[Federal Register: August 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 148)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45558-45560]
[DOCID:fr03au10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0754; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-039-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-500 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    It has been found that certain regions of the elevators,
elevators trim tabs, and ailerons do not present drain holes to
avoid water accumulation inside of these flight control surfaces.
Internal water accumulation may lead to flight control surfaces
unbalancing possibly reducing the flutter margins, which could
result in loss of airplane control.
    Since this condition may occur in other airplanes of the same
type and affects flight safety, a corrective action is required.
Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this AD in
the indicated time limit.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0754;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-039-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed 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 we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The AG[Ecirc]NCIA NACIONAL DE AVIA[Ccedil][Atilde]O CIVIL--BRAZIL,
which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued AD No.: 2010-07-
01, dated August 9, 2010 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    It has been found that certain regions of the elevators,
elevators trim tabs, and ailerons do not present drain holes to
avoid water accumulation inside of these flight control surfaces.
Internal water accumulation may lead to flight control surfaces
unbalancing possibly reducing the flutter margins, which could
result in loss of airplane control.
    Since this condition may occur in other airplanes of the same
type and affects flight safety, a corrective action is required.
Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this AD in
the indicated time limit.

The MCAI requires you to drill new drain holes in the elevators,
elevators trim tabs, and ailerons surfaces. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Empresa Brasileira de Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. (EMBRAER) has issued
Service Bulletin 500-57-0001, dated April 28, 2010. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 78 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 18 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $128 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $129,324, or $1,658 per product.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed
regulation:
    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 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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA-
2010-0754; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-039-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by September 17, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model EMB-500 airplanes, serial numbers
50000005 through 50000134, 50000136, 50000137, and 50000139 through
50000165, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    It has been found that certain regions of the elevators,
elevators trim tabs, and ailerons do not present drain holes to
avoid water accumulation inside of these flight control surfaces.
Internal water accumulation may lead to flight control surfaces
unbalancing possibly reducing the flutter margins, which could
result in loss of airplane control.
    Since this condition may occur in other airplanes of the same
type and affects flight safety, a corrective action is required.
Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this AD in
the indicated time limit.

The MCAI requires you to drill new drain holes in the elevators,
elevators trim tabs, and ailerons surfaces. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within the next 24 calendar months
after the effective date of this AD, rework the elevators, elevators
trim tabs, and ailerons surfaces by drilling additional drain holes
in them following Empresa Brasileira de Aeron[aacute]utica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Service Bulletin 500-57-0001, dated April 28, 2010.

FAA AD Differences

    Note:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI AG[Ecirc]NCIA NACIONAL DE
AVIA[Ccedil][Atilde]O CIVIL--BRAZIL (ANAC), AD No.: 2010-07-01,
dated August 9, 2010; and Empresa Brasileira de Aeron[aacute]utica
S.A. (EMBRAER) Service Bulletin 500-57-0001, dated April 28, 2010,
for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 26, 2010.
Christina L. Marsh,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19019 Filed 8-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 226 (Friday, November 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70158-70159]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28405]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: EC13-39-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Application of Public Service Company of New Mexico
for Approval of Acquisition of Jurisdictional Facilities under Section
203 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 11/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20121114-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: EC13-40-000.
    Applicants: Spearville 3, LLC.
    Description: Application for Approval under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Requests for Expedited Consideration and
Confidential Treatment of Spearville 3, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20121114-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: EC13-41-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Florida Power Corporation.
    Filed Date: 11/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20121115-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4628-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance Filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 11/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20121114-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4628-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance Filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 11/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20121114-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4628-002.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance Filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 11/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20121114-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4628-003.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance Filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 11/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20121114-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4628-004.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance Filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 11/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20121114-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4628-005.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance Filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 11/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20121114-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4628-006.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance Filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 11/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20121114-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2658-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tridam Project--Tulloch Powerhouse LGIA Compliance
Filing to be effective 3/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20121115-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-354-001.
    Applicants: QC Power Strategies Fund LLC.
    Description: QCP Initial Tariff to be effective 11/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20121115-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-380-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 27--Annual BPA-GTA Update 2012 to be
effective 10/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20121115-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-381-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Letter Agreement SCE-Victorville 33kV Project to be
effective 1/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20121115-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-382-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2234R2 Osage Wind/PSO Facilities Construction
Agreement to be effective 10/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20121115-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-383-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Tapoco Cancellation to be effective 11/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20121115-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-384-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Cancellation of TVA Interconnection Agreement Filed in
ER11-4059 to be effective 11/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20121115-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-385-000.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Amendments to Formulary Rate Tariff--Rate Schedule
EDR-7 to be effective 1/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20121115-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-386-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2490 Steele Flats Wind Project, LLC GIA to be
effective 10/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20121115-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-387-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Alcoa Power Generating Inc. submits Notice of
Cancellation of Electric Rate Schedules FERC Nos. 17 and 19.
    Filed Date: 11/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20121115-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by

clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 15, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28405 Filed 11-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30352-30354]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12374]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0040; Notice 2]

Forest River, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition denial.

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

SUMMARY: Forest River, Inc. (Forest River), has determined that
approximately 2,741 model year 2009-2011 R-Pod travel trailers that it
manufactured from October 27, 2008 through November 30, 2010, fail to
meet the requirements of paragraph S5.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. Forest River has filed an appropriate report,
dated December 14, 2010 pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Forest River has petitioned for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    Notice of receipt of Forest River's petition was published, with a
30-day public comment period, on August 29, 2011, in the Federal
Register (76 FR 53715). Thirty-four \1\ comments were received. To view
the petition, comments, and all supporting documents log onto the
Federal Docket Management System Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2011-0040.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A 35th comment was received but appeared to be a duplicate
entry.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this
decision, contact Mr. Michael Cole, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Relevant Requirements of FMVSS No. 108

    Among other things, FMVSS No. 108 requires trailers that are 80 or
more inches in overall width to be equipped with three red rear
identification lamps, two red rear clearance lamps, and two amber front
clearance lamps.

Summary of Forest Rivers's Petition

    Vehicles involved: Forest River estimates that a total of
approximately 2,741 model year 2009-2011 R-Pod model travel trailers
were not manufactured with rear red identification lamps, rear red
clearance lamps, and front amber clearance lamps. Of these, 2,697 were
manufactured in Forest River's Surveyor Division plant in Goshen,
Indiana and 44 were manufactured in its Surveyor Division plant in
Dallas, Oregon.
    Noncompliance: Forest River described the noncompliance as the
absence of the clearance lamps and marker lamps required by paragraph
S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 108.
    Forest River stated that its original interpretation of the
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 caused it to believe that because the
bodies of the subject trailers, not including the fenders, are less
than 80 inches in width, clearance lamps and marker lamps were not
required.
    Forest River further explained that based on a consumer complaint
NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) inspected a number
of the subject trailers and found that, based on the width of the
trailers, including the fenders, that clearance lamps and marker lamps
were required on the trailers due to the requirements of paragraph
S5.1.1, Table 1 of FMVSS No. 108.
    In its petition Forest River argues that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    (1) The cost of correcting the noncompliance is substantial.
    (2) Installation of clearance lamps and marker lamps on a fully
assembled trailer has the potential of causing deterioration of the
trailer if the remedy is not completed correctly.
    (3) ``The box of the unit [subject trailer] is under the 80 inch
width and is properly marked according to Table IV of [49 CFR] 571.108.
The fenders are low on each side of the unit.''
    Forest River additionally states that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that future production of its R-Pod travel trailer
will conform to all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 108.
    Forest River believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt it from
providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120, should be granted.

Comments

    The agency received 34 comments from, primarily, owners of Forest
River trailers. 33 of those commenters supported denial of this
petition, (one commenter did not offer an opinion) and 29 commenters
indicated their belief that this was a safety issue (the remaining
commenters did not offer an opinion).
    Regarding the vehicle width, Rosemary Dingus commented that the
fenders extend ``about a foot from the sides of the trailer,'' and
Jeffrey Stephens commented that the overall width of his trailer is 97
inches, fender to fender.

NHTSA's Consideration of Forest River's Inconsequentiality Petition

General Principles

    Federal motor vehicle safety standards are adopted only after the
agency has determined, following notice and comment, that the
performance requirements are objective and practicable and ``meet the
need for motor vehicle safety.'' See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Thus, there is
a general presumption that the failure of a motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment to comply with a FMVSS increases the risk to
motor vehicle safety beyond the level deemed appropriate by NHTSA
through the rulemaking process. To protect the public from such risks,
manufacturers whose products fail to comply with a FMVSS are normally
required to conduct a safety recall under which they must notify
owners, purchasers, and dealers of the noncompliance and provide a
remedy without charge. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.
    However, Congress has recognized that, under some limited
circumstances, a noncompliance could be ``inconsequential'' to motor
vehicle safety. ``Inconsequential'' is not defined either in the
statute or in NHTSA's regulations. Rather, the agency determines
whether a particular noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety based on the specific facts before it. The key issue in
determining inconsequentiality is whether the noncompliance in question
is likely to increase the safety risk to individuals of accidents or to
individual occupants who experience the type of injurious event against
which the standard was designed to protect. See General Motors Corp.;
Ruling on Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance,
69 FR 19897 (Apr. 14, 2004).
    There have been instances in the past in which NHTSA has determined
that a manufacturer has met its burden of demonstrating that a
noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. For example, there have
been instances where NHTSA granted inconsequentiality petitions
regarding noncompliance with labeling requirements. See, e.g., General
Motors Corp., Grant of Application for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 61 FR 60746 (Nov. 29, 1996) (noncompliance with FMVSS
No. 115). More rarely, NHTSA has granted inconsequentiality petitions
in cases of

noncompliance with performance requirements where the noncompliance was
determined to be so minor as to be inconsequential--for example, where
the noncompliance is expected to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to
vehicle occupants or approaching drivers. See, e.g., General Motors
Corp., Grant of Application for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 63 FR 70179 (Dec. 18, 1998) (noncompliance with FMVSS
No. 108); Subaru of America, Inc., Grant of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 18354 (Apr. 6, 2001)
(noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108).
    On the other hand, NHTSA has denied petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance where required equipment is completely missing from the
vehicle. For example, NHTSA denied a petition for travel trailers not
equipped with rear identification lamps. Weekend Warrior Trailers,
Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance,
71 FR 5409 (Feb. 1, 2006). In addition, NHTSA has denied
inconsequentiality petitions for trailers that were equipped with
clearance and identification lamps that did not meet the minimum
photometry requirements. Utilimaster Corporation; Denial of Application
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 33603 (June 22,
2001).

NHTSA's Analysis of Forest River's Arguments in Support of Its Petition

    NHTSA has reviewed the petition and has determined that the
noncompliance is not inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    First, Forest River asserts that the box of the subject vehicles is
under the 80 inch width and is properly marked according to Table IV of
49 CFR 571.108, and that the fenders are low on each side of the unit.
The agency finds this assertion unavailing. Forest River did not equip
the subject trailers with identification or clearance lamps, all of
which have been required on wide trailers since January 1, 1969. The
ability of motorists to distinguish wide trailers from passenger
vehicles is an essential component of crash avoidance because of size,
maneuvering, and speed differences between the two types of vehicles.
High mounted identification lamps uniquely identify wide trailers and
do so with the longest possible sight preview of the lamps. Clearance
lamps show the overall width of the vehicle. Therefore, the absence of
identification and clearance lamps on the subject trailers increases
the risk of a crash involving these trailers.
    In order to discern the requirements with which it must comply, a
manufacturer must first determine the overall width of its vehicle. The
term ``overall width'' of a vehicle was first published in the Federal
Register on March 1, 1967, (see 32 FR 3390) and is described in Note 1
of Tables I and II as ``the nominal design dimension of the widest part
of the vehicle, exclusive of * * * flexible fender extensions * * *.''
Thus, an overall width determination does not have to include flexible
fender extensions. Forest River claims that ``the body'' of the subject
trailers, exclusive of fender extensions, is less than 80 inches in
overall width. However, contrary to Forest River's view, the steel
panels that cover the wheel/tire assemblies of the subject trailers are
clearly the fender itself, and not a flexible extension of a fender.
Further, the wheel/tire assemblies themselves are located entirely
outside the ``the body'' of the trailer.
    Second, Forest River argues that the cost of correcting the
noncompliance is substantial. The statute does not include cost as a
factor in determining whether a noncompliance is inconsequential. With
respect to at least some noncompliances, such as for example those
involving a seat belt or air bag that was missing or did not work, cost
would not be a factor. Moreover, the manufacturer of the noncomplying
vehicle that is missing a required item of equipment, such as the lamps
here, has saved money by not including the item on the vehicles as
manufactured and sold. In any event, Forest River has not demonstrated
that the costs should justify an exemption. Forest River hypothesizes
that the costs could be slightly over a million dollars by multiplying
the number of trailers by a unit cost for each of the recalled
trailers. In its calculation, Forest River estimates the labor cost at
$100/hour. However, according to the U.S. Department of Labor,
automotive mechanics earn, on average, only $17.21 per hour.\2\ In
addition, the million dollar figure represents an upper bound that
assumes that all trailers will be remedied. The completion rate for
recent noncompliance recalls of recreational trailers has been
approximately 50 percent. Therefore, the cost to Forest River of
correcting the noncompliant trailers will likely be substantially less
than the million-dollar cost Forest River estimates based on the remedy
being performed on all 2,741 subject trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook,
2012-13 Edition, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Installation-Maintenance-and-Repair/Automotive-service-technicians-and-mechanics.htm (last visited April 25, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Forest River argues that remedying the subject trailers has
the potential of causing deterioration of the vehicles if the remedy is
not completed correctly. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for
manufacturers to present ways that a recall could be implemented
improperly in order to avoid implementing recalls. However, problems
with developing or implementing a remedy are not grounds for granting
an inconsequentiality petition. See Blue Bird Body Company; Denial of
Application for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 65 FR 48822
at 48823 (Aug. 9, 2000)).

Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance
described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Forest River's petition is hereby denied, and the petitioner must
notify owners, purchasers and dealers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
provide a remedy in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30120.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: May 16, 2012.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2012-12374 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15664-15665]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06069]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0080; FRL-10021-46]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Uses (March 2021)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register new uses for
pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients.
Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to
comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2021.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each contact person is:
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing
address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code.
The division to contact is listed at the end of each application
summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide
products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant
to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA
is hereby providing

notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by
the Agency on these applications.

Notice of Receipt--New Uses

    1. EPA File Symbol: 56228-AU. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-
0163. Applicant: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Active ingredient:
Gonadotropin releasing hormone. Product type: Contraceptive. Proposed
use: Black-tailed prairie dogs. Contact: RD.
    2. EPA Registration Number(s) or File Symbol: 9F8817; 100-903, 100-
1270. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0066. Applicant: Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active
ingredient: Emamectin benzoate. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed
use: Soybeans. Contact: RD.

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

    Dated: March 11, 2021.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2021-06069 Filed 3-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12999-13003]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96968; File No. SR-BX-2023-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 7,
Section 2, BX Options Market-Fees and Rebates

February 23, 2023.
    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 February 10, 2023, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7,
Section 2.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange originally filed SR-BX-2023-001 on January 3,
2023. On January 12, 2023, the Exchange withdrew SR-BX-2023-001 and
replaced that filing with SR-BX-2023-002. On January 24, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew SR-BX-2023-002 and replaced that filing with SR-
BX-2023-003. On January 30, 2023, the Exchange withdrew SR-BX-2023-
003 and replaced that filing with SR-BX-2023-004. On February 10,
2023, the Exchange is withdrawing SR-BX-2023-004 and replacing it
with the instant filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend BX's Pricing Schedule at Options 7,
Section 2, BX Options Market-Fees and Rebates. BX proposes to adopt
pricing for BX Participants that utilize the Request for PRISM feature.
    Today, a BX Participant may elect to utilize FIX \4\ to send a
message and PRISM Order,\5\ as defined within Options 3, Section 13, to
all BX Participants that opt in to receive Requests for PRISM
requesting that it submit the sender's PRISM Order with responder's
Initiating Order,\6\ as defined within Options 3, Section 13, into the
BX Price Improvement Auction (``PRISM''),\7\ pursuant to Options 3,
Section 13 (``Request for PRISM'').\8\ A Request for PRISM permits a BX
Participant to solicit the Initiating Order side of a PRISM Auction
Order.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Financial Information eXchange'' or ``FIX'' is an
interface that allows members and their Sponsored Customers to
connect, send, and receive messages related to orders and auction
orders and responses to and from the Exchange. Features include the
following: (1) execution messages; (2) order messages; and (3) risk
protection triggers and cancel notifications. See Options 3, Section
7(a)(i)(A).
    \5\ A PRISM Order is a one-sided order entered into the PRISM
Auction that represents an agency order on behalf a Public Customer,
broker-dealer of other entity.
    \6\ An Initiating Order is one-sided order entered into the
PRISM Auction that represents principal interest or other agency
order.
    \7\ A Participant may electronically submit for execution an
order it represents as agent on behalf of a Public Customer, broker
dealer, or any other entity (``PRISM Order'') against principal
interest or against any other order (except as provided in sub-
paragraph (i)(F) to Options 3, Section 13) it represents as agent
(an ``Initiating Order'') provided it submits the PRISM Order for
electronic execution into the PRISM Auction (``Auction'') pursuant
to Options 3, Section 13.
    \8\ See Options 3, Section 7(e)(1)(A)(1)(b). The Exchange will
set a certain time period up to one second within which a recipient
of a Request for PRISM may utilize FIX to submit the sender's PRISM
Order, along with an Initiating Order (a ``response'') into the
System for execution into PRISM pursuant to Options 3, Section 13.
The System will permit the first responder to start a PRISM Auction
and will send a reject message to subsequent responders. A response
must match the PRISM Order and may not improve the price, or the
response will be rejected. A response may be configured to improve
the PRISM Order stop price pursuant to Options 3, Section
13(ii)(A)(1)(c); the configuration would apply if this response
initiated a PRISM auction. If no BX Participant responds to the
Request for PRISM, the PRISM Order would be placed on the Order Book
as a Limit Order or cancelled, consistent with the sending
Participant's instruction.
    \9\ A PRISM Auction Order is a two-sided order comprised of a
PRISM Order and Initiating Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defined Terms
    The Exchange proposes to define a ``Request for PRISM'' as a
mechanism to submit orders into a PRISM Auction as described within
Options 3, Section 7(e)(1)(A)(1)(b). The Exchange also proposes to
define certain terms related to the PRISM Auction within Options 7,
Section 2(5) pricing. The Exchange proposes to define a ``PRISM Order''
as one-side of a PRISM Auction Order that represents an agency order on
behalf a Public Customer, broker-dealer or other entity which is paired
with an Initiating Order. The Exchange proposes to define an
``Initiating Order'' as one-side of a PRISM Auction Order that
represents principal or other interest which is paired with a PRISM
Order. The Exchange proposes to define a ``PRISM Auction Order'' as a
two-sided, paired order comprised of a PRISM Order and an Initiating
Order. Finally, the Exchange proposes to define a ``PRISM Response'' as
interest that executed against the PRISM Order pursuant to Options 3,
Section 13. The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 2(5) to
utilize these terms instead of the terms ``Agency Order'' or ``Contra-
Side.'' Also the Exchange proposes to utilize the new term ``PRISM
Auction Order'' instead of ``PRISM Order'' where the Exchange refers to
the paired order entered into PRISM. Finally, the Exchange proposes to
amend the title ``Responded to PRISM Auction'' to ``Response to PRISM
Auction'' within Options 7, Section 2(5) for clarity. The Exchange
believes these defined terms will make the pricing within Options 7,
Section 2(5) more transparent.
Request for PRISM Pricing
    At this time, the Exchange proposes to adopt pricing, in lieu of
Options 7, Section 2(5) pricing, for PRISM Auction Orders which
commenced as a Request for PRISM pursuant to Options 3, Section
7(e)(1)(A)(1)(b) and executed in the PRISM Auction. The pricing
described below applies regardless of capacity.
    With respect to a PRISM Order, the Exchange proposes to pay a
rebate to a PRISM Order that was submitted as a Request for PRISM
seeking another BX Participant who would respond to the Request for
PRISM Order by submitting the Initiating Order to initiate a PRISM
Auction.\10\ The Exchange would pay a rebate of $0.35 per contract for
a Penny Class and $0.70 per contract for a Non-Penny Class to the PRISM
Order when a BX Participant responds to a Request for PRISM with an
Initiating Order, provided the PRISM Order trades with an Initiating
Order or the PRISM Order trades with a PRISM Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A recipient of a Request for PRISM may utilize FIX to
submit the sender's PRISM Order, along with an Initiating Order (a
``response'') into the System for execution into PRISM pursuant to
Options 3, Section 13. Requests for PRISM are sent to BX
Participants that ``opt in'' to receive Requests for PRISM. See
Options 3, Section 7(e)(A)(1)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to an Initiating Order, the Exchange proposes to
assess a fee to the Initiating Order that was submitted in response to
the Request for PRISM along with the PRISM Order. The Exchange would
assess a fee of $0.49 per contract fee for a Penny Class and $0.94 per
contract fee for a Non-Penny Class to the Initiating Order when a BX
Participant responds to a Request for PRISM with an Initiating Order,
provided the PRISM Order traded with an Initiating Order.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ If the PRISM Order trades entirely with a PRISM Response,
the Initiating Order would not be assessed a fee because the
Initiating Order did not execute as part of the PRISM Order. If the
PRISM Order trades partially with a PRISM Response, the Initiating
Order would be subject to fees only for contracts traded with the
PRISM Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to assess responses to a PRISM Auction a fee
of $0.49 per contract for Penny Classes and $0.94 per contract for Non-
Penny Classes.
    Today, the Exchange does not assess a fee or pay a rebate to a BX
Participant who submitted a PRISM Order into a Request for PRISM or the
BX Participant who responded with an Initiating Order within the
Request for PRISM mechanism. Today, the fees and rebates for two-sided
orders entered into PRISM are codified within Options 7, Section 2(5).
Pursuant to Options 7, Section 2(5), a BX Participant who entered a
paired PRISM Auction pays no fee if a Customer were on either or both
sides of the PRISM Auction Order, and pays a $0.30 per contract for the
PRISM Order and $0.05 per contract for the Initiating Order for Non-
Customer orders. Responders to a PRISM Auction pay a $0.49 per contract
fee for a Penny Class and a $0.94 per contract fee for a Non-Penny
Class. A Customer PRISM Order that traded with a PRISM Response
receives a rebate of $0.35 per contract for a Penny Class and a $0.70
per contract for a Non-Penny Class. Non-Customer PRISM Orders that
traded with a PRISM Response do not receive a rebate.
    The Exchange proposes to incentivize BX Participants to submit
PRISM Orders through the Request for PRISM mechanism. With this
proposal, a PRISM Order that was submitted as a Request for PRISM and
trades with an Initiating Order or a PRISM Response would receive a
rebate of $0.35 per contract for Penny Classes and $0.70 per

contract for Non-Penny Classes, regardless of capacity, instead of
paying a fee of $0.30 per contract pursuant to Options 7, Section 2(5),
provided the order was for a Non-Customer.\12\ If the PRISM Order was
for a Customer, the rebate of $0.35 per contract for Penny Classes and
$0.70 per contract for Non-Penny Classes remains unchanged pursuant to
Options 7, Section 2(5). The BX Participant submitting an Initiating
Order through the Request for PRISM mechanism would be assessed a fee
of $0.49 per contract for Penny Class and $0.94 per contract for Non-
Penny Classes if the PRISM Order trades with the Initiating Order
instead of a $0.05 per contract fee pursuant to Options 7, Section
2(5), provided the order was for a Non-Customer.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Today, Customers pays no PRISM Order fee.
    \13\ Today, Customers pays no Initiating Order fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Responders to a PRISM Auction would pay the same fee of $0.49 per
contract fee for Penny Classes and $0.94 per contract fee for Non-Penny
Classes regardless of whether the Request for PRISM mechanism was
utilized to initiate a PRISM Auction or the PRISM Auction Order was
entered directly into the PRISM Auction as a paired order.
    The proposed pricing is intended to incentivize BX Participants to
utilize the Request for PRISM feature to obtain liquidity, potential
price improvement for the PRISM Order, as well as a rebate. Any BX
Participant may respond to a PRISM Auction and all BX Participants
benefit from the ability to interact with the PRISM Auction Order. The
proposed fee to Initiating Orders, who respond to a Request for PRISM
and where the PRISM Order traded with an Initiating Order, would enable
the Exchange to offer rebates to attract BX Participants to enter PRISM
Orders as a Request for PRISM. This proposal does not amend pricing for
PRISM Auctions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ 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, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to its Pricing Schedule are reasonable in
several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to
significant competitive forces in the market for options transaction
services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The
fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \16\
(``NetCoalition''), the D.C. Circuit stated, ``[n]o one disputes that
competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained,
`[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \17\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options transaction services. The Exchange is only one of sixteen
options exchanges to which market participants may direct their order
flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. Within the
foregoing context, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the
Exchange to attract additional order flow to the Exchange and increase
its market share relative to its competitors.
    The Exchange's proposal to define a ``PRISM Order'', an
``Initiating Order'', a ``PRISM Auction Order'', a ``PRISM Response'',
and a ``Request for PRISM'' for the purpose of Options 7, Section 2(5)
pricing and utilize these terms within Options 7, Section 2(5) is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange
believes that these terms, which align more closely to the terms
utilized in Options 3, Section 13 related to PRISM, will make the
Options 7, Section 2(5) PRISM pricing more transparent.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Section 2(5) to adopt
specific pricing for BX Participants that utilize the Request for PRISM
mechanism is reasonable because the Exchange believes the proposed
pricing will incentivize BX Participants to utilize the Request for
PRISM feature to obtain liquidity, potential price improvement, as well
as a rebate for the PRISM Order. The proposed pricing for PRISM Auction
Orders which commenced as a Request for PRISM and executed in the PRISM
Auction would apply in lieu of Options 7, Section 2(5) pricing and
regardless of capacity. With respect to a PRISM Order, the Exchange
proposes to pay a rebate to a PRISM Order that was submitted as a
Request for PRISM seeking another BX Participant who would respond to
the Request for PRISM Order by submitting the Initiating Order to
initiate a PRISM Auction.\18\ With this proposal, a PRISM Order that
was submitted as a Request for PRISM and trades with an Initiating
Order or a PRISM Response, would receive a rebate of $0.35 per contract
for Penny Classes and $0.70 per contract for Non-Penny Classes,
regardless of capacity, instead of paying a fee of $0.30 per contract
pursuant to Options 7, Section 2(5), provided the order was for a Non-
Customer.\19\ If the PRISM Order was for a Customer, the rebate of
$0.35 per contract for Penny Classes and $0.70 per contract for Non-
Penny Classes remains unchanged pursuant to Options 7, Section 2(5).
The Exchange believes the proposed PRISM Order rebate is reasonable
because it is intended to attract BX Participants to utilize the
Request for PRISM mechanism. The BX Participant submitting an
Initiating Order through the Request for PRISM mechanism would be
assessed a fee of $0.49 per contract for Penny Class and $0.94 per
contract for Non-Penny Classes if the PRISM Order trades with the
Initiating Order, instead of a $0.05 per contract fee pursuant to
Options 7, Section 2(5), provided the order was for a Non-Customer.\20\
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to assess a higher fee for the
Initiating Order that was submitted with the Request for PRISM
mechanism, where fees are the same as those assessed to responders in
the PRISM Auction, because BX Participants are able to obtain immediate
liquidity. The Request for PRISM mechanism is utilized by Participants
as a liquidity seeking tool that if not available would require a BX
Participant to source liquidity from third parties, expending time and
potential additional cost. The Request for PRISM mechanism offers
Participants the opportunity to

immediately commence a PRISM Auction without the need to source
liquidity. Liquidity providers that enter orders directly into PRISM
and do not utilize the Request for PRISM mechanism have expended time
sourcing liquidity with third parties outside of the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that BX Participants benefit from the liquidity
seeking mechanism that is being offered by the Exchange to allow
certain market participants to compete with other market participants
whose business model is designed to source liquidity. The proposed fee
for Initiating Orders who respond to a Request for PRISM, when the
PRISM Order trades with an Initiating Order, would enable the Exchange
to offer rebates to BX Participants submitting PRISM Orders into the
Request for PRISM mechanism. The Exchange believes the fees for
responders are reasonable because responders to a PRISM Auction would
pay the same fee of $0.49 per contract fee for Penny Classes and $0.94
per contract fee for Non-Penny Classes regardless of whether the
Request for PRISM mechanism was utilized to initiate a PRISM Auction or
the PRISM Auction Order was entered directly into PRISM as a paired
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A recipient of a Request for PRISM may utilize FIX to
submit the sender's PRISM Order, along with an Initiating Order (a
``response'') into the System for execution into PRISM pursuant to
Options 3, Section 13. Requests for PRISM are sent to BX
Participants that ``opt in'' to receive Requests for PRISM. See
Options 3, Section 7(e)(A)(1)(a).
    \19\ Today, Customers pays no PRISM Order fee.
    \20\ Today, Customers pays no Initiating Order fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Section 2(5) to adopt
specific pricing for BX Participants that utilize the Request for PRISM
mechanism is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any BX
Participant may utilize the Request for PRISM feature. Also, any BX
Participant may respond to a PRISM Auction and all BX Participants
benefit from the ability to interact with additional order flow.\21\
The Request for PRISM mechanism provides greater flexibility for
Participants submitting orders into PRISM, specifically providing an
avenue for BX Participants desiring to send orders to the PRISM
mechanism to locate an Initiating Order to pair their PRISM Order with
and participate in a PRISM Auction. All Participants that enter a PRISM
Order into the Request for PRISM mechanism are uniformly entitled to a
rebate if the PRISM Order trades with the Initiating Order or if the
PRISM Order trades with a PRISM Response. Also, all Participants that
enter Initiating Orders into the Request for PRISM mechanism are
uniformly assessed a fee provided the PRISM Order trades with the
Initiating Order. The proposed fees for an Initiating Order entered
into the Request for PRISM mechanism that trade with a PRISM Response
are equivalent to the pricing for responders pursuant to Options 7,
Section 2(5) because BX Participants benefit from the liquidity seeking
mechanism that is being offered. The mechanism allows certain market
participants to compete with other market participants whose business
model is designed to source liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The identity of the sender and the recipients are not known
to any party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market
competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive
with other options markets and will offer market participants with
another choice to initiate a price improvement auction. The Exchange
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own
fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition
is extremely limited. The Exchange's Request for PRISM pricing would
allow the Exchange to compete for order flow by incentivizing BX
Participants to utilize the Request for PRISM to seek liquidity.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange's proposal to define a ``PRISM Order'', an
``Initiating Order'', a ``PRISM Auction Order'', a ``PRISM Response'',
and a ``Request for PRISM'' for the purpose of Options 7, Section 2(5)
pricing and utilize these terms within Options 7, Section 2(5) does not
impose an undue burden on competition because the defined terms will
more closely align the pricing within Options 7, Section 2(5) to the
terms utilized in Options 3, Section 13 related to PRISM.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 7, Section 2(5) to adopt
specific pricing for BX Participants that utilize the Request for PRISM
mechanism does not impose an undue burden on competition because any BX
Participant may utilize the Request for PRISM feature. Also, any BX
Participant may respond to a PRISM Auction and all BX Participants
benefit from the ability to interact with additional order flow.\22\
The Request for PRISM mechanism provides greater flexibility for
Participants submitting orders into PRISM, specifically providing an
avenue for BX Participants desiring to send orders to the PRISM
mechanism to locate an Initiating Order to pair their PRISM Order with
and participate in a PRISM Auction. All Participants that enter a PRISM
Order into the Request for PRISM mechanism are uniformly entitled to a
rebate if the PRISM Order trades with the Initiating Order or if the
PRISM Order trades with a PRISM Response. Also, all Participants that
enter Initiating Orders into the Request for PRISM mechanism are
uniformly assessed a fee provided the PRISM Order trades with the
Initiating Order. The proposed fees for an Initiating Order entered
into the Request for PRISM mechanism that trade with a PRISM Response
are equivalent to the pricing for responders pursuant to Options 7,
Section 2(5) because BX Participants benefit from the liquidity seeking
mechanism that is being offered. The mechanism allows certain market
participants to compete with other market participants whose business
model is designed to source liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The identity of the sender and the recipients are not known
to any party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2023-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2023-005. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2023-005 and should be
submitted on or before March 22, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04124 Filed 2-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 38925]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16060]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4173-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Indiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-4173-DR), dated April 22, 2014, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2014.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of April 22, 2014.

    Lake County for Public Assistance.

    Lake County for snow assistance under the Public Assistance
program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the
incident period.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-16060 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30312-30314]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1203]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Information To
Accompany Humanitarian Device Exemption Applications and Annual
Distribution Number Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by June
15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0661.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Information To Accompany Humanitarian Device Exemption Applications and
Annual Distribution Number Reporting Requirements

OMB Control Number 0910-0661--Extension

    Under section 520(m) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(m)), FDA is authorized to exempt a
humanitarian use device (HUD) from the effectiveness requirements in
sections 514 and 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360d and 360e) provided
that the device: (1) Is used to treat or diagnose a disease or
condition that affects fewer than 4,000 individuals in the United
States; (2) would not be available to a person with such a disease or
condition unless the exemption is granted, and there is no comparable
device, other than another HUD approved under this exemption, available
to treat or diagnose the disease or condition; (3) the device will not
expose patients to an unreasonable or significant risk of illness or
injury; and (4) the probable benefit to health from using the device
outweighs the risk of injury or illness from its use, taking into
account the probable risks and benefits of currently available devices
or alternative forms of treatment.
    HUDs approved under an HDE cannot be sold for an amount that
exceeds the costs of research and development, fabrication, and
distribution of the device (i.e., for profit), except in narrow
circumstances. Section 613 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety
and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144), signed into law on July
9, 2012, amended section 520(m) of the FD&C Act. Under section
520(m)(6)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act, as amended by FDASIA, a HUD approved
under an HDE is eligible to be sold for profit if the device meets the
following criteria: The device is intended for the treatment or
diagnosis of a disease or condition that occurs in pediatric patients
or in a pediatric subpopulation, and such device is labeled for use in
pediatric patients or in a pediatric subpopulation in which the disease
or condition occurs; or the device is intended for the treatment or
diagnosis of a disease or condition that does not occur in pediatric
patients, or that occurs in pediatric patients in such numbers that the
development of the device for such patients is impossible, highly
impracticable, or unsafe.
    Section 520(m)(6)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act, as amended by FDASIA,
provides that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will assign an
annual distribution number (ADN) for devices that meet the eligibility
criteria to be permitted to be sold for profit. The ADN is defined as
the number of devices ``reasonably needed to treat, diagnose, or cure a
population of 4,000 individuals in the United States'', and therefore
shall be based on the following information in a HDE application: The
number of devices reasonably necessary to treat such individuals.
    Section 520(m)(6)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act (http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/FederalFoodDrugandCosmeticActFDCAct/FDCActChapterVDrugsandDevices/default.htm) provides that an HDE holder
immediately notify the Agency if the number of devices distributed
during any calendar year exceeds the ADN. Section 520(m)(6)(C) of the
FD&C Act provides that an HDE holder may petition to modify the ADN if
additional information arises.
    On August 5, 2008, FDA issued a guidance entitled ``Guidance for
HDE Holders, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), Clinical
Investigators, and Food and Drug Administration Staff--Humanitarian
Device Exemption (HDE) Regulation: Questions and Answers'' (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm110203.pdf). The guidance was developed and issued
prior to the enactment of FDASIA, and certain sections of this guidance
may no longer be current as a result of FDASIA.
    In the Federal Register of March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15130), FDA
announced the availability of the draft guidance entitled
``Humanitarian Device Exemption: Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance
for Humanitarian Device Exemption Holders, Institutional Review Boards,
Clinical Investigators, and Food and Drug Administration Staff'', that
when finalized, will represent FDA's current thinking on this topic.
    FDA is requesting the extension of OMB approval for the collection
of information required under the statutory mandate of sections 515A
(21 U.S.C. 360e-1) and 520(m) of the FD&C Act as amended.
    In the Federal Register of January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2220), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. Two comments were received. One comment was
outside of the scope of the four information collection-related topics
on which the notice solicits public comment. We did not consider the
other comment because it was submitted in a foreign language and was
not accompanied by an English translation as required in 21 CFR
10.20(c)(2).
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
Activity/section of FD&C Act (as     Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
       amended) or FDASIA           respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pediatric Subpopulation and                    6               1               6             100             600
 Patient Information--515A(a)(2)
 of the FD&C Act................

Exemption from Profit                          3               1               3              50             150
 Prohibition Information--
 520(m)(6)(A)(i) and (ii) of the
 FD&C Act.......................
Request for Determination of                   2               1               2              10              20
 Eligibility Criteria--613(b) of
 FDASIA.........................
ADN Notification--                             1               1               1             100             100
 520(m)(6)(A)(iii) of the FD&C
 Act............................
ADN Modification--520(m)(6)(C)                 5               1               5             100             500
 of the FD&C Act................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           1,370
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health receives an
estimated average of six HDE applications per year. FDA estimates that
three of these applications will be indicated for pediatric use. We
estimate that we will receive approximately two requests for
determination of eligibility criteria per year. FDA estimates that very
few or no HDE holders will notify the Agency that the number of devices
distributed in the year has exceeded the ADN. FDA estimates that five
HDE holders will petition to have the ADN modified due to additional
information on the number of individuals affected by the disease or
condition.

    Dated: May 11, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-11532 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment: Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. Since I have started using e-cigarettes my health has improved greatly. But not on is my physical health better, but mentally I feel better because I know that I am not harming myself or others like I was when I smoked regular cigarette. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request. Please give the people a chance to be heard.