[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71690-71693]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28571]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70926; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-141]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate To Add
Liquidity

November 22, 2013.
    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 November 13, 2013, 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 NASDAQ.
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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at

Section 2 governing pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ Options
Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing
standardized equity and index options. Specifically, NOM proposes to
amend certain NOM Market Maker \3\ Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``NOM Market Maker'' is a Participant that has
registered as a Market Maker on NOM pursuant to Chapter VII, Section
2, and must also remain in good standing pursuant to Chapter VII,
Section 4. In order to receive NOM Market Maker pricing in all
securities, the Participant must be registered as a NOM Market Maker
in at least one security.
    \4\ The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008 and in October
2009 was expanded and extended through December 31, 2013. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579 (March 28, 2008), 73 FR
18587 (April 4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness establishing Penny Pilot); 60874 (October
23, 2009), 74 FR 56682 (November 2, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-091)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and
extending Penny Pilot); 60965 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59292
(November 17, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-097) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
61455 (February 1, 2010), 75 FR 6239 (February 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-
2010-013) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding
seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 62029 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR
25895 (May 10, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-053) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
65969 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79268 (December 21, 2011) (SR-
NASDAQ-2011-169) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
extension and replacement of Penny Pilot); 67325 (June 29, 2012), 77
FR 40127 (July 6, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-075) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot
through December 31, 2012); 68519 (December 21, 2012), 78 FR 136
(January 2, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-143) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot
through June 30, 2013); and 69787 (June 18, 2013), 78 FR 37858 (June
24, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-082). See also NOM Rules, Chapter VI,
Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. 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
    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2(1) governing the rebates and fees assessed for option
orders entered into NOM. The Exchange proposes to amend the NOM Market
Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity. The Exchange
believes the amendments will attract greater liquidity to the Exchange.
    Today, the Exchange offers a four-tiered Rebate to Add Liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options to NOM Market Makers as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Rebate to add
                                    Monthly volume         liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1........................  Participant adds NOM   $0.25
                                 Market Maker
                                 liquidity in Penny
                                 Pilot Options of up
                                 to 39,999 contracts
                                 per day in a month.
Tier 2........................  Participant adds NOM   $0.30
                                 Market Maker
                                 liquidity in Penny
                                 Pilot Options of
                                 40,000 to 69,999
                                 contracts per day in
                                 a month.
Tier 3........................  Participant adds NOM   $0.32
                                 Market Maker
                                 liquidity in Penny
                                 Pilot Options of
                                 70,000 to 99,999
                                 contracts per day in
                                 a month.
Tier 4........................  Participant adds NOM   $0.32 or $0.38 in
                                 Market Maker           the following
                                 liquidity in Penny     symbols BAC,
                                 Pilot Options of       GLD, IWM, QQQ
                                 100,000 or more        and VXX or $0.40
                                 contracts per day in   in SPY
                                 a month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to lower the volume requirements on all NOM
Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity Penny Pilot Option tiers. Tier 1
currently pays a $0.25 per contract rebate to Participants that add NOM
Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of up to 39,999 contracts
per day in a month. With respect to Tier 1, the Exchange will continue
to pay a $0.25 per contract rebate to a Participant provided the
Participant adds NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of
up to 29,999 contracts per day in a month. Tier 2 currently pays a
$0.30 per contract rebate to Participants that add NOM Market Maker
liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of 40,000 to 69,999 contracts per day
in a month. With respect to Tier 2, the Exchange will continue to pay a
$0.30 per contract rebate to a Participant provided the Participant
adds NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of 30,000 to
59,999 contracts per day in a month. Tier 3 currently pays a $0.32 per
contract rebate to Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options of 70,000 to 99,999 contracts per day in a month.
With respect to Tier 3, the Exchange will continue to pay a $0.32 per
contract rebate to a Participant provided the Participant adds NOM
Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of 60,000 to 79,999
contracts per day in a month. Tier 4 currently pays a $0.32 or $0.38
per contract rebate in BAC, GLD, IWN, QQQ and VXX and a $0.40 per
contract in SPY to Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options of 100,000 or more contracts per day in a month.
With respect to Tier 4, the Exchange will continue to pay a a $0.32 or
$0.38 per contract rebate in BAC, GLD, IWN, QQQ and VXX and a $0.40 per
contract in SPY to a Participant provided the Participant adds NOM
Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of 80,000 or more
contracts per day in a month.
    The Exchange believes that these amendments to the NOM Market Maker
Rebate to Add Liquidity tiers will continue to incentivize NOM Market
Makers to post liquidity on the Exchange.

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing Schedule is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act \6\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which NASDAQ operates or
controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to lower the volume requirements on the NOM
Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity tiers is
reasonable because it should incentivize NOM Market Makers to post
liquidity on NOM. Also, the lower volume tiers should allow a greater
number of Participants to qualify for NOM Market Maker rebates. The
Exchange is lowering the volume on each of the rebate tiers so that
Participants who currently qualify for certain NOM Market Maker rebate
tiers may be able to qualify for higher rebates. In addition,
Participants who did not qualify for a NOM Market Maker rebate may now
be able to qualify for the Tier 1 rebate. The Exchange believes that
offering NOM Market Makers the opportunity to earn higher rebates, by
qualifying for higher rebate tiers, is reasonable because by
incentivizing NOM Market Makers to post liquidity on NOM will also
benefit participants through increased order interaction.
    The Exchange's proposal to lower the volume requirements on the NOM
Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity tiers is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this amendment will
be applied to all Participants in a uniform matter. In addition,
Participants should continue to qualify for the rebates that they
currently receive and may earn increased rebates by qualifying for a
higher volume tier. For example, a Participant that currently qualifies
for a Tier 2 rebate by transacting 60,000 contracts per day in a month
may now qualify for a Tier 3 rebate and earn the $0.32 per contract
rebate provided the Participant continues to transact that volume. NOM
Market Makers are valuable market participants that provide liquidity
in the marketplace and incur costs unlike other market participants.
The Exchange believes that NOM Market Makers should be offered the
opportunity to earn higher rebates as compared to Non-NOM Market
Makers, Firms and Broker Dealers because NOM Market Makers add value
through continuous quoting \7\ and the commitment of capital. The
Exchange believes that encouraging NOM Market Makers to be more
aggressive when posting liquidity benefits all market participants
through increased liquidity. The Exchange also believes that lowering
the volume on the various NOM Market Maker rebate tiers is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it does not misalign the
current rebate structure because NOM Market Makers will continue to
earn higher rebates as compared to Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and
Broker-Dealers and will earn the same or lower rebates as compared to
Customers and Professionals.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), Section 5
(Obligations of Market Makers), in registering as a market maker, an
Options Participant commits himself to various obligations.
Transactions of a Market Maker in its market making capacity must
constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and Market Makers
should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all Market
Makers are designated as specialists on NOM for all purposes under
the Act or rules thereunder. See Chapter VII, Section 5.
    \8\ The Tier 1 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options is the same rebate as the Tier 1 Customer and
Professional rebate in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange pays the
highest Tier 1 Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of
$0.25 per contract to Customers, Professionals and NOM Market Makers
for transacting one qualifying contract as compared to other market
participants. Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers
receive a $0.10 per contract Penny Pilot Option Rebate to Add
Liquidity. In addition, Participant that adds Firm, Non-NOM Market
Maker or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-
Penny Pilot Options of 15,000 contracts per day or more in a given
month will receive a Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options
of $0.20 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that continuing to offer NOM Market Makers
the opportunity to receive higher rebates as compared to Firms, Non-NOM
Market Makers and Broker-Dealers is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all NOM Market Makers may qualify for the NOM
Market Maker rebate tiers and every NOM Market Maker is entitled to a
rebate solely by adding one contract of NOM Market Maker liquidity on
NOM. Also, as mentioned, the NOM Market Maker would receive the same
rebate in Tier 1 as compared Customers and Professionals and a higher
rebate in all other tiers as compared to a Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker
or Broker-Dealer because of the obligations \9\ borne by NOM Market
Makers as compared to other market participants. Encouraging NOM Market
Makers to add greater liquidity benefits all Participants in the
quality of order interaction. The Exchange believes that Customers are
entitled to higher rebates because Customer order flow brings unique
benefits to the market through increased liquidity which benefits all
market participants. The Exchange believes that offering Professionals
the opportunity to earn the same rebates as Customers, as is the case
today, and higher rebates as compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers and Non-
NOM Market Makers, and in some cases NOM Market Makers, is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange does not believe
that the amount of the rebate offered by the Exchange has a material
impact on a Participant's ability to execute orders in Penny Pilot
Options. By offering Professionals, as well as Customers, higher
rebates, the Exchange hopes to simply remain competitive with other
venues so that it remains a choice for market participants when posting
orders and the result may be additional Professional order flow for the
Exchange, in addition to increased Customer order flow. A Participant
may not be able to gauge the exact rebate tier it would qualify for
until the end of the month because Professional volume would be
commingled with Customer volume in calculating tier volume.\10\ A
Professional could only otherwise presume the Tier 1 rebate would be
achieved in a month when determining price.\11\ Further, the Exchange
initially established Professional pricing in order to ``. . . bring
additional revenue to the Exchange.'' \12\ The Exchange noted in the
Professional Filing that it believes ``. . . that the increased revenue
from the proposal would assist the Exchange to recoup fixed costs.''
\13\ The Exchange

also noted in that filing that it believes that establishing separate
pricing for a Professional, which ranges between that of a customer and
market maker, accomplishes this objective.\14\ The Exchange does not
believe that providing Professionals with the opportunity to obtain
higher rebates equivalent to that of a Customer creates a competitive
environment where Professionals would be necessarily advantaged on NOM
as compared to NOM Market Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers or Non-NOM
Market Makers. Also, a Professional is assessed the same fees as other
market participants, except Customers.\15\ For these reasons, the
Exchange believes that continuing to offer Professionals the same
rebates as Customers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See note 7.
    \10\ Customer and Professional volume is aggregated for purposes
of determining which rebate tier a Participant qualifies for with
respect to the Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options.
    \11\ A Professional would be unable to determine the exact
rebate that would be paid on a transaction by transaction basis with
certainty until the end of a given month when all Customer and
Professional volume is aggregated for purposes of determining which
tier the Participant qualified for in a given month.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066)
(``Professional Filing''). In this filing, the Exchange addressed
the perceived favorable pricing of Professionals who were assessed
fees and paid rebates like a Customer prior to the filing. The
Exchange noted in that filing that a Professional, unlike a retail
Customer, has access to sophisticated trading systems that contain
functionality not available to retail Customers.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066). The Exchange
noted in this filing that it believes the role of the retail
customer in the marketplace is distinct from that of the
professional and the Exchange's fee proposal at that time accounted
for this distinction by pricing each market participant according to
their roles and obligations.
    \15\ The Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is
$0.48 per contract for all market participants, except Customers who
are assessed $0.45 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange
believes that incentivizing NOM Market Makers to post liquidity on NOM
benefits market participants through increased order interaction. Also,
NOM Market Makers have obligations \16\ to the market which are not
borne by other market participants and therefore the Exchange believes
that NOM Market Makers are entitled to such higher rebates. Lowering
the volume requirements on the various NOM Market Maker rebate tiers in
Penny Pilot Options should further encourage NOM Market Makers to post
liquidity on NOM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments does [sic] not misalign the current rebate
structure because NOM Market Makers will continue to earn higher
rebates as compared to Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and Broker-Dealers
and will earn the same or lower rebates as compared to Customers and
Professionals. The Exchange believes the differing outcomes, rebates
and fees created by the Exchange's proposed pricing incentives
contributes to the overall health of the market place for the benefit
of all Participants that willing [sic] choose to transact options on
NOM. For the reasons specified herein, the Exchange does not believe
this proposal creates an undue burden on competition.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of
twelve U.S. options exchanges in which many sophisticated and
knowledgeable market participants can readily and do send order flow to
competing exchanges if they deem fee levels or rebate incentives at a
particular exchange to be excessive or inadequate. These market forces
support the Exchange belief that the proposed rebate structure and
tiers proposed herein are competitive with rebates and tiers in place
on other exchanges. The Exchange believes that this competitive
marketplace continues to impact the rebates present on the Exchange
today and substantially influences the proposals set forth above.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\17\ 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-141 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-141. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-141 and
should be submitted on or before December 20, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28571 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32038-32040]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31258; Amdt. No. 3857]

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective July 5, 2019. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 5, 2019.

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

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight 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 73125. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

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

The Rule

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

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

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 14, 2019.
Rick Domingo,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

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

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

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

Effective 15 August 2019

Fairbanks, AK, Fairbanks Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
6A
Kenai, AK, Kenai Muni, ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 20R, Orig
Kenai, AK, Kenai Muni, ILS Z OR LOC Z RWY 20R, Amdt 7
Koyukuk, AK, Koyukuk, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig-A
Koyukuk, AK, Koyukuk, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig-A
Shaktoolik, AK, Shaktoolik, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 2
Shaktoolik, AK, Shaktoolik, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1
Shaktoolik, AK, Shaktoolik, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Fayette, AL, Richard Arthur Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1D
Lawrence, MA, Lawrence Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 2
Lawrence, MA, Lawrence Muni, VOR RWY 23, Amdt 12A, CANCELLED
Auburn, NE, Farington Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig-A

Cincinnati, OH, Cincinnati Muni Airport Lunken Field, Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 15
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Rgnl at Pendleton, ILS OR LOC RWY 25,
Amdt 25B
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Rgnl at Pendleton, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7,
Orig-A
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Rgnl at Pendleton, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11,
Orig-A
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Rgnl at Pendleton, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25,
Orig-C
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Rgnl at Pendleton, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29,
Orig-A
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Rgnl at Pendleton, VOR RWY 7, Amdt 15A
Johnstown, PA, John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria Co, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15,
Amdt 1A
Johnstown, PA, John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria Co, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33,
Amdt 1A
Johnstown, PA, John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria Co, VOR Z RWY 23, Amdt 4B
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, PA, Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY
22, Amdt 10
Ponce, PR, Mercedita, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6
Humboldt, TN, Humboldt Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig-A
Paris, TN, Henry County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig-A
Abilene, TX, Abilene Rgnl, LOC RWY 17R, Orig-B
Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, ILS Y OR LOC Y RWY 13L, ILS Y RWY 13L SA
CAT I, ILS Y RWY 13L SA CAT II, Amdt 34
Dallas, TX, Dallas Love Field, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 13L, Amdt 4
Eagle Pass, TX, Maverick County Memorial Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt
1A
Morrisville, VT, Morrisville-Stowe State, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1
Spokane, WA, Felts Field, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED

[FR Doc. 2019-14129 Filed 7-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68854-68855]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27359]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1038]

Over-the-Counter Ophthalmic Drug Products--Emergency Use Eyewash
Products; Rescheduling of Public Hearing

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; rescheduling of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is rescheduling a
December 4, 2013, public hearing to obtain information on the
formulation, manufacturing, and labeling of currently marketed over-
the-counter (OTC) emergency use eyewash products, announced in the
Federal Register of Wednesday, September 18, 2013. Based on a request
received by the Agency, we are rescheduling the public hearing to March
7, 2014, and updating the related procedural dates that appeared in the
September 18, 2013, notice.

DATES: The public hearing will be held on March 7, 2014, from 9 a.m. to
5 p.m. Submit electronic or written requests to make oral presentations
and comments by February 14, 2014. If you wish to attend the hearing or
make an oral presentation during the hearing, you must register by
submitting an electronic request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by
close of business on February 14, 2014. For those unable to attend in
person, FDA will provide a Webcast to the meeting; additional
information about the Webcast location will be posted on the Web page
at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm356526.htm prior to March 7,
2014. Electronic or written comments will be accepted after the hearing
until June 6, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary C. Gross, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20903,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8753<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Elaine Abraham, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire

Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20903,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 18,
2013 (78 FR 57397), FDA announced that it would hold a public hearing
on December 4, 2013, to obtain information on the formulation,
manufacturing, and labeling of currently marketed OTC emergency use
eyewash products. Based on a request received by the Agency, we are
rescheduling the public hearing to March 7, 2014. Because we are
rescheduling the hearing, we are also rescheduling the procedural dates
(see DATES) that appeared in the September 18, 2013, notice. For
additional information about the purpose and scope of the hearing, see
the September 18, 2013, notice available on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm356526.htm.

    Dated: November 8, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-27359 Filed 11-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


Subpart B— Definitions 2. Section 260.10 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the definitions of `` Cathode ray tube, '' `` CRT glass manufacturing facility, '' `` CRT glass processor, '' and `` Mercurycontaining equipment'' and by republishing the introductory text of and adding paragraph (5) to the the definition of `` Universal Waste'' to read as follows:

§ 260.10 Definitions.

* * * * * Cathode ray tube or CRT means a vacuum tube, composed primarily of glass, which is the video display component of a television or computer monitor. An intact CRT means a CRT remaining within the monitor whose vacuum has not been released. A broken CRT means glass removed from the monitor after the vacuum has been released. * * * * * CRT glass manufacturing facility means a facility or part of a facility that uses a furnace to manufacture CRT glass. * * * * * CRT processing means conducting all of the following activities: (1) Receiving broken or intact CRTs; (2) Intentionally breaking intact CRTs or further breaking or separating broken CRTs; (3) Sorting or otherwise managing glass removed from CRT monitors; and (4) Cleaning coatings off the glass removed from CRTs. * * * * * Mercury containing equipment means a device or part of a device (excluding batteries, thermostats, and lamps) that contains elemental mercury necessary for its operation. * * * * * Universal Waste means any of the following hazardous wastes that are managed under the universal waste requirements of part 273 of this chapter: * * * * * (5) Mercury containing equipment as described in § 273.6 of this chapter. * * * * *

PART 261— IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 3. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, 6922, 6924( y), and 6938.

Subpart A— General 4. Section 261.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)( 23) to read as follows:

§ 261.4 Exclusions.

(a) * * * (23) Used cathode ray tubes (CRTs) (i) Used intact CRTs as defined in § 260.10 are not solid wastes unless disposed. No restrictions on speculative accumulation as defined in § 261.1 apply. (ii) Used, broken CRTs as defined in § 260.10 are not solid wastes provided that they meet the requirements of § 261.39. * * * * * 5. Section 261.9 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 261.9 Requirements for universal waste.

* * * * * (e) Mercury conteaining equipment as described in § 273.6 of this chapter. 6. Section 261.38 of subpart D is transferred to Subpart E which is added to read as follows:

Subpart E— Exclusions/ Exemptions Sec. 261.38 Comparable/ Syngas Fuel Exclusion. 261.39 Conditional Exclusion for Broken, Used Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) Undergoing Recycling.

Subpart E— Exclusions/ Exemptions § 261.38 Comparable/ Syngas Fuel Exclusion.

* * * * *

§ 261.39 Conditional Exclusion for Broken, Used Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) Undergoing Recycling.

Broken, used CRTs are not solid wastes if they meet the following conditions: (a) Prior to processing: These materials are not solid wastes if they are destined for recycling and if they meet the following requirements: (1) Storage. The broken CRTs must be either: (i) Stored in a building with a roof, floor, and walls, or (ii) Placed in a container (i. e., a package or a vehicle) that is constructed, filled, and closed to minimize identifiable releases to the environment of CRT glass (including fine solid materials). (2) Labeling. Each container in which the used, broken CRT is contained must be labeled or marked clearly with one of the following phrases: `` Waste cathode ray tube( s)— contains leaded glass, '' or `` Used cathode ray tube( s)— contains leaded glass. '' It must also be labeled: `` Do not mix with other glass materials. '' (3) Transportation. These CRTs must be transported in a container meeting the requirements of paragraphs( a)( 1)( ii) and (2) of this section. (4) Speculative accumulation. These CRTs are subject to the limitations on speculative accumulation as defined in § 261.1. (b) Requirements for used CRT processing: Used, broken CRTs undergoing CRT processing as defined in § 260.10 are not solid wastes if they meet the following requirements: (1) Storage. Broken CRTs undergoing processing are subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a)( 1), (2), and (4) of this section. (2) Processing. (i) All CRTs must be processedwithin a building with a roof, floor, and walls; and (ii) No activities may be performed that use temperatures high enough to volatilize lead from CRTs. (c) Processed CRT glass sent to CRT glass making or lead smelting: Glass removed from used CRTs that is destined for recycling at a CRT glass manufacturing facility or a lead smelter after processing is not a solid waste unless it is speculatively accumulated as defined in § 261.1. Imported, processed glass from used CRTs is subject to these requirements as soon as it enters the United States. (d) Processed CRT glass sent to other types of recycling, except for use constituting disposal: Glass removed from used CRTs that is destined for other types of recycling after processing (except use constituting disposal) is not a solid waste if it meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)( 1)–( 4) of this section. Imported, processed glass removed from used CRTs is subject to these requirements as soon as it enters the United States. (e) Use constituting disposal: Processed glass removed from CRT monitors that is used in a manner constituting disposal must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a)( 1)– (4) of this section and the applicable VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40526 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules requirements of part 266, subpart C of this chapter. Imported, processed glass from used CRTs is subject to these requirements as soon as it enters the United States.

PART 264— STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 7. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6924, and 6925.

Subpart A— General 8. Section 264.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g)( 11)( v) to read as follows:

§ 264.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.

* * * * * (g) * * * (11) * * * (v) Mercury containing equipment as described in § 273.6 of this chapter. * * * * *

PART 265— INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 9. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936, and 6937.

Subpart A— General 10. Section 265.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c)( 14)( v) to read as follows:

§ 265.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.

* * * * * (c) * * * (14) * * * (v) Mercury containing equipment as described in § 273.6 of this chapter. * * * * *

PART 268— LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS 11. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, and 6924.

Subpart A— General 12. Section 268.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f)( 5) to read as follows: * * * * * (5) Mercury containing equipment as described in § 273.6 of this chapter. * * * * *

PART 270— EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM 13. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974.

Subpart A— General Information 14. Section 270.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c)( 2)( viii)( E) to read as follows:

§ 270.1 Purpose and scope of these regulations.

* * * * * (c) * * * (2) * * * (viii) * * * (E) Mercury containing equipment as described in § 273.6 of this chapter. * * * * *

PART 273— STANDARDS FOR UNIVERSAL WASTE MANAGEMENT 15. The authority citation for part 273 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6930, and 6937.

Subpart A— General * * * * * 16. Section 273.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)( 5) to read as follows:

§ 273.1 Scope. (a) * * * (5) Mercury containing equipment as described in § 273.6. * * * * * 17. A new § 273.6 is added to read as follows:

§ 273.6 Applicability— Mercury containing equipment. (a) Mercury containing equipment covered under this part 273. The requirements of this part apply to persons managing mercury containing equipment as described in § 273.9, except those listed in paragraph (b) of this section. (b) Mercury containing equipment not covered under this part 273. The requirements of this part do not apply to persons managing the following mercury containing equipment: (1) Mercury containing equipment that is not yet a waste under part 261 of this chapter. Paragraph (c) of this section describes when mercurycontaining equipment becomes a waste. (2) Mercury containing equipment that is not a hazardous waste. Mercurycontaining equipment is a hazardous waste if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics identified in part 261, subpart C of this chapter. (c) Generation of waste mercurycontaining equipment. (1) Used mercury containing equipment becomes a waste on the day it is discarded. (2) Unused mercury containing equipment becomes a waste on the day the handler decides to discard it. 18. Section 273.9 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the definition of `` Mercury containing equipment'' and revising the definitions of `` Large quantity handler of universal waste, '' `` Small quantity handler of universal waste, '' and republishing the introductory text of and adding paragraph (5) to the definition of `` Universal waste'' to read as follows:

§ 273.9 Definitions.

* * * * * Large Quantity Handler of Universal Waste means a universal waste handler (as defined in this section) who accumulates 5,000 kilograms or more total of universal waste (batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps, or mercury containing equipment, calculated collectively) at any time. This designation as a large quantity handler of universal waste is retained through the end of the calendar year in which the 5,000 kilogram limit is met or exceeded. * * * * * Mercury containing equipment means a device or part of a device (excluding batteries, thermostats, and lamps) that contains elemental mercury necessary for its operation. * * * * * Small Quantity Handler of Universal Waste means a universal waste handler (as defined in this section) who does not accumulate 5,000 kilograms or more of universal waste (batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps, or mercurycontaining equipment, calculated collectively) at any time. * * * * * Universal Waste means any of the following hazardous wastes that are subject to the universal waste requirements of this part 273: * * * * * (e) Mercury containing equipment as described in § 273.6. * * * * *

Subpart B— Standards for Small Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste 19. Section 273.13 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40527 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 273.13 Waste management.

* * * * * (c) Universal waste thermostats and mercury containing equipment. A small quantity handler of universal waste must manage universal waste thermostats and mercury containing equipment in a way that prevents releases of any universal waste or component of a universal waste to the environment, as follows: (1) A small quantity handler of universal waste must place in a container any universal waste thermostat or mercury containing equipment that shows evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions. The container must be closed, structurally sound, compatible with the contents of the thermostat or device, and must lack evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions. (2) A small quantity handler of universal waste may remove mercurycontaining ampules from universal waste thermostats or mercurycontaining equipment provided the handler: (i) Removes the ampules in a manner designed to prevent breakage of the ampules; (ii) Removes ampules only over or in a containment device (tray or pan sufficient to collect and contain any mercury released from an ampule in case of breakage); (iii) Ensures that a mercury clean up system is readily available to immediately transfer any mercury resulting from spills or leaks from broken ampules, from that containment device to a container that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34; (iv) Immediately transfers any mercury resulting from spills or leaks from broken ampules from the containment device to a container that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34; (v) Ensures that the area in which ampules are removed is well ventilated and monitored to ensure compliance with applicable OSHA exposure levels for mercury; (vi) Ensures that employees removing ampules are thoroughly familiar with proper waste mercury handling and emergency procedures, including transfer of mercury from containment devices to appropriate containers; (vii) Stores removed ampules in closed, non leaking containers that are in good condition; (viii) Packs removed ampules in the container with packing materials adequate to prevent breakage during storage, handling, and transportation, and (3)( i) A small quantity handler of universal waste who removes mercurycontaining ampules from thermostats or mercury containing equipment must determine whether the following exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste identified in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C: (A) Mercury or clean up residues resulting from spills or leaks, and/ or (B) Other solid waste generated as a result of the removal of mercurycontaining ampules (e. g., remaining thermostat units or mercury containing equipment). (ii) If the mercury, residues, and/ or other solid waste exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste, it must be managed in compliance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272. The handler is considered the generator of the mercury, residues, and/ or other waste and must manage it in compliance with 40 CFR part 262. (iii) If the mercury, residues, and/ or other solid waste is not hazardous, the handler may manage the waste in any way that is in compliance with applicable federal, state, or local solid waste regulations. 20. Section 273.14 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 273.14 Labeling/ marking.

* * * * * (f) Mercury containing equipment, or a container in which the equipment is contained, must be labeled or marked clearly with any of the following phrases: `` Universal Waste— MercuryContaining Equipment, '' or `` Waste Mercury Containing Equipment, '' or `` Used Mercury Containing Equipment. ''

Subpart C— Standards for Large Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste 21. Section 273.32 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)( 4) and (b)( 5) to read as follows:

§ 273.32 Notification.

* * * * * (b) * * * (4) A list of all the types of universal waste managed by the handler (e. g., batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps, and mercury containing equipment); (5) A statement indicating that the handler is accumulating more than 5,000 kg of universal waste at one time and the types of universal waste (i. e., batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps, and mercury containing equipment) the handler is accumulating above this quantity. 22. Section 273.33 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 273.33 Waste management.

* * * * * (c) Universal waste thermostats and mercury containing equipment. A large quantity handler of universal waste must manage universal waste thermostats and mercury containing equipment in a way that prevents releases of any universal waste or component of a universal waste to the environment, as follows: (1) A large quantity handler of universal waste must contain any universal waste thermostat or mercurycontaining equipment that shows evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions in a container. The container must be closed, structurally sound, compatible with the contents of the thermostat and/ or equipment, and must lack evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions. (2) A large quantity handler of universal waste may remove mercurycontaining ampules from universal waste thermostats or mercurycontaining equipment provided the handler: (i) Removes the ampules in a manner designed to prevent breakage of the ampules; (ii) Removes ampules only over or in a containment device (tray or pan sufficient to collect and contain any mercury released from an ampule in case of breakage); (iii) Ensures that a mercury clean up system is readily available to immediately transfer any mercury resulting from spills or leaks from broken ampules, from that containment device to a container that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34; (iv) Immediately transfers any mercury resulting from spills or leaks from broken ampules from the containment device to a container that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34; (v) Ensures that the area in which ampules are removed is well ventilated and monitored to ensure compliance with applicable OSHA exposure levels for mercury; (vi) Ensures that employees removing ampules are thoroughly familiar with proper waste mercury handling and emergency procedures, including transfer of mercury from containment devices to appropriate containers; (vii) Stores removed ampules in closed, non leaking containers that are in good condition;

VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2 40528 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / Proposed Rules (viii) Packs removed ampules in the container with packing materials adequate to prevent breakage during storage, handling, and transportation, and (3)( i) A large quantity handler of universal waste who removes mercurycontaining ampules from thermostats or mercury containing equipment must determine whether the following exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste identified in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C: (A) Mercury or clean up residues resulting from spills or leaks, and/ or (B) Other solid waste generated as a result of the removal of mercurycontaining ampules (e. g., remaining thermostat units or mercury containing equipment). (ii) If the mercury, residues, and/ or other solid waste exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste, it must be managed in compliance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272. The handler is considered the generator of the mercury, residues, and/ or other waste and must manage it in compliance with 40 CFR part 262. (iii) If the mercury, residues, and/ or other solid waste is not hazardous, the handler may manage the waste in any way that is in compliance with applicable federal, state, or local solid waste regulations. * * * * * 23. Section 273.34 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 273.34 Labeling/ marking.

* * * * * (f) Mercury containing equipment, or a container in which the equipment is contained, must be labeled or marked clearly with any of the following phrases: `` Universal Waste— MercuryContaining Equipment, '' or `` Waste Mercury Containing Equipment, '' or `` Used Mercury Containing Equipment. ''

[FR Doc. 02– 13116 Filed 6– 11– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P VerDate May< 23> 2002 21: 35 Jun 11, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12JNP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 12JNP2


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 212 (Friday, November 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 61346]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-360, OMB Control No. 3235-0409]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rules 17Ad-15

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
17Ad-15 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-15) (``Rule 17Ad-15'') under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 17Ad-15 requires every registered transfer agent to establish
written standards for the acceptance of guarantees of securities
transfers from eligible guarantor institutions. Every registered
transfer agent is also required to establish procedures, including
written guidelines where appropriate, to ensure that the transfer agent
uses those standards to determine whether to accept or reject
guarantees from eligible guarantor institutions. In implementing these
requirements, the Commission's purpose is to ensure that registered
transfer agents treat eligible guarantor institutions equitably.
    Additionally, Rule 17Ad-15 requires every registered transfer agent
to make and maintain records in the event the transfer agent determines
to reject signature guarantees from eligible guarantor institutions.
Registered transfer agents' records must include, following the date of
rejection, a record of the rejected transfer, along with the reason for
rejection, the identification of the guarantor, and an indication
whether the guarantor failed to meet the transfer agent's guarantee
standards.
    Rule 17Ad-15 requires registered transfer agents to maintain these
records for a period of three years. The Commission designed these
mandatory recordkeeping requirements to assist the Commission and other
regulatory agencies with monitoring registered transfer agents and
ensuring compliance with the rule. This rule does not involve the
collection of confidential information.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 366 registered transfer
agents will spend a total of approximately 14,640 hours per year
complying with recordkeeping requirements of Rules 17Ad-15 (40 hours
per year per registered transfer agent).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to
    (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John R. Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: November 1, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-24129 Filed 11-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 177 (Monday, September 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55164-55167]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23035]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0382]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 14
individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that
interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have ``no established
medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other
condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of
ability to control a CMV.'' The regulation and the associated advisory
criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the
``Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations''
have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs
in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical
examiner. The Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these CMV
drivers will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater
than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. FMCSA
grants exemptions that will allow these 14 individuals to operate CMVs
in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The exemptions preempt
State laws and regulations and may be renewed.

DATES: The exemptions are effective September 14, 2015. The exemptions
expire on September 14, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by letter to FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the ground
level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. 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 www.dot.gov/privacy.

B. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds ``such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 2-year period.
    FMCSA grants 14 individuals an exemption from the regulatory
requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(8), to allow these individuals who take
anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-
year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is
based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical
information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s), the
length of time elapsed since the individual's last seizure, and each
individual's treatment regimen. In addition, the Agency reviewed each
applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License
Information System (CDLIS) \1\ for commercial driver's license (CDL)
holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in Motor
Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS).\2\ For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State licensing
agency. The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers covered by the exemptions granted here have
demonstrated that they are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical
condition does not pose a risk to public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) is an
information system that allows the exchange of commercial driver
licensing information among all the States. CDLIS includes the
databases of fifty-one licensing jurisdictions and the CDLIS Central
Site, all connected by a telecommunications network.
    \2\ Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) is an
information system that captures data from field offices through
SAFETYNET, CAPRI, and other sources. It is a source for FMCSA
inspection, crash, compliance review, safety audit, and registration
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, the
Agency considered both current medical literature and information and
the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP).
The Agency previously gathered evidence for potential changes to the
regulation at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) by conducting a comprehensive review
of scientific literature that was compiled into the ``Evidence Report
on Seizure Disorders and Commercial Vehicle Driving'' (Evidence Report)
[CD-ROM HD TL230.3 .E95 2007]. The Agency then convened a panel of
medical experts in the field of neurology (the MEP) on May 14-15, 2007,
to review 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and the advisory criteria regarding
individuals who have experienced a seizure, and the 2007 Evidence
Report. The Evidence Report and the MEP recommendations are published
on-line at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/medical/reports-how-medical-conditions-impact-driving, under Seizure Disorders, and are in
the docket for this notice.

MEP Criteria for Evaluation

    On October 15, 2007, the MEP issued the following recommended
criteria for evaluating whether an individual with epilepsy or a
seizure disorder should be allowed to operate a CMV.\3\ The MEP
recommendations are included in previously published dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Engel, J., Fisher, R.S., Krauss, G.L., Krumholz, A., and
Quigg, M.S., ``Expert Panel Recommendations: Seizure Disorders and
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety,'' FMCSA, October 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Epilepsy diagnosis. If there is an epilepsy diagnosis, the
applicant should be seizure-free for 8 years, on or off medication. If
the individual is taking anti-seizure medication(s), the plan for
medication should be stable for 2 years. Stable means no changes in
medication, dosage, or frequency of medication administration.
Recertification for drivers with an epilepsy diagnosis should be
performed every year.
    Single unprovoked seizure. If there is a single unprovoked seizure
(i.e., there is no known trigger for the seizure), the individual
should be seizure-free for 4 years, on or off medication. If the
individual is taking anti-seizure medication(s), the plan for
medication should be stable for 2 years. Stable means no changes in
medication, dosage, or frequency of medication administration.
Recertification for drivers with a single unprovoked seizure should be
performed every 2 years.
    Single provoked seizure. If there is a single provoked seizure
(i.e., there is a known reason for the seizure), the Agency should
consider specific criteria that fall into the following two categories:
low-risk factors for recurrence and moderate-to-high risk factors for
recurrence.
     Examples of low-risk factors for recurrence include
seizures that were caused by a medication; by non-penetrating head
injury with loss of consciousness less than or equal to 30 minutes; by
a brief loss of consciousness not likely to recur while driving; by
metabolic derangement not likely to recur; and by alcohol or illicit
drug withdrawal.
     Examples of moderate-to-high-risk factors for recurrence
include seizures caused by non-penetrating head injury with loss of
consciousness or amnesia greater than 30 minutes, or penetrating head
injury; intracerebral hemorrhage associated with a stroke or trauma;
infections; intracranial hemorrhage; post-operative complications from
brain surgery with significant brain hemorrhage; brain tumor; or
stroke.
    The MEP report indicates individuals with moderate to high-risk
conditions should not be certified. Drivers with a history of a single
provoked seizure with low risk factors for recurrence should be
recertified every year.

Medical Review Board Recommendations and Agency Decision

    FMCSA presented the MEP's findings and the Evidence Report to the
Medical Review Board (MRB) for consideration. The MRB reviewed and
considered the 2007 ``Seizure Disorders and Commercial Driver Safety''
evidence report and the 2007 MEP recommendations. The MRB recommended
maintaining the current advisory criteria, which provide that ``drivers
with a history of epilepsy/seizures off anti-seizure medication and
seizure-free for 10 years may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked
seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if
seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a 5 year period or
more'' [Advisory criteria to 49 CFR 391.43(f)].
    The Agency acknowledges the MRB's position on the issue but
believes relevant current medical evidence supports a less conservative
approach. The medical advisory criteria for epilepsy and other seizure
or loss of consciousness episodes was based on the 1988 ``Conference on
Neurological Disorders and Commercial Drivers'' (NITS Accession No.
PB89-158950/AS). A copy of the report can be found in the docket
referenced in this notice.
    The MRB's recommendation treats all drivers who have experienced a
seizure the same, regardless of individual medical conditions and
circumstances. In addition, the recommendation to continue prohibiting
drivers who are

taking anti-seizure medication from operating a CMV in interstate
commerce does not consider a driver's actual seizure history and time
since the last seizure. The Agency has decided to use the 2007 MEP
recommendations as the basis for evaluating applications for an
exemption from the seizure regulation on an individual, case-by-case
basis.

C. Exemptions

    Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications,
including a review of detailed follow-up information requested from
each applicant, FMCSA is granting exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)
to 14 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 14
drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) would have been
considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce
except that they presently take or have recently stopped taking anti-
seizure medication. For these 14 drivers, the primary obstacle to
medical qualification was the FMCSA Advisory Criteria for Medical
Examiners, based on the 1988 ``Conference on Neurological Disorders and
Commercial Drivers,'' stating that a driver should be off anti-seizure
medication in order to drive in interstate commerce. In fact, the
Advisory Criteria have little if anything to do with the actual risk of
a seizure and more to do with assumptions about individuals who are
taking anti-seizure medication.
    In addition to evaluating the medical status of each applicant,
FMCSA evaluated the crash and violation data for the 14 drivers, some
of whom currently drive a CMV in intrastate commerce. The CDLIS and
MCMIS were searched for crash and violation data on the 14 applicants.
For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the
State licensing agency.
    These exemptions are contingent on the driver maintaining a stable
treatment regimen and remaining seizure-free during the 2-year
exemption period. The exempted drivers must submit annual reports from
their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and
that the driver has remained seizure-free. The driver must undergo an
annual medical examination by a medical examiner, as defined by 49 CFR
390.5, following the FCMSA's regulations for the physical
qualifications for CMV drivers.
    FMCSA published a notice of receipt of application and requested
public comment during a 30-day public comment period in a Federal
Register notice for each of the applicants. A short summary of the
applicants' qualifications follows this section. For applicants who
were denied an exemption, a notice was previously published.

D. Comments

Docket #FMCSA-2014-0382

    On April 13, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications and requested public comment on 19 individuals (80 FR
19730; Docket number FMCSA-2015-08392). The comment period ended on May
13, 2015. No commenters responded to this Federal Register notice. Of
the 19 applicants, five were denied. The Agency has determined that the
following 14 applicants should be granted an exemption.
Daryl Charles Anderson
    Mr. Anderson is a 61 year-old class A CDL holder in Michigan. He
has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since
1989. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would
like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Anderson receiving an exemption.
Ronald J. Bennett
    Mr. Bennett is a 58 year-old class B CDL holder in New York. He has
a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2002. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to
drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Bennett
receiving an exemption.
Don Carrol Darbyshire
    Mr. Darbyshire is a 51 year-old class B CDL holder in Iowa. He has
a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1993. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to
drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Darbyshire receiving an exemption.
Monte James DeRocini
    Mr. DeRocini is a 53 year-old class A CDL holder in Pennsylvania.
He has a history of a single seizure in 2011. He takes anti-seizure
medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that
time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His
physician states that he is supportive of Mr. DeRocini receiving an
exemption.
Martin L. Ford
    Mr. Ford is a 57 year-old class C CDL holder in Mississippi. He has
a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 2003. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 2008. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a
CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Ford receiving
an exemption.
Roger Green
    Mr. Green is a 60 year-old class A CDL holder in Pennsylvania. He
has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since
1971. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 2004. If granted the exemption, he would like
to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Green
receiving an exemption.
Susie B. Harvey
    Ms. Harvey is a 64 year-old class B CDL holder in Virginia. She has
a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1985. She
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since that time. If granted the exemption, she would like to
drive a CMV. Her physician states that he is supportive of Ms. Harvey
receiving an exemption.
Timothy G. Huntley
    Mr. Huntley is a 40 year-old class B CDL holder in Maine. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2000.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would
like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Huntley receiving an exemption.
Chance Joseph O'Mary
    Mr. O'Mary is a 29 year-old class A CDL holder in Alaska. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2005.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would
like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
O'Mary receiving an exemption.
Robert D. Richter, Sr.
    Mr. Richter is a 58 year-old driver in Pennsylvania. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1976.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he

would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive
of Mr. Richter receiving an exemption.
Michael Scott Shumake
    Mr. Shumake is a 37 year-old driver in Virginia. He has a history
of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2000. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 2001. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a
CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Shumake
receiving an exemption.
Charles Ray Taylor
    Mr. Taylor is a 49 year-old class A CDL holder in Mississippi. He
has a history of a single seizure in 2009. He takes anti-seizure
medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that
time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His
physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Taylor receiving an
exemption.
Karin Hawley Wagasy
    Ms. Wagasy is a 58 year-old driver in Tennessee. She has a history
of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1975. She
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since that time. If granted the exemption, she would like to
drive a CMV. Her physician states that he is supportive of Ms. Wagasy
receiving an exemption.
Trever A. Williams
    Mr. Williams is a 44 year-old class A CDL holder in Minnesota. He
has a history of a single seizure in 1983 which occurred
postoperatively, after a surgical procedure to remove a foreign body
from his head. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since 2006. If granted the exemption, he
would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive
of Mr. Williams receiving an exemption.

E. Basis for Exemption

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the
exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety
than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption,
applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With
the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the
Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of
safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to
drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting the driver to
driving in intrastate commerce.

Conclusion

    The Agency is granting exemptions from the epilepsy standard, 49
CFR 391.41(b)(8), to 14 individuals based on a thorough evaluation of
each driver's safety experience and medical condition. Safety analysis
of information relating to these 14 applicants meets the burden of
showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
without the exemption. By granting the exemptions, the interstate CMV
industry will gain 14 highly trained and experienced drivers. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be valid for
2 years, with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The
person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was
maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136 and 31315.
    FMCSA exempts the following 14 drivers for a period of 2 years with
annual medical certification required: Daryl Charles Anderson (MI);
Ronald J. Bennett (NY); Don Carrol Darbyshire (IA); Monte James
DeRocini (PA); Martin L. Ford (MS); Roger Green (PA); Susie B. Harvey
(VA); Timothy G. Huntley (ME); Chance Joseph O'Mary (AK); Robert D.
Richter, Sr. (PA); Michael Scott Shumake (VA); Charles Ray Taylor (MS);
Karin Hawley Wagasy (TN); and Trever A. Williams (MN) from the
prohibition of CMV operations by persons with a clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or seizures. If the exemption is still in effect at the end of
the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under
procedures in effect at that time.

     Issued on: September 2, 2015.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-23035 Filed 9-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 115 (Friday, June 14, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35752-35754]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14035]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0458; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-19-AD;
Amendment 39-17480; AD 2013-12-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) BR700-725A1-12 turbofan
engines with fuel pump tube part number FW64852 installed. This AD
requires removal of the affected fuel pump tube and its replacement
with a part eligible for installation. This AD was prompted by the
discovery that cracks have occurred in the affected fuel pump tube
between the fuel metering unit and the main fuel pump. We are issuing
this AD to prevent loss of fuel supply to the engine, which could
result in in-flight engine shutdown of one or more engines, loss of
thrust control and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 14, 2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by July 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact, contact
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827
Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: 49 0 33-7086-1883; fax: 49 0 33-
7086-3276. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as the
Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Zink, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0110, dated May 24, 2013, a Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Cracks have occurred in the Spill Return to Fuel Pump Tube
between the Fuel Metering Unit (FMU) and the main fuel pump. This
resulted in fuel leaks. This condition, if not corrected, could lead
to loss of engine fuel supply, likely resulting in uncommanded in-
flight shut down and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.

We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of fuel supply to the engine,
which could result in in-flight engine shutdown of one or more engines,
loss of thrust control and damage to the airplane. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    RRD has issued Service Bulletin SB-BR700-73-101847, dated May 17,
2013. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has
notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design. This AD requires removal of affected fuel pump
tube and its replacement with a part eligible for installation.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of
the short compliance time requirement. Therefore, we find that notice
and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0458; Directorate
Identifier 2013-NE-19-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the
Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets,
including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment
(or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2013-12-03 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Formerly Rolls-Royce
Deutschland GmbH, formerly BMW Rolls-Royce GmbH): Amendment 39-
17480; Docket No. FAA-2013-0458; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-19-
AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 14,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD)
BR700-725A1-12 turbofan engines with fuel pump tube part number (P/
N) FW64852 installed.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the discovery that cracks have occurred
in the affected fuel pump tube between the fuel metering unit and
the main fuel pump. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of fuel
supply to the engine, which could result in in-flight engine
shutdown of one or more engines, loss of thrust control and damage
to the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, within 15 days after the effective date of
the AD, remove fuel pump tube P/N FW64852 and replace with a part
eligible for installation. Guidance on removing the affected fuel
pump tube can be found in RRD Service Bulletin SB-BR700-73-101847,
dated May 17, 2013.

(f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install fuel pump
tube P/N FW64852 onto any engine or install an engine with fuel pump
tube P/N FW64852 onto any aircraft.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact, contact
Frederick Zink, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office,
FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2013-0110, dated
May 24, 2013, and Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Service
Bulletin No. SB-BR700-73-101847, dated May 17, 2013, for related
information.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827
Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: 49 0 33-7086-1883; fax: 49 0
33-7086-3276.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 10, 2013.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-14035 Filed 6-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57469-57470]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2100-185--California]

Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment:
California Department of Water Resources

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's)
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380, the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed an application filed by the California
Department of Water Resources (California DWR), licensee for the
Feather River Hydroelectric Project, to repair the Oroville Dam main
spillway, modify the existing emergency spillway, and relocate a buried
transmission line. The specifications for the proposal were filed with
the Commission on January 29, 2018, and supplemented with additional
supporting information on February 13, July 16, and August 1, 2018. The
project is located on the Feather River in Butte County, California.
    California DWR proposes to repair and reconstruct the Lake Oroville
main spillway as a result of the failure of the main spillway beginning
on February 7, 2017. California DWR also proposes to fortify the
existing emergency spillway located adjacent to the main spillway and
to relocate a buried transmission line near the Hyatt Power Plant. The
proposed work would take place over two years, with major portions of
the work at the main spillway completed on an expedited basis prior to
the commencement of the normal wet season on November 1, 2017. The
remainder of the work would be completed by January 2019. Staff
prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA), which analyzes the
potential environmental effects associated with the reconstruction and
modification of project structures. The draft EA also discusses the
environmental effects of California DWR's response to the spillway
failure and concludes that California DWR's proposed activities, with
specified environmental protection measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    A copy of the draft EA is available for review at the Commission's
Public Reference Room or it may be viewed on the Commission's website
at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number P-2100
in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free
at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. All comments must be filed
by December 10, 2018.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can also 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. In lieu of
electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-
2100-185.
    For further information, contact Mr. John Aedo at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at [email protected].

    Dated: November 8, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-24885 Filed 11-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P