[Federal Register: October 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 56072-56073]
[DOCID:fr02oc07-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

September 25, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG07-83-000.
    Applicants: Smoky Hills Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator of Smoky Hills Wind Farm, LLC.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070919-5098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 10, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EG07-84-000.
    Applicants: Cloud County Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Cloud County Wind Farm LLC Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator (EWG) Status.
    Filed Date: 09/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070921-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EG07-85-000.
    Applicants: Pioneer Prairie Wind Farm I, LLC.
    Description: Pioneer Prairie Wind Farm I, LLC Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 09/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070921-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EG07-86-000.
    Applicants: Sagebrush Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Sagebrush Power Partners, LLC Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 09/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070921-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 12, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER00-1737-009; ER96-2869-011; ER97-30-004; ER99-
1695-008; ER00-3621-007; ER01-468-006; ER05-34-003; ER05-35-003; ER05-
36-003; ER05-37-003; ER04-318-002; ER04-249-003; ER02-23-009.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company; State Line Energy,
L.L.C.; Kincaid Generation, L.L.C.; Elwood Energy, LLC; Dominion
Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc.; Dominion
Energy New England, Inc.; Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC; Dominion
Energy Brayton Point, LLC; Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc.;
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.; Dominion Retail, Inc.; Fairless Energy,
LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status under Order
No. 652 of Virginia Electric and Power Company and Dominion Entities.
    Filed Date: 09/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070921-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-539-002; ER07-540-002.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp dba National Grid submits a
second amendment to its 2/14/07 filings.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070920-0114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 10, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1306-001.
    Applicants: NedPower Mount Storm, LLC.
    Description: NedPower Mount Storm, LLC submits an amendment to its
application for order accepting Original Sheet 1 et al to FERC Electric
Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070921-0016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 10, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1330-001.
    Applicants: Twin Cities Hydro LLC.
    Description: Twin Cities Hydro, LLC submits revisions to its
proposed market-based rate tariff, Original Sheet 1 and 2 to FERC
Electric Tariff Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070921-0015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 2, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1389-000.
    Applicants: Pypha Energy LLC.
    Description: Pypha Energy, LLC submits Original Sheet 1 et al to
FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 09/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070921-0014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1390-000.
    Applicants: E.ON U.S., LLC.
    Description: Louisville Gas and Electric Co and Kentucky Utilities
Company submits a revised unexecuted Service Agreement for Network
Integration Transmission Service with East Kentucky Power Coop.
    Filed Date: 09/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070921-0001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 11, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES07-54-002.
    Applicants: Electric Transmission Texas, LLC.
    Description: Electric Transmission Texas, LLC submits a complete
copy of the financial information under ES07-54.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070921-0028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 10, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES07-63-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Form 523--Request for Permission To Issue Securities
of ITC Midwest LLC.
    Filed Date: 09/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070918-5058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 9, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC07-54-000; FC07-55-000; FC07-56-000; FC07-57-000;
FC07-58-000; FC07-59-000.
    Applicants: Enbridge Gas New Brunswick Inc.; Enbridge Wind Power
Inc.; Gazifere Inc.; Inuvik Gas Ltd.;

NRGreen Power Limited Partnership; Wirebury Connections Inc.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Foreign Utility
Company Status of Enbridge Gas New Brunswick Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070919-5103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 10, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA07-116-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Inc.
    Description: FPA Section 206 Filing With Non-Rate Terms and
Conditions for American Transmission System, Inc. OATT.
    Filed Date: 09/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070920-5017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 11, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH07-28-000.
    Applicants: Airtricity Holdings Ltd.
    Description: FERC Form 65 A--Exemption Notification of Airtricity.
Holdings Ltd. on Behalf of Itself and Its Holding Company Subsidiaries.
    Filed Date: 09/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070920-5020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 11, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.
    There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to
a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-19387 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

05/19/2008 11:47 AM

To

Eileen Pritchard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Joseph-J Dougherty"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Eileen Pritchard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary Henigin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Alan Rush"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

Eileen:  By this email OAQPS is transmitting revised  Chapters 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the Pb NAAQS RIA, as well as  the Executive Summary, to OPEI for OMB review.

 The most recent changes in response to OMB comments are highlighted or colored.

The chapters are attached below.

Thanks!

-- Kathy

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register: March 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 10342]
[DOCID:fr05mr10-152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-06]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before March 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0166 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, ANM-113,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-
3356, or Brenda Sexton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1),
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR
11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 1, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2010-0166.
    Petitioner: Airbus.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 26.22.
    Description of Relief Sought: Airbus seeks a fuel-tank flammability
exemption for Model A310 airplanes. This exemption, if granted, would
relieve Airbus of the requirement to develop a center fuel tank
flammability or reduction means, the associated service instructions
and documents.

[FR Doc. 2010-4616 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42372-42374]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13930]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-2286]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program
Standards

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection
of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on information collection
associated with our Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program
(VNRFRP) Standards.

DATES: Either electronic or written comments on the collection of
information must be submitted by August 29, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of August 29, 2023. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2023-N-2286 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Voluntary National Retail Food
Regulatory Program Standards.'' Received comments, those filed in a
timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards

OMB Control Number 0910-0621--Revision

    This information collection helps support implementation of FDA's
Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards (the Retail
Program Standards). Regulatory Program Standards play a critical role
in an integrated food safety system and serve as the foundation for
mutual reliance between FDA and other regulatory agencies that work to
ensure food safety. The Retail Program Standards define what
constitutes a highly effective and responsive program for the
regulation of foodservice and retail food establishments. The Retail
Program Standards are intended to provide a foundation upon which
continuous improvements can be made with the ultimate goal to reduce
the occurrence of factors that cause and contribute to foodborne
illness. In support of this goal, FDA works cooperatively with our
State, local, Territorial, and Tribal partners using a risk-based
approach to leverage limited resources. We engage in education and
outreach efforts to facilitate collaboration with our partners in food
safety. The Retail Program Standards represent an important component
of a comprehensive strategic approach to help ensure the safety and
security of the food supply at the retail level. Respondents to the
information collection are State, local, territorial, and tribal
governments.
    The Retail Program Standards were revised most recently in August
2022 and include the following elements: (1) regulatory foundation; (2)
trained regulatory staff; (3) inspection program based on Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles; (4) uniform
inspection program, (5) foodborne illness and food defense preparedness
and response; (6) compliance and enforcement; (7) industry and
community relations; (8) program support and resources; and (9) program
assessment. These elements are enumerated and discussed on our website
at https://www.fda.gov/food/voluntary-national-retail-food-regulatory-program-standards/voluntary-national-retail-food-regulatory-program-standards-august-2022 along with worksheets and assessments that allow
FDA to determine conformance with the Retail Program Standards. State,
local, territorial, tribal, and Federal regulatory agencies that
participate in the voluntary program are required to report information
demonstrating that a program self-assessment, a risk factor study of
the regulated industry, and an independent outside audit (verification
audit) have been completed. The information also includes Form FDA
3958, ``Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards FDA
National Registry Report,'' which may be completed electronically at
https://www.fda.gov/food/voluntary-national-retail-food-regulatory-program-standards/voluntary-national-retail-food-regulatory-program-standards-august-2022.
    Finally, we are revising the information collection to include
additional Agency resources. We have created a dedicated emailbox at
[email protected] to receive requests for program
documentation and have developed the following instruments to support
the standardization of food safety inspection officer candidates:
     Proposed Form FDA 5017, ``Standardized Retail Food Safety
Inspection Officer Waiver of Annual Maintenance Requirement Form,''
pertains to requests for waivers from maintenance requirements,
referenced in section 3-403 of the ``FDA Procedures for Standardization
of Retail Food Safety Inspection Officers.'' FDA uses the information
submitted on Form FDA 5017 to determine a food safety inspection
officer's eligibility for re-standardization.
     Proposed Form FDA 5018, ``Standardized Retail Food Safety
Inspection Officer Annual Maintenance Form,'' provides verification
that a food safety inspection officer has met program standardization
requirements in accordance with section 3-403 of the ``FDA Procedures
for Standardization of Retail Food Safety Inspection Officers.''
     Proposed Form FDA 5019, ``Standardized Food Safety
Inspection Officer Nomination Form,'' allows FDA to collect
qualification information from food safety inspection officer
candidates.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of
 Voluntary National Retail Program Standards      Number of     responses per   Total annual          Average burden per response           Total hours
                (August 2022)                    respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program self-assessments for element Nos. 1               500               1             500  92.3.....................................          46,150
 through 8.
Program element No. 9; risk factor study and              500               1             500  333......................................         166,500
 intervention strategy.
Program Verification audit...................             500               1             500  46.15....................................          23,075
Program records; associated documentation/                500               1             500  94.29....................................          47,145
 maintenance of worksheets, assessments,
 associated program tools.
FDA Form 3958; VNRFP National Registry Report             500               1             500  0.1 (6 minutes)..........................              50
Requests for program documentation (dedicated             500               3           1,500  0.1 (6 minutes)..........................             150
 email).
Proposed Form FDA 5017; Waiver of Annual                   10               1              10  0.35 (21 minutes)........................             3.5
 Maintenance Requirement.
Proposed Form FDA 5018; Food Safety                       130               1             130  0.35 (21 minutes)........................              43
 Inspection Officer Annual Maintenance.
Proposed Form FDA 5019; Food Safety                        14               1              14  0.35 (21 minutes)........................               5
 Inspection Officer Nomination.
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               ..............  ..............           4,154  .........................................       283,121.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital or operational and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Our estimate of burden for the associated program activities as
identified in table 1 is based on our experience with the information
collection, along with other regulatory standards programs we
administer. Upon reorganizing the collection to reflect the cumulative
activities, we have accounted for burden that may be attributable
recordkeeping for risk-factor studies and verification tasks that may
have been previously overlooked. The burden we attribute to completing
and submitting FDA Form 3958, ``Voluntary National Retail Food
Regulatory Program Standards FDA National Registry Report,'' is
exclusive of other program records, which we account for in row 4. We
have also accounted for burden we assume will be attendant to the
completion and submission of newly developed Agency forms. As a result
of these changes and adjustments, the information collection reflects
an increase of 235,776.5 hours and 1,654 responses annually.

    Dated: June 23, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-13930 Filed 6-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63221-63224]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25419]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 440

Waiver of Requirement To Enter Into a Reciprocal Waiver of Claims
Agreement With All Customers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of waiver.

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

SUMMARY: This notice concerns a petition for waiver submitted to the
FAA by Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) to waive in part
the requirement that a launch operator enter into a reciprocal waiver
of claims with each customer. The FAA grants the petition.

DATES: October 16, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this waiver, contact Charles P. Brinkman, Licensing Program Lead,
Commercial Space Transportation--Licensing and Evaluation Division, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
7715; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this
waiver, contact Laura Montgomery, Senior Attorney for Commercial Space
Transportation, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, International,
Legislation and Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3150; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 20, 2012, SpaceX submitted a petition to the Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Office of Commercial Space
Transportation (AST) requesting a waiver under its launch license, for
flight of a Falcon 9 launch vehicle carrying a Dragon reentry vehicle,
and the related reentry license, for reentry of the Dragon. SpaceX
requested a partial waiver of 14 CFR 440.17, which requires a licensee
to enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims (a ``cross-waiver'') with
each of its customers.
    The FAA licenses the launch of a launch vehicle and reentry of a
reentry vehicle under authority granted to the Secretary of
Transportation by the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended
and re-codified by 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, chapter 509 (Chapter 509), and
delegated to the FAA Administrator and the Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation, who exercises licensing authority
under Chapter 509.
    The petition for waiver applies to SpaceX's October launch of a
Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon reentry vehicle to the International
Space Station (ISS) and return of the Dragon from the ISS to Earth. The
Dragon spacecraft will carry cargo for NASA to resupply the ISS and
return with cargo from the ISS. The Falcon 9 will also carry a
commercial satellite for ORBCOMM, Inc. as a secondary payload, and has
signed cross-waivers covering that payload. The cross-waiver among
SpaceX, ORBCOMM and the FAA is amended to provide that ORBCOMM waives
claims against any other customer as defined by 14 CFR 440.3. The
petition for partial waiver of the requirement that the licensee
implement a cross-waiver with each customer applies to all launches and
reentries under SpaceX's current licenses with respect only to the
customers that are the subject of this waiver.
    In addition to the ISS supplies and ORBCOMM satellite, SpaceX will
carry other payloads whose transport NASA has arranged. These consist
of a NanoRacks, LLC, (NanoRacks) locker insert and student experiments
created under NASA's Student Spaceflight Experiments Program (SSEP).
NASA describes SSEP as a national science, technology, engineering and

mathematics education initiative.\1\ According to its Space Act
Agreement with NASA,\2\ NanoRacks arranges to carry the student
experiments on a locker insert to put into an experimental locker on
board the ISS. The Space Act Agreement provides that NASA will provide
on-orbit resources and limited launch opportunities to NanoRacks for
the launch of its insert and the experiments the insert carries. SpaceX
advises by amendment dated October 3, 2012, to its petition for waiver
that, to the best of its knowledge, no NanoRacks employees will be
present at the launch site during flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Space Station--Here we Come! NASA Press Release: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/station-here-we-come.html (last
visited September 25, 2012).
    \2\ Nonreimbursable Space Act Agreement Between NANORACKS, LLC
and NASA for Operation of the NANORACKS System Aboard the
International Space Station National Laboratory, (Sept. 4 and 9
2009) (NanoRacks Agreement), 387938main--SAA--SOMD--6355--
Nanoracks--ISS--National--Lab.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NanoRacks and each student who places a payload on board the
NanoRacks insert qualify as customers under the FAA's definitions.
Section 440.3 defines a customer, in relevant part, as any person with
rights in the payload or any part of the payload, or any person who has
placed property on board the payload for launch, reentry, or payload
services. A person is an individual or an entity organized or existing
under the laws of a State or country. 51 U.S.C. 50901(12), 14 CFR
401.5. The subjects of this waiver are persons because the students are
individuals and NanoRacks is an entity, a limited liability
corporation. Accordingly, because NanoRacks and the students are
persons who have rights in their respective payloads, the locker insert
and the experiments, due to their ownership of those objects, and
because they have placed property on board, they are customers. Section
440.17 requires their signatures as customers.
    In this instance, however, NanoRacks and the students are also
subject to a NASA reciprocal waivers of claims, a cross-waiver, which
is governed by NASA's regulations at 14 CFR part 1266. Article 8 of the
Space Act Agreement between NASA and NanoRacks governs liability and
risk of loss and establishes a cross-waiver of liability.

Waiver Criteria

    Chapter 509 allows the FAA to waive a license requirement if the
waiver (1) will not jeopardize public health and safety, safety of
property; (2) will not jeopardize national security and foreign policy
interests of the United States; and (3) will be in the public interest.
51 U.S.C. 50905(b)(3) (2011); 14 CFR 404.5(b)(2012).

Waiver of FAA Requirement for Each Customer To Sign a Reciprocal
Waivers of Claims

    The FAA waives the 14 CFR 440.17, which requires a licensee to
enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims with each of its customers,
with respect to NanoRacks and the SSEP participants.
    In 1988, as part of a comprehensive financial responsibility and
risk sharing regime that protects launch participants and the U.S.
Government from the risks of catastrophic loss and litigation, Congress
required that all launch participants agree to waive claims against
each other for their own property damage or loss, and to cover losses
experienced by their own employees. 51 U.S.C. 50915(b). This part of
the regime was intended to relieve launch participants of the burden of
obtaining property insurance by having each party be responsible for
the loss of its own property and to limit the universe of claims that
might arise as a result of a launch. Commercial Space Launch Act
Amendments of 1988, H.R. 4399, H. Rep. 639, 11-12, 100th Cong., 2d
Sess. (May 19, 1988); Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments of 1988,
H.R. 4399, S. Rep. 593, 14, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (Oct. 6, 1988);
Financial Responsibility Requirements for Licensed Launch Activities,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR 38992, 39011 (Jul. 25, 1996). The
FAA's implementing regulations may be found at 14 CFR part 440.
    In its request for a waiver, SpaceX maintains that the NASA
requirements imposed on NanoRacks and the SSEP participants are
equivalent to the requirements imposed on each customer under the FAA's
requirements of 14 CFR part 440. A comparison of the two regimes shows
that in this particular situation the two sets of cross-waivers are
sufficiently similar that the statutory goals of 51 U.S.C. 50914(b)
will be met by the FAA agreeing to accept the NASA cross-waivers in
this instance.
    The FAA cross-waivers require the launch participants, including
the U.S. Government and each customer, and their respective contractors
and subcontractors, to waive and release claims against all the other
parties to the waiver and agree to assume financial responsibility for
property damage sustained by that party and for bodily injury or
property damage sustained by the party's own employees, and to hold
harmless and indemnify each other from bodily injury or property damage
sustained by their respective employees resulting from the licensed
activity, regardless of fault. 14 CFR 440.17(b) and (c). Each party \3\
to the cross-waiver must indemnify the other parties from claims by the
indemnifying party's contractors and subcontractors if the indemnifying
party fails to properly extend the requirements of the cross-waivers to
its contractors and subcontractors. 14 CFR 440.17(d). A comparison of
each element shows that, although there are some differences, because
the NASA cross-waiver signed by NanoRacks is consistent with
Congressional intent and the FAA's regulations, and because relevant
employees will not be present at the launch site, NanoRacks and the
SSEP participants need not sign a cross-waiver under 14 CFR part 440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Indemnification by the U.S. Government is conditioned upon
the passage of legislation. 51 U.S.C. 50915; 14 CFR 440.17(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the FAA's cross-waivers and NASA's agreement with NanoRacks
apply to damages resulting from an FAA licensed activity, regardless of
fault. 14 CFR 440.17(b); NanoRacks Agreement, Art. 8, par. 3(a) and
2(e). An FAA license applies, in relevant part, to launch and reentry.
51 USC 50904(a)(1); 14 CFR 440.3. The FAA's definition of launch also
includes pre- and post-flight ground operations at a launch site in the
United States. 51 U.S.C. 50902; 14 CFR 401.5. The NanoRacks Agreement
applies under Article 8, paragraph 3(a) to damages arising out of
``protected space operations,'' which paragraph 2(e) defines to include
all launch or transfer vehicle \4\ activities on Earth, in outer space
or in transit between Earth and outer space. Because protected space
operations encompass development, test, manufacture, assembly,
integration, operation and use of launch and transfer vehicles the
meaning of protected space operations is broad enough to encompass
launch, reentry, and pre- and post-flight ground operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The definition of a transfer vehicle encompasses SpaceX's
Dragon reentry vehicle. NanoRacks Agreement, Art. 8, par. 2(g) (a
vehicle that operates in space and transfers payloads or persons
between a space object and the surface of a celestial body).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the FAA cross-waivers and the NanoRacks Agreement, covered
claims include those for property damage or bodily injury sustained by
any party. The NanoRacks Agreement defines damage to mean both damage
to, loss, or loss of the use of any property; and bodily injury to,
including the impairment of health of, or death of, any person.
NanoRacks Agreement Art. 8, par. 2a. The FAA defines ``property
damage'' to mean partial or total destruction, impairment, or loss of
tangible property, real or personal. 14

CFR 440.3. The FAA defines ``bodily injury'' to mean physical injury,
sickness, disease, disability, shock, mental anguish, or mental injury
sustained by any person, including death. 14 CFR 440.3. To the extent
that the NanoRacks Agreement does not, at first look, appear to address
mental injuries, the FAA notes that, generally, the courts have tied
mental anguish to physical injuries. An injury to the mind, acquired as
a form of bodily injury should be barred by the cross-waivers.
    The persons to whom both cross-waivers apply are the same for the
FAA's purposes.\5\ The FAA requires its licensee, each customer of the
licensee, and each of their respective contractors and subcontractors
to waive claims, and to agree to be responsible for their own property
damage and for the bodily injury or property damage sustained by their
own employees. 14 CFR 440.17(a).\6\ The parties agree to waive claims
against, among others, the other party, each ``related entity'' of the
other party, and the respective employees of each of them. NanoRacks
Agreement Art. 8, par. 3(a)(i)-(iv). Under paragraph 2(f) of the
NanoRacks Agreement, a ``related entity'' means a contractor or
subcontractor of another party to the waiver at any tier or a user or
customer of a party at any tier. The terms ``contractor'' and
``subcontractor'' include suppliers of any kind. Because a related
entity includes a customer or user at any tier, NanoRacks, as a
customer of NASA and each SSEP participant with an experiment on
NanoRack's manifest is a related entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The NanoRacks Agreement applies to more persons than the FAA
requires. That difference poses no issues.
    \6\ Although the NanoRacks Agreement does not address assumption
of responsibility for harm to employees like the FAA cross-waiver
does, that issue is discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the FAA cross-waivers and the NanoRacks Agreement require the
parties to extend the requirements of the cross-waivers to certain
related entities, which extension is frequently referred to as a
``flow-down'' of the cross-waiver requirements. Under the FAA's
requirements, each customer must extend the cross-waiver requirements
to its contractors and subcontractors by requiring them to waive and
release all claims they may have against the licensee, each other
customer, and the United States, and against the respective contractors
and subcontractors of each. Waiver of Claims and Assumption of
Responsibility for Licensed Launch, including Suborbital Launch, With
More than One Customer, 14 CFR part 440, appendix B, part 1, subpart B
(FAA Cross-Waiver), par. 4(b). Likewise, NanoRacks must extend the
requirements of the cross-waiver it has signed with NASA to its related
entities, including its users or customers, the SSEP students. This
means that, just as with the FAA cross-waivers, NanoRacks and the
owners of the experiments on its locker insert, have waived the
requisite claims.
    Although the two schemes appear to diverge with regards to
indemnification for any failure by a party to extend the cross-waiver
requirements to its contractors and subcontractors, the legal effect of
the different cross-waivers remains the same. The FAA cross-waiver
expressly requires indemnification \7\ for the consequences of a
party's failure to ``flow-down'' the requirements. FAA Cross-Waiver at
par. 5(b) (customer indemnification for claims brought by its
contractors and subcontractors). SpaceX notes that, because of the
obligations each party accepts under the different cross-waivers, a
failure to extend the requirements to related entities still results in
a duty to indemnify the other parties for the failure, even where the
duty is not express. State courts have long recognized that where a
special relationship between parties exists, even where there is no
express promise to indemnify, a duty to indemnify may arise. This has
been true for indemnification of claims brought by employees. See,
e.g., Howard Univ. v. Good Food Svcs., Inc., 608 A.2d 116, 1124 (DC
1992) (special relationship may be found where there is an on-going
contractual relationship); Rucker Co. v. M&P Drilling Co., 653 P2.2d
1239, 1242 (Okl. 1982) (where intention of parties to a contract is
clear that one party shall not be liable for damages, labeling the
relationship as exculpatory or indemnitory is irrelevant and the
results are the same). See also 100 ALR 3d 350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ To be precise, section 5 of the FAA cross-waiver requires
parties to hold harmless and indemnify each other. The phrase is a
unitary phrase that means nothing more than ``indemnify'' alone.
Indemnify generally means ``[t]o reimburse (another) for a loss
suffered because of a third party's or one's own act or default.''
Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). ``The terms 'hold-harmless
clause' and 'indemnity clause' often refer to the same thing-an
agreement under which 'one party agrees to answer for any * * *
liability or harm that the other party might incur.' Black's Law
Dictionary 784 (8th ed. 2004) (defining ``indemnity clause,'' noting
that the clause is ``[a]lso termed hold-harmless clause; save-
harmless clause '' (emphasis in original)).'' Long Beach Area Peace
Network v. City of Long Beach, 574 F.3d 1011, 1039 (Cal. 2009). Hold
harmless is defined as ``[t]o absolve (another party) from any
responsibility for damage or other liability arising from the
transaction; indemnify.'' Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009); see
also Kevin Gros Marine, Inc. v. Quality Diesel Service, Inc., No.
11-2340, slip op. at 5 (E.D.La. May 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analogous cases may apply to indemnification for claims brought by
a contractor or subcontractor of someone who failed to extend the
cross-waiver requirements. See, e.g., Jinwoong, Inc. v. Jinwoong, Inc.,
310 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2002) (even where parties fail to include
an indemnity provision by contract, one may be implied unless
disclaimed). Jinwoong's discussion of the issue is illuminating. The
Seventh Circuit noted that contract completion is a standard function
of common law courts, and gives the parties what, if they were
omniscient, they would have provided regarding all contingencies that
might arise under a contract. 310 F.3d at 965. Thus, when the NanoRacks
Agreement requires all parties to extend the waivers of claims to each
of their related entities, the FAA may reasonably rely on the implicit
presence of an agreement to indemnify. The FAA's reliance is further
bolstered by Article 8, paragraph (3)(d)(v), of the NanoRack Agreement,
which states that the cross-waiver does not apply to claims for damage
arising out of a party's failure to extend the cross-waiver to its
related entities. The cross-waiver itself contemplates recourse.
Additionally, for those situations where courts find necessary the
existence of a special relationship before finding a duty to indemnify,
a special relation exists here by virtue of the agreement between
NanoRacks and NASA.
    The FAA notes that its cross-waivers, in addition to requiring
waivers of claims and indemnification, also require the parties to
assume responsibility for their own losses. The intent of the NASA
cross-waivers suggests this is unnecessary. NASA itself has noted its
own long and consistent responsibility of requiring the parties to its
cross-waiver to waive claims for loss or damage and, thus, in NASA's
own words, ``assume responsibility for the risks inherent in space
exploration.'' Cross-Waiver of Liability, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 71 FR 62061 (Oct. 23, 2006). In the context of a customer
assuming responsibility for its own property loss, the NASA explanation
may suffice. However, in its implementing regulations, the FAA made it
clear that it considers a party's assumption of responsibility a
separate element of the cross-waiver. Financial Responsibility
Requirements for Licensed Launch Activities, Final Rule, 63 FR 45592,
45601-06 (Aug. 26, 1998).
    For this waiver, the FAA analyzed the significance of the
assumption of responsibility in two parts. The FAA determined that it
may rely on the

indemnification implicit in the NanoRacks cross-waiver, as discussed
above, for claims for property damage, because the parties expressly
waive claims for property damage. It is a different matter with respect
to employees. The parties may not waive claims on behalf of their
employees. Additionally, here, the NanoRacks cross-waiver does not
address employee claims in the first instance. This does not interfere
with the FAA's ability to grant SpaceX's request for a waiver with
respect to the student customers because they presumably do not have
employees. However, NanoRacks itself does have employees. If any of
them were to be at risk at the launch site, the FAA might not have been
able to grant SpaceX's request for a waiver with respect to NanoRacks
itself. SpaceX recently advised the FAA, however, that it was its
understanding that no NanoRacks employees would be present at the
launch site during the flight.
    The final issue the FAA must consider is that NASA's regulations
provide that the NASA cross-waiver is not applicable when 51 U.S.C.
Subtitle V, Chapter 509 is applicable.\8\ 14 CFR 1266.102(c)(6). At
first glance, this might create the impression that the NanoRacks
cross-waiver does not apply when a launch or reentry is conducted under
FAA license. However, by waiving the requirement that all customers
sign, the FAA is not applying the specific requirements of Chapter 509
to NanoRacks and each SSEP participant. Accordingly, the NanoRacks
agreement should retain legal effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The provision was not incorporated into the NanoRacks
Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This waiver implicates no safety, national security or foreign
policy issues. The waiver is consistent with the public interest goals
of Chapter 509. Under 51 U.S.C. 50914, Congress determined that it was
necessary to reduce the costs associated with insurance and litigation
by requiring launch participants, including customers, to waive claims
against each other. Because the NanoRacks Agreement under 14 CFR part
1266 accomplishes these goals by the same or similar means, the FAA
finds this request in the public interest, and grants the waiver with
respect to NanoRacks and the SSEP participants in reliance on the
representations SpaceX made in its petition and subsequent
communications.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 5, 2012.
Kenneth Wong,
Manager, Licensing and Evaluation Division, Office of Commercial Space
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-25419 Filed 10-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8130-8133]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02931]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0049; FRL-9906-42-Region-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
South Dakota; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove revisions to the South
Dakota State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the South Dakota
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to EPA on June
20, 2011. The proposed SIP revisions address the permitting of sources
of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Specifically, we propose to approve
revisions to the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program to incorporate the provisions of the federal PSD and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule). The proposed SIP
revisions incorporate by reference the federal Tailoring Rule's
emission thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and
modifications to existing stationary sources become subject to South
Dakota's PSD permitting requirements for their GHG emissions. EPA is
proposing to disapprove a related provision that would rescind the
State's Tailoring Rule revision in certain circumstances. EPA will take
separate action on an amendment to the chapter Construction Permits for
New Sources or Modifications in the June 20, 2011 submittal, regarding
permits for minor sources. EPA is proposing this action under section
110 and part C of the Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2014-0049, by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2014-0049. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means that EPA will not know

your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment along with
any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode
8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as
follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background for Our Proposed Action
II. History of EPA's GHG-Related Actions
III. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background for Our Proposed Action

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and submit to
EPA for approval into the state SIP preconstruction review and
permitting programs applicable to certain new and modified stationary
sources of air pollutants. There are three separate new source review
(NSR) programs: PSD, Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and Minor
NSR. The PSD program is established in part C of title I of the CAA and
applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)--``attainment areas''--as well as areas where there is
insufficient information to determine if the area meets the NAAQS--
``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR program is established in part D of
title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in attainment of
the NAAQS--``nonattainment areas.'' The Minor NSR program (1) addresses
construction or modification activities that do not emit, or have the
potential to emit, beyond certain major source thresholds and thus do
not qualify as ``major,'' and (2) applies regardless of the designation
of the area in which a source is located. EPA regulations governing the
criteria that states must satisfy for EPA approval of the NSR programs
as part of the SIP are contained in 40 CFR sections 51.160-51.166.
    On June 20, 2011, South Dakota submitted revisions for approval by
EPA into the South Dakota SIP, including some regulations specific to
the South Dakota PSD permitting program. The submittal proposes to
revise the PSD major source definition so that it applies to any air
pollutant ``subject to regulation as required by EPA'' (Section
74:36:01:08(2)). The submittal also proposes to add the six GHGs
designated by EPA as regulated air pollutants to the definition of
regulated air pollutant (Section 74:36:01:15(6)). These definitions may
also be applied to permitting synthetic minor GHG sources, therefore,
we are proposing to approve both of those changes in South Dakota's air
program Definitions. Outside of the PSD program, the SIP submittal
proposes in Section 74:36:01:01, Definitions, to add ``(73) ``Subject
to regulation'' as defined in 40 CFR Section 70.2 (July 1, 2009), as
revised in publication 75 FR 31607 (June 3, 2010), in accordance with
EPA requirements.'' We are not taking action on that part of the
submittal because it applies to the title V operating permit program
which is not part of the SIP.
    The State generally implements the PSD program by incorporating by
reference (with certain modifications) the federal PSD program in 40
CFR 52.21. (See Chapter 74:36:09:02, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration). The submittal revises the State's PSD program by
incorporating by reference revisions to 40 CFR 52.21 promulgated by EPA
in the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse
Gas Tailoring Rule,'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). Specifically, the
revision cites the regulatory changes on pages 31606 and 31607 in the
Tailoring Rule, which contain (among other things) the revisions to 40
CFR 52.21 promulgated in the Tailoring Rule. We propose to approve that
revision.
    The PSD section of the State rule includes a rescission clause that
states, ``If EPA stays or withdraws the regulation of greenhouse gases
as identified in publication 75 FR 31606 and 31607 (June 3, 2010), or a
court issues an order vacating or otherwise invalidating EPA's
regulation of greenhouse gases for any reason, the regulation of
greenhouse gases by Article 74:36 are void as of the date of such
administrative or judicial action and shall have no further force and
effect.'' (Section 74:36:09:02(8)). As explained below, EPA proposes to
disapprove this language as inconsistent with the CAA.
    These proposed revisions 1) establish that GHG is a regulated
pollutant under South Dakota's PSD program, and 2) establish emission
thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to South Dakota's PSD permitting
requirements for their GHG emissions consistent with the Tailoring
Rule. Today's proposed action presents our rationale for approving
these regulations as meeting the minimum federal requirements for the
adoption and implementation of PSD SIP permitting programs, and for
disapproving the submitted rescission clause language.

II. History of EPA's GHG-Related Actions

    This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG-related actions
that provide the background for this action. Please see the preambles
for the identified GHG-related rulemakings for more information.
    Beginning in 2010, EPA undertook a series of actions pertaining to
the regulation of GHGs that established the overall framework for
today's proposed action on the South Dakota SIP. These actions include,
as they are commonly called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause
or Contribute Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final

action,\1\ the ``Johnson Memo Reconsideration,'' \2\ the ``Light-Duty
Vehicle Rule,'' \3\ and the ``Tailoring Rule.'' \4\ Taken together and
in conjunction with the CAA, these actions established regulatory
requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines; determined that such regulations, when they took
effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary
sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability of PSD
requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA took this last
action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more specifically, established
appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability
of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
    \2\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
    \3\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
    \4\ ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, EPA recognized that many states had approved SIP
PSD programs that do apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for sources that
emit as little as 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) of GHG, and that do
not limit PSD applicability to GHGs to the higher thresholds in the
Tailoring Rule. Therefore, EPA issued the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing
Rule,\5\ under which, EPA converted its previous full approval of the
affected SIPs, including South Dakota's, to a partial approval and
partial disapproval, to the extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting
sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA based its action
primarily on the ``error correction'' provisions of CAA section
110(k)(6). Many of those states have since submitted SIP revisions that
have established the Tailoring Rule thresholds, and EPA has approved
those SIP revisions and rescinded the partial disapprovals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting Sources
in State Implementation Plans,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal

    South Dakota is currently a SIP-approved state for the PSD program,
and has incorporated EPA's 2002 NSR reform revisions for PSD into its
SIP. The June 20, 2011 revisions to South Dakota's SIP will make the
approved PSD program rules consistent with the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing
Rule. As described above, in the Narrowing Rule EPA withdrew its
previous approval of the South Dakota PSD program to the extent that it
applied to permitting of new or modified major sources below the
thresholds set out in the Tailoring Rule. By approving the changes in
the June 20, 2011 submittal, the approved PSD program rules will
explicitly conform with the SIP as approved under the Narrowing Rule.
Specifically, the June 20, 2011 revisions establish thresholds
consistent with the Tailoring Rule and Narrowing Rule for determining
which stationary sources and modification projects become subject to
permitting requirements for GHG emissions under South Dakota's NSR PSD
program.
    South Dakota has adopted and submitted regulations that adopt the
federal requirements for the permitting of GHG-emitting sources subject
to PSD. The proposed revisions incorporate the Tailoring Rule into
South Dakota's PSD Permitting Program, and support synthetic minor
permitting at stationary sources seeking federally enforceable limits
to avoid major source or major stationary source applicability
thresholds specific to GHG. The changes revise the definitions of major
source and regulated air pollutant, and make the Tailoring Rule
effective January 2, 2011. The submittal makes no other changes to the
State's approved PSD program. We propose to conclude that the revisions
are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166, in particular,
requirements set out in EPA's final GHG Tailoring Rule, and that the
revisions should be approved into South Dakota's SIP.
    However, EPA proposes to disapprove the portion of the revision
that adds a rescission clause to the SIP. In assessing the
approvability of this clause, EPA considered two key factors: (1)
Whether the public will be given reasonable notice of any change to the
SIP that occurs as a result of the automatic rescission clause, and (2)
whether any future change to the SIP that occurs as a result of the
automatic rescission clause would be consistent with EPA's
interpretation of the effect of the triggering EPA or federal court
action (e.g., the extent of an administrative or judicial stay). These
criteria are derived from the SIP revision procedures set forth in the
CAA and federal regulations.
    EPA's consideration of whether any SIP change resulting from the
proposed automatic rescission clause would be consistent with EPA's
interpretation of the effect of the triggering action on federal
regulations is based on 40 CFR 51.105. Under 40 CFR 51.105,
``[r]evisions of a plan, or any portion thereof, will not be considered
part of an applicable plan until such revisions have been approved by
the Administrator in accordance with this part.'' See 40 CFR 51.105.
However, the South Dakota rescission clause takes effect immediately
upon certain judicial actions without any EPA intervention. The effect
of this is that EPA is not given the opportunity to determine the
effect and extent of the judicial action; instead, the SIP is modified
without EPA's approval. This violates 40 CFR 51.105.
    The provision is also insufficient with regard to providing
adequate notice to the public. While the State followed applicable
notice-and-comment procedures prior to adopting the automatic
rescission clause, the public would not receive adequate notice of the
modification of the SIP after a triggering judicial action. Without
intervening notice by EPA to the public of the effect and extent of the
judicial action, its effect and extent (and indeed whether the judicial
action triggered the provision at all) would be unclear to the public.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA proposes to approve in part, and disapprove in part, the June
20, 2011 submittal that addresses the permitting of sources of
greenhouse gases for incorporation into the South Dakota SIP.
Specifically, EPA proposes to approve revisions to Chapter 74:36:09
that incorporates the Tailoring Rule into the State's definitions and
requirements for PSD. EPA is proposing to disapprove the provision that
would rescind the State's Tailoring Rule revision in certain
circumstances. EPA will take separate action on an amendment in the
June 20, 2011 submittal to Chapter 74:36:20, Construction Permits for
New Sources or Modifications, regarding permits for minor sources.
    EPA proposes to approve changes to Definitions, Section
74:36:01:08(2), which revises the major source definition so that it
applies to any air pollutant ``subject to regulation as required by
EPA,'' and Section 74:36:01:15(6), which adds the six GHGs designated
by EPA as regulated air pollutants to the definition of regulated air
pollutant. EPA is not taking action on the addition of ``(73) ``Subject
to regulation'' as defined in 40 CFR Section 70.2 (July 1, 2009), as
revised in publication 75 FR 31607 (June 3, 2010), in accordance with
EPA requirements,'' because it applies to the title V

permitting program which is not part of the SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law that meets
federal requirements and disapproves state law that does not meet
federal requirements; when finalized, this action would not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition,
this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not
approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments
or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 29, 2014.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2014-02931 Filed 2-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1903-1904]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00199]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68572; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-132]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

January 3, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 28, 2012, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule.\3\ More
specifically, the Exchange is proposing to make changes to the section
``Regulatory Fees.'' Under the Exchange's Regulatory Fees, the Exchange
charges a fee to Designated Primary Market-Makers \4\ (``DPMs'') and
firms for which the Exchange is the Designated Examining Authority
(``DEA'') called the ``DPM's and Firm Designated Examining Authority
Fee.'' Under such fee, the Exchange currently charges DPMs and TPHs for
which the Exchange is the DEA $0.50 per $1,000 of gross revenue as
reported on quarterly FOCUS reports filed by such TPHs (excluding
commodity commission revenue). In addition, this fee is subject to a
monthly minimum fee of $1,000 per month for Clearing TPHs and $275 for
non-Clearing TPHs. The Exchange is proposing to increase this fee from
$.50 per $1,000 of gross revenue to $0.60 per $1,000 of gross revenue.
In addition, the Exchange is proposing to increase the monthly minimum
fee for Clearing TPHs from $1,000 to $1,500 and the monthly minimum fee
for non-Clearing TPHs from $275 to $400. New proposed text has been
added to the ``Regulatory Fees'' section of the Fees Schedule to
reflect this charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 2.20, which authorizes the Exchange, from
time to time, to ``fix the fee and charges payable by Trading Permit
Holders.''
    \4\ See Exchange Rule 8.80, which defines a ``Designated Primary
Market-Maker'' as a ``TPH organization that is approved by the
Exchange to function in allocated securities as a Market-Maker * * *
and is subject to the obligations under Rule 8.85 * * *.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has determined that these changes are necessary to
increase the revenue of the Exchange for the purpose of continuing to
adequately fund its regulatory functions. Specifically, the Exchange is
proposing to increase this fee in order to help more closely cover the
costs of regulating these TPHs. The proposed modifications are
reasonable as they have not been recently changed to reflect growing
regulatory costs.\5\ In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed
changes to the Fees Schedule are equitably allocated to all TPHs in
which the Exchange is the DEA as all will be charged equally based upon
their gross revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-50903 (December
21, 2004), 69 FR 78070 (December 29, 2004) (SR-CBOE-2004-084)
(immediately effective rule increasing, among other things, the firm
FOCUS Minimum Monthly Fee to $275 for non-clearing members while
maintaining a monthly minimum of $1000 for clearing members). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-63701 (January 11,
2011), 76 FR 2934 (January 18, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2010-116) (immediately
effective rule change to increase, among other things, the DPMs and
Designated Examining Authority Fee to $.50 per $1,000 of gross
revenue as reported on quarterly FOCUS reports filed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are to take effect on January 1, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with

Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ which provides that Exchange rules may
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory as it is allocated to all Exchange DPMs and
TPHs for which the Exchange is the DEA equally based upon their gross
revenue. In addition, the fee is reasonable as it is a slight increase
to the current Exchange fee which has not recently been updated to
reflect current regulatory costs.\9\ The Exchange believes the proposed
rule change will protect investors and the public interest by
increasing the Exchange's regulatory revenue to allow the Exchange to
more adequately perform its regulatory functions and, thus, also allow
the Exchange to better prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\10\ which provides that the
Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the
purposes of the Act and to enforce compliance by the Exchange's TPHs
and persons associated with its TPHs with the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The proposed
rule change is designed to fund the Exchange's regulatory program, and,
more specifically, to help more closely cover the costs of regulating
Exchange DPMs and those TPHs for which the Exchange is the DEA. Thus,
the proposed changes will help the Exchange to enforce compliance of
its TPHs with the Act and Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, the proposed
rule change will serve to aid the Exchange in fulfilling its
obligations as a Self-Regulatory Organization by further funding the
Exchange regulatory program.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \12\
thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2012-132 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-CBOE-2012-132. 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-CBOE-2012-132 and should be
submitted on or before January 30, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00199 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P