medical
practice, and there are no allegations that Dr. Noonan took part in the
ordering process. Indeed, the proposal to debar states that, as claimed
by Dr. Noonan, another physician in the practice, William F. DeLuca,
Jr., was responsible for authorizing a nurse to substitute TRI-toxin
for BOTOX, not Dr. Noonan. At Dr. Noonan's sentencing hearing, at which
six other codefendants, including DeLuca, were also sentenced, the
presiding judge also made clear that he believed DeLuca was the
physician responsible for making the ``mistake'' that led to the other
physician's offenses. In addressing DeLuca, the court stated:

And we're here because of your actions and inactions. As I said,
your mistakes were different in kind and degree from those of your
colleagues. It was you who brought this drug into the practice, and
it was your conduct and your failure to check out either the company
or the drug that you were ordering, as you should have done, your
negligence in doing that that has brought us here today in the end.

In addressing Dr. Noonan, the court further stated: ``There have been
disputes on how in the past over who knew what and at what point in
time. It is clear from the facts in this case that you had no knowledge
that the substance was anything other than [BOTOX] until your discovery
of it in November of 2004.''
    In short, consistent with the proposal to debar Dr. Noonan for 4
years, the records of his criminal proceedings establish that the
misdemeanor convictions for the physicians in TPSG other than DeLuca
were not based on any affirmative involvement in ordering the TRI-toxin
or substituting the TRI-toxin for BOTOX. Furthermore, in proposing to
debar Dr. Noonan for 4 years, ORA did not rely on any findings with
respect to Dr. Noonan's intent or knowledge. Rather, citing the records
of Dr. Noonan's criminal proceedings, the proposal to debar simply
rests on Dr. Noonan's position of authority within TPSG and his conduct
in misbranding TRI-toxin by administering it to patients who believed
they were receiving BOTOX. As a result, under Sec.  12.24(b), there is
no genuine and substantial issue of fact raised by Dr. Noonan's
arguments for resolution at a hearing.
    As set forth in the proposal to debar and summarized previously,
Dr. Noonan pled guilty to a misdemeanor under the FD&C Act for his role
in offering a drug under the name of another. Based on the undisputed
record before the Agency, the consideration in section 306(c)(3)(A) of
the FD&C Act with respect to the nature and seriousness of the offense
involved is a favorable factor. As reflected in the records of the
criminal proceedings, Dr. Noonan's offense did not rest on any intent
or knowledge of wrongdoing on his part, nor may such intent or
knowledge be inferred from the circumstances of his offense or the
findings in the proposal to debar. Although, as a practicing physician,
Dr. Noonan should be expected to take the appropriate steps to avoid
administering an unapproved new drug to patients or misrepresenting the
drug being administered, his failure to do so over a 10-month period
does not warrant considering the nature and seriousness of his offense
as an unfavorable factor, relative to the range of conduct that might
underlie a Federal misdemeanor conviction.
    On the other hand, because of Dr. Noonan's position of authority
within TPSG and, thus, presumed ability to prevent the series of events
that resulted in the offense underlying his misdemeanor conviction, the
nature and extent of management participation in the offense is an
unfavorable factor, for the purposes of the consideration under
306(c)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act. Dr. Noonan asserts that there was no
management participation, and that, thus, this factor is inapplicable
because the underlying conviction was of an individual. However, the
criminal information to which Dr. Noonan pled guilty alleges that TPSG
began ordering TRI-toxin for use in the medical practice. It is
undisputed that Dr. Noonan is a principal in TPSG, and this is the
basis for considering the nature and extent of management participation
as a factor in determining the appropriateness and period of debarment.
FDA has relied on this factor in other debarment cases where the
underlying conviction was of an individual (see 78 FR 68455 (November
14, 2013), 77 FR 27236 (May 9, 2012)).
    The limited scope of his direct actions in committing the
underlying misdemeanor offense does not mitigate the extent of his
management participation, as established during his criminal
proceedings and as set out in the proposal to debar. It is true that
nothing in the criminal proceedings or the proposal to debar reflects
any involvement by him in the decision to order the TRI-toxin and
substitute it for BOTOX, and the proposal to debar specifically finds
that another physician authorized a nurse to place that order. However,
Dr. Noonan, as a principal of TPSG, was responsible for failing to
ensure that there were controls and procedures in place to prevent
other physicians or a nurse from ordering unapproved drugs for
administration to patients. His own admitted inaction on that front
warrants treating his management participation as an unfavorable
factor.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 673-74 (1975)
(holding that a high-level manager within a business entity bears a
responsibility to prevent and correct violations of the FD&C Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the proposal to debar, the record establishes that
the medical practice of which Dr. Noonan was a part ultimately took
voluntary steps to mitigate the effect on the public health from its
unlawful conduct (see section 306(c)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act).
Furthermore, it is undisputed that Dr. Noonan had no previous criminal
convictions related to matters within the jurisdiction of FDA (see
section 306(c)(3)(F) of the FD&C Act). Therefore, these will be treated
as favorable factors. In light of the foregoing four considerations,
one of which weighs against Dr. Noonan, debarment for 2 years is
appropriate.

III. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Chief Scientist, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of
the FD&C Act and under authority delegated to him, finds that Dr.
Noonan has been convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal law for
conduct relating to the development or approval of a drug

product or otherwise relating to the regulation of a drug product under
the FD&C Act and that the conduct underlying the conviction undermines
the regulation of drugs. FDA has considered the relevant factors listed
in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act and determined that a debarment of
2 years is appropriate.
    As a result of the foregoing findings, Dr. Noonan is debarred for 2
years from providing services in any capacity to a person with an
approved or pending drug product application under section 505, 512, or
802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see DATES)
(see 21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2)(A)(iii) and 21 U.S.C. 321(dd)).
Any person with an approved, or pending, drug product application, who
knowingly uses the services of Dr. Noonan, in any capacity during his
period of debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties. If Dr.
Noonan, during his period of debarment, provides services in any
capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product
application he will be subject to civil money penalties. In addition,
FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug applications
submitted by or with the assistance of Dr. Noonan during his period of
debarment.
    Any application by Dr. Noonan for termination of debarment under
section 306(d) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No.
FDA-2010-N-0300 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The
public availability of information in these submissions is governed by
21 CFR 10.20(j). Publicly available submissions may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain
documents in the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov/.

    Dated: February 24, 2015.
Stephen Ostroff,
Director, Office of the Chief Scientist.
[FR Doc. 2015-05042 Filed 3-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 142 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 44535]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15965]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2854-025]

City of Vidalia, Louisiana; Catalyst Old River Hydroelectric
Limited Partnership The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.,
Successor in Interest to First National Bank of Commerce of New
Orleans; Notice of Application for Partial Transfer of License and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On May 22, 2020, the City of Vidalia, Louisiana (City), Catalyst
Old River Hydroelectric Limited Partnership (Catalyst), and the Bank of
New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., not in its individual capacity,
but solely as owner trustee (Owner Trustee), successor in interest to
the original owner trustee First National Bank of Commerce of New
Orleans co-licensees, filed a joint application for partial transfer of
the license for the Old River Hydroelectric Project No. 2854. The
project is located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Old River
Control Channel, on the Mississippi and Old rivers, in Concordia
Parish, Louisiana.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to partially transfer the
license for the Old River Project from the City, Catalyst, and Owner
Trustee as co-licensees to the City and Catalyst as co-licensees. In
addition, the application includes a request for approval of an after-
the-fact partial transfers of the license from the original owner
trustee, First National Bank of Commerce of New Orleans, to the current
Owner Trustee.
    Applicants Contact: Julia S. Wood, Van Ness Feldman, LLP, 1050
Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: (202) 298-
3800, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Anumzziatta Purchiaroni,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii). Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-2854-025. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not
considered part of the Commission record.

    Dated: July 17, 2020..
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15965 Filed 7-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50135-50137]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17433]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95458; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2022-045]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Equity 7, Section 114(f)

August 9, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 28, 2022, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at
Equity 7, Section 114(f) (``Pricing Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule at Equity 7, Section 114(f) applicable to the
Designated Liquidity Provider (``DLP'') \3\ Program. The Exchange
proposes to amend certain of the market quality metrics (``MQMs'') for
rebates applicable to DLPs in Nasdaq-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Equity 7, Section 114(f)(2) defines a ``Designated Liquidity
Provider'' or ``DLP'' as a registered Nasdaq market maker for a
Qualified Security that has committed to maintain minimum
performance standards. A DLP shall be selected by Nasdaq based on
factors including, but not limited to, experience with making
markets in exchange-traded products, adequacy of capital,
willingness to promote Nasdaq as a marketplace, issuer preference,
operational capacity, support personnel, and history of adherence to
Nasdaq rules and securities laws. Nasdaq may limit the number of
DLPs in a security, or modify a previously established limit, upon
prior written notice to members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) to
revise the monthly performance criteria related to the specific rebates
provided under Equity 7, Section 114(f)(5). Specifically, the Exchange
is adding a fifth MQM that concerns auction quality requirements
(``Auction Quality Requirements''). In order for a DLP to qualify for a
DLP Standard Rebate, it will need to meet 4 of 5 of the Standard MQMs
in the assigned exchange-traded product (``ETP'') as measured by Nasdaq
to qualify for the Standard Rebate (rather than the current 4 of 4 of
the Standard MQMs). In order for a DLP to qualify for an Enhanced
Rebate, a DLP will need to meet all 5 Enhanced MQMs in the assigned ETP
as measured by Nasdaq to qualify for the Enhanced Rebate. The current
MQMs are measured on average in the assigned ETP during regular market
hours, however, the Auction Quality Requirements will be measured each
auction against the metrics set forth below.
    The Auction Quality Requirement for the Standard Rebate requires
that the auction price must be within 350 basis points (opening) and
100 basis points (closing) of the first reference price within 30
seconds prior to the market open (opening) and within 120 seconds prior
to the market close (closing). The Auction Quality Requirement for the
Enhanced Rebate requires that the auction price must be within 150
basis points (opening) and 50 basis points (closing) of the first
reference price

within 30 seconds prior to the market open (opening) and within 120
seconds prior to the market close (closing). The Exchange believes that
the Auction Quality Requirement thresholds for the Standard Rebate
outlined above are very achievable for DLPs, while the Auction Quality
Requirement thresholds for the Enhanced Rebate outlined above are
within reach for most DLPs.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) to
revise the monthly performance criteria related to secondary DLPs
(``Secondary DLPs''). Specifically, the current MQM says that the
Secondary DLP qualifies for Secondary DLP Rebates in ETPs if it meets
any 2 of the 4 Enhanced MQMs. This will be revised to say that it must
meet 2 of the Enhanced MQMs, excluding the Auction Quality Requirements
metric. In essence, this means this MQM will remain unchanged.
Description of the Changes
    This proposal amends Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) for certain of the
MQMs tied to the rebates applicable for DLPs in Nasdaq-listed
securities. The Exchange believes that these changes will encourage
DLPs to monitor orders leading up to the auctions and participate in
the auctions for Nasdaq-listed securities. As previously discussed, the
revision to the monthly performance criteria related to Secondary DLPs
in Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) is being made simply to maintain the
status quo of the MQMs for Secondary DLPs.
    Nasdaq is proposing these changes to encourage DLPs to maintain
better market quality leading up to and at the time of the opening and
closing auctions for Nasdaq-listed securities, as well as to remain
competitive with NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'') and Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe''),\4\ which have both recently added auction quality standards
for their DLP equivalents as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 92053 (May 27,
2021), 86 FR 29868 (June 3, 2021) (SR-NYSEArca-2021-43); and
Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 93616 (Nov. 19, 2021), 86 FR
67524 (Nov. 26, 2021) (SR-CboeBZX-2021-073) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposals are consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and further the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that they
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities and do not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers,
brokers or dealers. The Exchange also notes that its ETP listing
business operates in a highly-competitive market in which market
participants, which include both DLPs and ETP issuers, can readily
transfer their listings or opt not to participate, respectively, if
they deem fee levels, liquidity incentive programs, or any other factor
at a particular venue to be insufficient or excessive. The proposed
rule change reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to
incentivize issuers to list new products and transfer existing products
to the Exchange and market participants to enroll and participate as
DLPs on the Exchange, which the Exchange believes will enhance market
quality in qualified ETPs listed on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b) (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amend Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) To Revise the Monthly Performance
Criteria Related to Specific Rebates Provided Under Equity 7, Section
114(f)(5), and To Address Secondary DLPs
    The Exchange believes that amending Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) to
revise the monthly performance criteria related to the specific rebates
provided under Equity 7, Section 114(f)(5) by better aligning the
behavior required to qualify for rebates with the nature of the rebates
provided is reasonable because the Exchange must from time to time
assess the effectiveness of the incentives it provides to market
participants in return for the beneficial behavior required to receive
the incentive.
    The MQM will be changed from the current requirement to meet all 4
of 4 of the Standard MQMs to qualify for the Standard Rebate to needing
to meet 4 of 5 of the Standard MQMs in the assigned ETP as measured by
Nasdaq to qualify for the Standard Rebate. Additionally, the MQM will
be changed from the current requirement to meet all 4 of 4 of the
Enhanced MQMs to qualify for the Enhanced Rebate to needing to meet all
5 of 5 of the Enhanced MQMs in the assigned ETP as measured by Nasdaq
to qualify for the Enhanced Rebate.
    The Exchange believes that the Auction Quality Requirements for the
Standard Rebate and the Enhanced Rebate, as discussed above, are an
equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange believes that the Auction Quality Requirement thresholds for
the Standard Rebate are very achievable for DLPs, while the Auction
Quality Requirement thresholds for the Enhanced Rebate are within reach
for most DLPs.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed revisions to the MQMs for
Primary and Secondary DLPs are an equitable allocation and are not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same
criteria to all DLPs so that they can qualify for rebates that are
available to all qualifying members and that reward meaningful quote
quality and liquidity in ETPs. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed revisions to the MQMs for Primary and Secondary DLPs are an
equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory among Exchange
members because any member may become a market maker and take the steps
necessary to also become a DLP, including meeting the proposed minimum
criteria under Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4).\7\ The DLP Program is
limited to Exchange market makers because of their unique role in the
markets, including their obligation to provide liquidity in the
securities in which they are registered. Thus, the DLP Program is a
further extension of the market maker's role in providing liquidity in
specific securities, to the benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange will select DLPs based on the factors in Equity
7, Section 114(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes these changes are an equitable
allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is
proposing these changes to the DLP Program to encourage DLPs to
maintain better market quality leading up to and at the time of the
opening and closing auctions for Nasdaq-listed securities, as well as
to remain competitive with Arca and Cboe,\8\ which have both recently
added auction quality standards for their DLP equivalents as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend Equity 7, Section
114(f)(4) to address Secondary DLPs is reasonable because it simply
maintains the status quo of the MQMs for Secondary DLPs.
    The Exchange also believes that amending the DLP Program as
proposed is an equitable allocation of rebates and is not unfairly
discriminatory because it will allocate its rebates fairly among its
market participants (i.e., the Exchange will pay higher rebates to DLPs
that meet higher MQMs and will pay DLPs higher fixed rebates for the
ETPs with lower ADVs).

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem rebates (this includes
the related MQMs) or fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive,
or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its
rebates (this includes the related MQMs) and fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have
been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable
to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own rebates
(this includes the related MQMs) and fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which rebate (this includes
the related MQMs) and fee changes in this market may impose any burden
on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the Exchange is proposing to modify certain of
the MQMs to qualify for the incentives provided to market makers for
participation in the DLP program in an effort to improve the program by
providing more targeted measurements to improve and increase market
quality in all ETPs.
    The Exchange uses incentives, such as the rebates of the DLP
program, to incentivize market participants to improve the market. The
Exchange must, from time to time, assess the effectiveness of
incentives (and related MQMs) and adjust them when they are not as
effective as the Exchange believes they could be. Moreover, the
Exchange is ultimately limited in the amount of rebates it may offer.
The proposed amended MQMs are reflective of such an analysis.
    The Exchange notes that participation in the DLP program is
entirely voluntary and, to the extent that registered market makers
determine that the MQMs and related rebates are not in line with the
level of market-improving behavior the Exchange requires, a DLP may
elect to deregister as such with no penalty.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes place an
unnecessary burden on competition and, in sum, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market makers, it is likely that the
Exchange will lose participation in the DLP program as a result. Thus,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposal represents a burden on
competition among Exchange members, or that the proposal will impair
the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \10\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2022-045 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2022-045. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2022-045 and should be submitted
on or before September 6, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-17433 Filed 8-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42708-42709]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-2243-000]

Lazbuddie Wind Energy 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
Lazbuddie Wind Energy 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 July 17, 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,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    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: June 27, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14049 Filed 6-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32641-32643]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11956]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31074 Amdt. No. 3694]

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

DATES: This rule is effective May 24, 2016. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 24, 2016.

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

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic

depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials.
Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and
publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA
form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections, and specifies the SIAPs and 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 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 and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific
conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in
this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    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 these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 2016.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums
and ODPs, 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:

Sec. Sec.  Sec.  97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33,
97.35  [Amended]

    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     AIRAC date          State           City             Airport         FDC No.      FDC date                           Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26-May-16...........  TX          Terrell..........  Terrell Muni.....       6/0884     04/01/16  This NOTAM, published in TL 16-11, is hereby rescinded
                                                                                in its entirety.
26-May-16...........  AK          Venetie..........  Venetie..........       5/0233     04/12/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig.
26-May-16...........  AK          Venetie..........  Venetie..........       5/0234     04/12/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig-A.
26-May-16...........  OK          Tulsa............  Richard Lloyd           5/1074     04/07/16  VOR RWY 1L, Amdt 4C.
                                                      Jones Jr.
26-May-16...........  OK          Tulsa............  Richard Lloyd           5/1075     04/07/16  ILS OR LOC RWY 1L, Amdt 1A.
                                                      Jones Jr.
26-May-16...........  OH          Toledo...........  Toledo Executive.       5/2079     04/07/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-A.
26-May-16...........  WI          Antigo...........  Langlade County..       5/4644     04/07/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 2A.
26-May-16...........  MQ          Midway Atoll.....  Henderson Field..       6/0076     03/23/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig-B.
26-May-16...........  MQ          Midway Atoll.....  Henderson Field..       6/0077     03/23/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig-B.
26-May-16...........  MQ          Midway Atoll.....  Henderson Field..       6/0078     03/23/16  NDB RWY 6, Orig-A.
26-May-16...........  MQ          Midway Atoll.....  Henderson Field..       6/0079     03/23/16  NDB RWY 24, Orig-A.
26-May-16...........  UT          St George........  St George Rgnl...       6/2270     04/01/16  LDA/DME RWY 19, Orig-B.
26-May-16...........  UT          St George........  St George Rgnl...       6/2271     04/01/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-B.
26-May-16...........  UT          St George........  St George Rgnl...       6/2272     04/01/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig-B.
26-May-16...........  UT          St George........  St George Rgnl...       6/2273     04/01/16  VOR/DME-A, Orig.
26-May-16...........  UT          St George........  St George Rgnl...       6/2274     04/01/16  Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Orig.
26-May-16...........  PA          Punxsutawney.....  Punxsutawney Muni       6/3333     04/07/16  VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1A.
26-May-16...........  PA          Punxsutawney.....  Punxsutawney Muni       6/3341     04/07/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig-A.
26-May-16...........  CA          Arcata/Eureka....  Arcata...........       6/3943     04/07/16  VOR/DME RWY 14, Amdt 1A.

26-May-16...........  ME          Norridgewock.....  Central Maine           6/6681     04/07/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig.
                                                      Arpt Of
                                                      Norridgewock.
26-May-16...........  ME          Auburn/Lewiston..  Auburn/Lewiston         6/6781     04/07/16  ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 10D.
                                                      Muni.
26-May-16...........  ME          Auburn/Lewiston..  Auburn/Lewiston         6/6782     04/07/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1.
                                                      Muni.
26-May-16...........  ME          Auburn/Lewiston..  Auburn/Lewiston         6/6783     04/07/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1A.
                                                      Muni.
26-May-16...........  IA          Muscatine........  Muscatine Muni...       6/7375     04/12/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig.
26-May-16...........  IA          Muscatine........  Muscatine Muni...       6/7376     04/12/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig.
26-May-16...........  TX          Lago Vista.......  Lago Vista TX--         6/7941     04/12/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-A.
                                                      Rusty Allen.
26-May-16...........  TX          Odessa...........  Odessa-Schlemeyer       6/8024     04/12/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig-A.
                                                      Field.
26-May-16...........  TX          Taylor...........  Taylor Muni......       6/8025     04/12/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig.
26-May-16...........  CA          Fullerton........  Fullerton Muni...       6/8243     04/07/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig-A.
26-May-16...........  CA          Fullerton........  Fullerton Muni...       6/8244     04/07/16  LOC/DME RWY 24, Orig-A.
26-May-16...........  CA          Fullerton........  Fullerton Muni...       6/8245     04/07/16  VOR-A, Amdt 7A.
26-May-16...........  OK          Miami............  Miami Muni.......       6/9238     04/12/16  Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Orig.
26-May-16...........  NY          Albany...........  Albany Intl......       6/9287     04/07/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-A.
26-May-16...........  NY          Albany...........  Albany Intl......       6/9288     04/07/16  RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig-A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-11956 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P