[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 6564]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01170]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001]

Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Cancellation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The meeting of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory
Committee scheduled for February 16, 2017, is cancelled. This meeting
was announced in the Federal Register of December 27, 2016 (81 FR
95147). The meeting is no longer needed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kalyani Bhatt, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area), and follow the prompts to the desired center or
product area. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting.

    Dated: January 11, 2017.
Janice M. Soreth,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-01170 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51532-51533]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14993-000]

Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications;
Premium Energy Holdings, LLC

    On May 9, 2019, Premium Energy Holdings, LLC, filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Intermountain
Pumped Storage Project (Intermountain Project or project) to be located
on the Sevier River and Fool Creek, near the city of Delta, Millard
County, Utah. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is
to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would be a closed-loop pumped storage
hydropower facility. The applicant proposes three alternative upper
reservoirs: Dry Fork Reservoir, Mill Canyon Reservoir, or Williams
Reservoir. The proposed DMAD 2 Reservoir would be the lower reservoir
for each alternative.

Upper Reservoir Alternative 1: Dry Fork Reservoir

    The Dry Fork Reservoir alternative consists of: (1) A 277-acre
upper reservoir having a total storage capacity of 39,612 acre-feet at
a normal maximum operating elevation of 6,200 feet mean sea level
(msl); (2) a 370-foot-high, 2,637-foot-long roller compacted concrete
upper reservoir dam; (3) a 1.2-mile-long, 38-foot-diameter concrete-
lined headrace tunnel; (4) a 0.16-mile-long, 34-foot-diameter concrete-
lined vertical shaft; (5) a 7.05-mile-long, 34-foot-diameter concrete-
lined horizontal tunnel; (6) five 0.10-mile-long, 22-foot-diameter
steel penstocks; (7) a 500-foot-long, 125-foot-wide, 150-foot-high
concrete-lined powerhouse located in an underground cavern, housing
five pump-turbine generator-motor units rated for 400 megawatts (MW)
each; and (8) a 1.2-mile-long, 40-foot-diameter concrete-lined tailrace
tunnel discharging into the proposed DMAD 2 Reservoir.

Upper Reservoir Alternative 2: Mill Canyon Reservoir

    The Mill Canyon Reservoir alternative consists of: (1) A 210-acre
upper reservoir having a total storage capacity of 30,344 acre-feet at
a normal maximum operating elevation of 6,600 feet msl; (2) a 385-foot-
high, 2,223-foot-long roller compacted concrete upper reservoir dam;
(3) a 1.15-mile-long, 34-foot-diameter concrete-lined headrace tunnel;
(4) a 0.28-mile-long, 30-foot-diameter concrete-lined vertical shaft;
(5) a 7.6-mile-long, 30-foot-diameter concrete-lined horizontal tunnel;
(6) five 0.15-mile-long, 19-foot-diameter steel penstocks; (7) a 500-
foot-long, 125-foot-wide, 150-foot-high concrete-lined powerhouse
located in an underground cavern, housing five pump-turbine generator-
motor units rated for 400 MW each; and (8) a 1.7-mile-long, 36-foot-
diameter concrete-lined tailrace tunnel discharging into the proposed
DMAD 2 Reservoir.

Upper Reservoir Alternative 3: Williams Reservoir

    The Williams Reservoir alternative consists of: (1) A 180-acre
upper reservoir having a total storage capacity of 28,063 acre-feet at
a normal maximum operating elevation of 7,140 feet msl; (2) a 475-foot-
high, 1,850-foot-long roller compacted concrete upper reservoir dam;
(3) a 1.1-mile-long, 30-foot-diameter concrete-lined headrace tunnel;
(4) a 0.4-mile-long, 27-foot-diameter concrete-lined vertical shaft;
(5) a 10.05-mile-long, 27-foot-diameter concrete-lined horizontal
tunnel; (6) five 0.10-mile-long, 17-foot-diameter steel penstocks; (7)
a 500-foot-long, 125-foot-wide, 150-foot-high concrete-lined powerhouse
located in an underground cavern, housing five pump-turbine generator-
motor units rated for 400 mW each; and (8) a 2.3-mile-long, 32-foot-
diameter concrete-lined tailrace tunnel discharging into the proposed
DMAD 2 Reservoir.

Lower Reservoir: DMAD 2 Reservoir

    The proposed DMAD 2 Reservoir would consist of: (1) A 3,186-acre
lower reservoir having a total storage capacity 48,915 acre-feet at a
normal maximum operating elevation of 4,700 feet msl; and (2) a 45-
foot-high, 2,142-foot-long roller compacted concrete lower reservoir
dam.

Interconnection

    For each upper reservoir alternative, project power would be
transmitted to the grid via: (1) Two new, approximately 11-mile-long,
345 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines extending from the powerhouse to
the existing Intermountain AC switchyard owned by Intermountain Power
(the point of interconnection); and (2) appurtenant facilities. The
estimated annual generation of the Intermountain Project under each of
the alternatives would be 6,900 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Victor M. Rojas, Managing Director, Premium
Energy Holdings, LLC, 355 South Lemon Avenue, Suite A, Walnut,
California 91789; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kyle Olcott; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14993-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14993) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 24, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21142 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37361-37364]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15030]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92358; File No. SR-EMERALD-2021-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to
Establish Fees for the cToM Market Data Product

July 9, 2021.
    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 June 30, 2021, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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 is filing a proposal to amend the Exchange's Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to establish fees for the market data
product known as MIAX Emerald Complex Top of Market (``cToM'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald, at MIAX's
principal office, 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 Section 6(a) of the Fee Schedule to
establish fees for the cToM market data product.
    The Exchange previously adopted rules governing the trading of
Complex Orders \3\ on the Emerald System \4\ in 2018.\5\ Shortly
thereafter, the Exchange also adopted the market data product cToM and
expressly waived fees for cToM to provide an incentive to prospective
market participants to subscribe to that market data feed.\6\ The
Exchange has not charged fees to cToM subscribers in the over two years
since it was first available for subscription.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 518(a)(5) for the definition of Complex
Orders.
    \4\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 84891 (December 20,
2018), 83 FR 67421 (December 28, 2018) (In the Matter of the
Application of MIAX EMERALD, LLC for Registration as a National
Securities Exchange; Findings, Opinion, and Order of the
Commission); and 85345 (March 18, 2019), 84 FR 10848 (March 22,
2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-13) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 518,
Complex Orders).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85207 (February 27,
2019), 84 FR 7963 (March 5, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-09) (providing a
complete description of the cToM data feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, cToM provides subscribers with the same information as
the MIAX Emerald Top of Market (``ToM'') data product as it relates to
the Strategy Book \7\, i.e., the Exchange's best bid and offer for a
complex strategy, with aggregate size, based on displayable order and
quoting interest in the complex strategy on the Exchange. However, cToM
provides subscribers with the following additional information that is
not included in ToM: (i) The identification of the complex strategies
currently trading on the Exchange; (ii) complex strategy last sale
information; and (iii) the status of securities underlying the complex
strategy (e.g., halted, open, or resumed). cToM is a distinct market
data product from ToM. ToM subscribers are not required to subscribe to
cToM, and cToM subscribers are not required to subscribe to ToM.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The ``Strategy Book'' is the Exchange's electronic book of
complex orders and complex quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(17).
    \8\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend Section 6(a) of the Fee Schedule
to

charge monthly fees to Distributors \9\ of cToM. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to assess Internal Distributors $1,250 per month and
External Distributors $1,750 per month for the cToM data feed.\10\ The
Exchange notes that the proposed monthly cToM fees for Internal and
External Distributor are the same prices that the Exchange charges for
its ToM data product, and are similar to other options exchanges' data
feed prices for their comparable complex order data feed products.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``Distributor'' of MIAX Emerald data is any entity that
receives a feed or file of data either directly from MIAX Emerald or
indirectly through another entity and then distributes it either
internally (within that entity) or externally (outside that entity).
All Distributors are required to execute a MIAX Emerald Distributor
Agreement. See Section 6(a) of the Fee Schedule.
    \10\ The Exchange also proposes to make a minor related change
to remove ``(as applicable)'' from the explanatory paragraph in
Section 6(a) as it will not change [sic] fees for both the ToM and
cToM data feeds.
    \11\ See NYSE American Options Proprietary Market Data Fees,
American Options Complex Fees ($1,500 per month Access Fee and
$1,000 per month Redistribution Fee), at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/data/NYSE_American_Options_Market_Data_Fee_Schedule.pdf; see also NYSE
Arca Options Proprietary Market Data Fees, Arca Options Complex Fees
($1,500 per month Access Fee and $1,000 per month Redistribution
Fee), at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/data/NYSE_Arca_Options_Proprietary_Data_Fee_Schedule.pdf; Nasdaq PHLX LLC
Price List--U.S. Derivatives Data, PHLX Orders Fees (Internal
Distributor fee of $3,000 per month and External Distributor fee of
$3,500 per month), at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=DPPriceListOptions#PHLX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like it does today for ToM, the Exchange proposes to assess cToM
fees on Internal and External Distributors in each month the
Distributor is credentialed to use cToM in the production environment.
Also, like the Exchange does today for ToM, market data fees for cToM
will be reduced for new Distributors for the first month during which
they subscribe to cToM, based on the number of trading days that have
been held during the month prior to the date on which that subscriber
has been credentialed to use cToM in the production environment. Such
new Distributors will be assessed a pro-rata percentage of the fees in
the table in Section 6(a) of the Fee Schedule, which is the percentage
of the number of trading days remaining in the affected calendar month
as of the date on which they have been credentialed to use cToM in the
production environment, divided by the total number of trading days in
the affected calendar month.
Implementation Date
    The proposed fee changes will become effective on July 1, 2021.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \13\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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 and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs'') and broker-dealers increased authority and
flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was
believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available
to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the
provision of market data. Particularly, cToM further broadens the
availability of U.S. option market data to investors consistent with
the principles of Regulation NMS. The data product also promotes
increased transparency through the dissemination of cToM. Particularly,
cToM provides subscribers with the same information as ToM, but
includes the following additional information: (i) The identification
of the complex strategies currently trading on the Exchange; (ii)
complex strategy last sale information; and (iii) the status of
securities underlying the complex strategy (e.g., halted, open, or
resumed). The Exchange believes cToM provides a valuable tool that
subscribers can use to gain substantial insight into the trading
activity in Complex Orders, but also emphasizes such data is not
necessary for trading. Moreover, other exchanges offer similar data
products.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed,
there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade options.
Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has
more than 15% of the market share and currently the Exchange represents
only approximately 3.24% of the market share.\15\ The Commission has
repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory
intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the
securities markets. Particularly, in Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \16\ Making similar data products available to
market participants fosters competition in the marketplace, and
constrains the ability of exchanges to charge supra-competitive fees.
In the event that a market participant views one exchange's data
product as more or less attractive than the competition, that market
participant can and may switch between similar products. The proposed
fees are a result of the competitive environment, as the Exchange seeks
to adopt fees to attract purchasers of cToM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See MIAX's ``The Market at a Glance'', available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/ (last visited June 29, 2021).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No market participant is required by any rule or regulation to
utilize the Exchange's Complex Order functionality or subscribe to the
cToM data feed. Further, unlike orders on the Exchange's Simple Order
Book, Complex Orders are not protected and will never trade through
Priority Customer \17\ orders, thus protecting the priority that is
established in the Simple Order Book.\18\ Additionally, unlike the
continuous quoting requirements of Market Makers in the simple order
market, there are no continuous quoting requirements respecting Complex
Orders. It is a business decision whether market participants utilize
Complex Order strategies on the Exchange and whether to purchase cToM
data to help effect those strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity
that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities and (ii) does not
place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s). The term
``Priority Customer Order'' means an order for the account of a
Priority Customer. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \18\ The ``Simple Order Book'' is the Exchange's regular
electronic book of orders and quotes. See Exchange Rule 100. See
supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable as the
proposed fees are both modest and similar to, or even lower than, the
fees assessed by other exchanges that provide similar data

products.\19\ Indeed, proposing fees that are excessively higher than
established fees for similar data products would simply serve to reduce
demand for the Exchange's data product, which as noted, is entirely
optional. Like the Exchange's cToM data product, other exchanges offer
similar data products and complex order functionality. As such, if a
market participant views another exchange's complex order functionality
and related data feed(s) as more attractive than what is offered by the
Exchange, then such market participant can merely choose not to utilize
the Exchange's Complex Order functionality or purchase cToM. Instead,
that market participant can utilize similar complex functionality
elsewhere and purchase another exchange's complex data product, which
likely offers similar data points, albeit based on that other market's
complex order trading activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Selling market data, such as cToM, is also a means by which
exchanges compete to attract business. If the market deems the proposed
fees to be unfair or inequitable, firms can diminish or discontinue
their use of the data and/or avail themselves of similar products
offered by other exchanges.\20\ The Exchange therefore believes that
the proposed fees for cToM reflect the competitive environment and
would be properly assessed on Member or non-Member users. The Exchange
also believes the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as the fees would apply equally to all users who choose
to purchase such data. The Exchange's proposed fees would not
differentiate between subscribers that purchase cToM and are set at a
modest level that would allow any interested Member or non-Member to
purchase such data based on their business needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed cToM fees are reasonable
and not unfairly discriminatory because since the Exchange initially
established the cToM data product in 2016, all Exchange Members have
had the ability to receive the Exchange's cToM data free of charge for
the past two years.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess Internal Distributors fees that are
less than the fees assessed for External Distributors for subscriptions
to the cToM data feed because Internal Distributors have limited,
restricted usage rights to the market data, as compared to External
Distributors, which have more expansive usage rights. All Members and
non-Members that determine to receive any market data feed of the
Exchange (or its affiliates, MIAX PEARL, LLC and Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC), must first execute, among other things, the
MIAX Exchange Group Exchange Data Agreement (the ``Exchange Data
Agreement'').\22\ Pursuant to the Exchange Data Agreement, Internal
Distributors are restricted to the ``internal use'' of any market data
they receive. This means that Internal Distributors may only distribute
the Exchange's market data to the recipient's officers and employees
and its affiliates.\23\ External Distributors may distribute the
Exchange's market data to persons who are not officers, employees or
affiliates of the External Distributor,\24\ and may charge their own
fees for the distribution of such market data. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes it is fair, reasonable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess External Distributors a higher fee for the
Exchange's market data products as External Distributors have greater
usage rights to commercialize such market data. The Exchange also
utilizes more resources to support External Distributors versus
Internal Distributors, as External Distributors have reporting and
monitoring obligations that Internal Distributors do not have, thus
requiring additional time and effort of Exchange staff. The Exchange
believes the proposed cToM fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the fee level results in a reasonable and
equitable allocation of fees amongst subscribers for similar services,
depending on whether the subscribers is an Internal or External
Distributor. Moreover, the decision as to whether or not to purchase
market data is entirely optional to all market participants. Potential
purchasers are not required to purchase the market data, and the
Exchange is not required to make the market data available. Purchasers
may request the data at any time or may decline to purchase such data.
The allocation of fees among users is fair and reasonable because, if
market participants deem the proposed fees to be unfair or inequitable,
firms can discontinue their use of the cToM data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Exchange Data Agreement, available at https://miaxweb2.pairsite.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Exchange_Group_Data_Agreement_09032020.pdf.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange no longer believes it is necessary to provide
cToM data for free to attract market participants since the Exchange's
Strategy Book is now established and the Exchange no longer needs to
rely on such waivers to attract market participants to its Complex
Order market or cToM subscribers. The Exchange believes that the
proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
proposed cToM fees will apply to all market participants of the
Exchange on a uniform basis. The Exchange also notes that the proposed
monthly cToM fees for Internal and External Distributors are the same
prices that the Exchange charges for its ToM data product, and are
generally lower than other options exchanges' data feed prices for
their comparable data feed products.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the
Exchange believes that the proposal will promote competition by
permitting the Exchange to sell a data product similar to those offered
by other competitor options exchanges.\26\ The Exchange made Complex
Order functionality and cToM available in order to keep pace with
changes in the U.S. options industry and evolving customer needs, and
believes the data product will continue to contribute to robust
competition among national securities exchanges. Other U.S. options
exchanges offer complex order functionality and market data products
that are substantially similar to that offered by the Exchange. As a
result, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair
competition among national securities exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
environment, and its ability to price cToM is constrained by
competition among exchanges that offer similar data products and
complex order functionality to their customers. As discussed, there are
currently a number of similar products available to market participants
and investors. Other U.S. options exchanges offer market data products
that are substantially similar to cToM, which the Exchange must
consider in its pricing discipline in order to compete for the market
data.\27\ For example, proposing fees that are excessively higher than
established fees for similar data products would simply

serve to reduce demand for the Exchange's data product, which as
discussed, market participants are under no obligation to utilize. In
this competitive environment, potential purchasers are free to choose
which, if any, similar product to purchase to satisfy their need for
market information. As a result, the Exchange believes this proposed
rule change permits fair competition among national securities
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also does not believe the proposed fees would cause
any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as
other exchanges are free to introduce their own comparable data product
and lower their prices to better compete with the Exchange's offering.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would cause any
unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition.
Particularly, the proposed product and fees apply uniformly to any
purchaser, in that it does not differentiate between subscribers that
purchase cToM. The proposed fees are set at a modest level that would
allow any interested Member or non-Member to purchase such data based
on their business needs.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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,\28\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \29\ 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. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-EMERALD-2021-21 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-EMERALD-2021-21. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-EMERALD-2021-21, and should be submitted
on or before August 5, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15030 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52733-52734]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21426]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Change in Use of Aeronautical
Property at Bowling Green--Warren County Regional Airport, Bowling
Green, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public
comment on request by the Bowling Green--Warren County Airport Board to
change a portion of airport property

from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use at the Bowling Green--Warren
County Regional Airport, Bowling Green, Kentucky. The request consists
approximately of 4.66 acres of fee simple release. This action is taken
under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the Bowling Green--
Warren County Regional Airport, 1000 Woodhurst Dr., Bowling Green, KY
42103 and the FAA Memphis Airports District Office, 2862 Business Park
Drive, Building G, Memphis, TN 38118. Written comments on the Sponsor's
request must be delivered or mailed to: Mr. Phillip J. Braden, Manager,
Memphis Airports District Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, Building G,
Memphis, TN 38118.
    In addition, a copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Rob Barnett, Airport Manager, Bowling
Green--Warren County Regional Airport, 1000 Woodhurst Dr., Bowling
Green, KY 42103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tommy L. Dupree, Team Lead/Civil
Engineer, Federal Aviation Administration, Memphis Airports District
Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, Building G, Memphis, TN 38118. The
application may be reviewed in person at this same location, by
appointment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public
comment on the request to release property at the Bowling Green--Warren
County Regional Airport, 1000 Woodhurst Dr., Bowling Green, KY 42103.
Under the provisions of AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).
    On August 11, 2011, the FAA determined that the request to release
property at Bowling Green--Warren County Regional Airport meets the
procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA
may approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than September
22, 2011.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Bowling Green--Warren County Airport Authority is proposing the
release of approximately 4.66 acres located at the northwest corner of
Airway Court and Searcy Way and along the west side of Airway Court;
and as contained in Parcels 052A-03-021 and 052A-03-037. The property
address is listed as 2325 Airway Court, Bowling Green, KY 42103. This
release is for the sale of said property to KYCORE, LLC for commercial
development.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Memphis, TN, on August 11, 2011.
Phillip J. Braden,
Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2011-21426 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


The Honorable Zach Pahmahmie Chairman Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe 16281 Q Road Mayetta, KS 66509 9114 Dear Chairman Pahmahmie:

On July 18, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) promulgated the National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQS) for fine particulate matter or PM 2.5. This standard addresses particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter and was based on EPA's review of a number of health studies which indicate that exposure to fine particulate matter is correlated with increased mortality and serious health affects such as aggravation of lung disease, asthma attacks, and heart problems.

As a first step in the process towards implementing this new fine particulate matter standard, the EPA requests that you submit recommended designation and documentation in accordance with section 107( d)( 1)( A) of the Clean Air Act to us by February 15, 2004. Your Tribe's participation in this process is optional. The recommended area designation should be based on quality assured air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2000 to 2002. EPA may make modifications to these designations as it deems necessary. If EPA determines that a modification to a Tribe's recommendation is necessary, the EPA will notify the Tribe no later than 120 days prior to promulgating the designations. This will provide the Tribe an opportunity to demonstrate why the EPA's modification is not appropriate. EPA intends to promulgate final designations by December 15, 2004, based on the most recent available data.

We will consult with your Environmental Director in this process and offer the EPA's assistance so that their office might advise you on the designation of your reservation. We are also available to meet with you at your request. A copy of the guidance and a Fact Sheet are enclosed. The documents may also be found at the following webpage: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ naaqs/ pm/ pm25_ index. html We will keep your tribe informed of any additional guidance and other support activities. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Art Spratlin, Director of the Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division, who may be contacted at ( 913) 551 7401.

Sincerely,

James B. Gulliford Regional Administrator Enclosures cc: Ms. Latane Donelin Planning Director ARTD/ APDB: cas: c: JROBINSON/ PAHMAHMIE. WPD/ 062403 APDB APDB CNSL ARTD OEP RGAD Robinson Tapp Patrick Spratlin Bustos Guilliford 06/ / 03 06/ / 03 06/ / 03 06/ / 03 06/ / 03 06/ / 03


flexibility, performance standards, and status of existing SMS
programs. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include
supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate
comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are
filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one
time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information
filed with a comment, we do not place it in

the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not
have access, and we place a note in the docket that we have received
it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we
treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5
U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found
in 49 CFR part 7.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in
paragraph (1).

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 5

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 119

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Aircraft,
Aviation safety, Charter flights, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Chapter I as follows:
    1. The heading for subchapter A is revised to read as follows:

Subchapter A--Definitions and General Requirements

    2. Add part 5 to read as follows:

PART 5--SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Subpart A--General
Sec.
5.1 Applicability.
5.3 General requirements.
5.5 Definitions.
Subpart B--Safety Policy
5.21 Safety policy.
5.23 Safety accountability and authority.
5.25 Designation and responsibilities of required safety management
personnel.
5.27 Coordination of emergency response planning.
Subpart C--Safety Risk Management
5.51 Applicability.
5.53 System analysis and hazard identification.
5.55 Safety risk assessment and control.
Subpart D--Safety Assurance
5.71 Safety performance monitoring and measurement.
5.73 Safety performance assessment.
5.75 Continuous improvement.
Subpart E--Safety Promotion
5.91 Competencies and training.
5.93 Safety communication.
Subpart F--SMS Documentation and Recordkeeping
5.95 SMS documentation.
5.97 SMS records.

    Authority:  Public Law 111-216, sec. 215 (Aug. 1, 2010); 49
U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 46105.

Subpart A--General

Sec.  5.1  Applicability.

    (a) A certificate holder under part 119 of this chapter authorized
to conduct operations in accordance with the requirements of part 121
of this chapter must have a Safety Management System that meets the
requirements of this part and is acceptable to the Administrator by
[date 3 years after the effective date of final rule].
    (b) A certificate holder must submit an implementation plan to the
FAA Administrator for approval no later than [date 6 months after the
effective date of the final rule].
    (c) The implementation plan may include any of the certificate
holder's existing programs, policies, or procedures that it intends to
use to meet the requirements of this part, including components of an
existing SMS.

Sec.  5.3  General requirements.

    (a) Any certificate holder required to have a Safety Management
System under this part must submit the Safety Management System to the
Administrator for acceptance. The Safety Management System must include
at least the following components:
    (1) Safety policy in accordance with the requirements of subpart B
of this part;
    (2) Safety risk management in accordance with the requirements of
subpart C of this part;
    (3) Safety assurance in accordance with the requirements of subpart
D of this part; and
    (4) Safety promotion in accordance with the requirements of subpart
E of this part.
    (b) The Safety Management System must be maintained in accordance
with the recordkeeping requirements in subpart F of this part.
    (c) The Safety Management System must ensure compliance with the
relevant regulatory standards in chapter I of Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.

Sec.  5.5   Definitions.

    Hazard means a condition that can lead to injury, illness or death
to people; damage to or loss of a system, equipment, or property; or
damage to the environment.
    Risk means the composite of predicted severity and likelihood of
the potential effect of a hazard.
    Risk control means a means to reduce or eliminate the effects of
hazards.
    Safety assurance means processes within the SMS that function
systematically to ensure the performance and effectiveness of safety
risk controls and that the organization meets or exceeds its safety
objectives through the collection, analysis, and assessment of
information.
    Safety Management System (SMS) means the formal, top-down,
organization-wide approach to managing safety risk and assuring the
effectiveness of safety risk controls. It includes systematic
procedures, practices, and policies for the management of safety risk.
    Safety objective means a measurable goal or desirable outcome
related to safety.
    Safety performance means realized or actual safety accomplishment
relative to the organization's safety objectives.
    Safety policy means the certificate holder's documented commitment
to safety, which defines its safety objectives and the accountabilities
and responsibilities of its employees in regards to safety.
    Safety promotion means a combination of training and communication
of safety information to support the implementation and operation of an
SMS in an organization.

    Safety Risk Management means a process within the SMS composed of
describing the system, identifying the hazards, and analyzing,
assessing and controlling risk.

Subpart B--Safety Policy

Sec.  5.21  Safety policy.

    (a) The certificate holder must have a safety policy that includes
at least the following:
    (1) The safety objectives of the certificate holder.
    (2) A commitment of the certificate holder to fulfill the
organization's safety objectives.
    (3) A clear statement about the provision of the necessary
resources for the implementation of the SMS.
    (4) A safety reporting policy that defines requirements for
employee reporting of safety hazards or issues.
    (5) A policy that defines unacceptable behavior and conditions for
disciplinary action.
    (6) An emergency response plan that provides for the safe
transition from normal to emergency operations in accordance with the
requirements of Sec.  5.27.
    (b) The safety policy must be in accordance with all applicable
regulatory requirements in Chapter I of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations and must reflect the certificate holder's commitment to
safety.
    (c) The safety policy must be signed by the accountable executive
described in Sec.  5.25.
    (d) The safety policy must be documented and communicated
throughout the certificate holder organization.
    (e) The safety policy must be regularly reviewed by the accountable
executive to ensure it remains relevant and appropriate to the
certificate holder.

Sec.  5.23  Safety accountability and authority.

    (a) The certificate holder must define accountability for safety
within the organization's safety policy for the following individuals:
    (1) Accountable executive, as described in Sec.  5.25.
    (2) All members of management in regard to developing,
implementing, and maintaining SMS processes within their area of
responsibility, including, but not limited to:
    (i) Hazard identification and safety risk assessment.
    (ii) Assuring the effectiveness of safety risk controls.
    (iii) Promoting safety as required in subpart E of this part.
    (iv) Advising the accountable executive on the performance of the
SMS and on any need for improvement.
    (3) Employees relative to the certificate holder's safety
performance.
    (b) The certificate holder must identify the levels of management
with the authority to make decisions regarding safety risk acceptance.

Sec.  5.25  Designation and responsibilities of required safety
management personnel.

    (a) Designation of the accountable executive. The certificate
holder must identify an accountable executive who, irrespective of
other functions, satisfies the following:
    (1) Is the final authority over operations authorized to be
conducted under the certificate holder's certificate(s).
    (2) Controls the financial resources required for the operations to
be conducted under the certificate holder's certificate(s).
    (3) Controls the human resources required for the operations
authorized to be conducted under the certificate holder's
certificate(s).
    (4) Retains ultimate responsibility for the safety performance of
the operations conducted under the certificate holder's certificate.
    (b) Responsibilities of the accountable executive. The accountable
executive must accomplish the following:
    (1) Ensure that the SMS is properly implemented and performing in
all areas of the certificate holder's organization.
    (2) Develop and sign the safety policy of the certificate holder.
    (3) Communicate the safety policy throughout the certificate
holder's organization.
    (4) Regularly review the certificate holder's safety policy to
ensure it remains relevant and appropriate to the certificate holder.
    (5) Regularly review the safety performance of the certificate
holder's organization and direct actions necessary to address
substandard safety performance in accordance with Sec.  5.75.
    (c) Designation of a management representative. The accountable
executive must designate a management representative who, on behalf of
the accountable executive, must be responsible for the following:
    (1) Facilitating hazard identification and safety risk analysis.
    (2) Monitoring the effectiveness of safety risk controls.
    (3) Ensuring safety promotion throughout the certificate holder's
organization as required in subpart E of this part.
    (4) Regularly reporting to the accountable executive on the
performance of the SMS and on any need for improvement.

Sec.  5.27  Coordination of emergency response planning.

    Where emergency response procedures are necessary, the accountable
executive and management representative must develop, as part of the
safety policy of the certificate holder, an emergency response plan
that addresses at least the following:
    (a) Delegation of emergency authority throughout the certificate
holder's organization;
    (b) Assignment of employee responsibilities during the emergency;
and
    (c) Coordination of the certificate holder's emergency response
plans with the emergency response plans of other organizations it must
interface with during the provision of its services.

Subpart C--Safety Risk Management

Sec.  5.51  Applicability.

    A certificate holder must apply safety risk management to a system
under any of the following conditions:
    (a) Implementation of new systems.
    (b) Revision of existing systems.
    (c) Development of operational procedures.
    (d) Identification of hazards or ineffective risk controls through
the safety assurance processes in subpart D of this part.

Sec.  5.53  System analysis and hazard identification.

    (a) When applying safety risk management, the certificate holder
must have a process to describe and analyze the system for use in
identifying hazards under paragraph (c) of this section, and developing
and implementing risk controls related to the system under Sec.
5.55(c).
    (b) In conducting the system analysis, the following information
must be considered:
    (1) Function and purpose of the system.
    (2) The system's operating environment.
    (3) An outline of the system's processes and procedures.
    (4) The personnel, equipment, and facilities necessary for
operation of the system.
    (c) The certificate holder must develop and maintain processes to
identify hazards within the context of the system analysis.

Sec.  5.55  Safety risk assessment and control.

    (a) The certificate holder must develop and maintain processes to
analyze safety risk associated with the hazards identified in Sec.
5.53(c).

    (b) The certificate holder must define a process for conducting
risk assessment that allows for the determination of acceptable safety
risk. Acceptable safety risk must, at a minimum, comply with the
applicable regulatory requirements set forth in Chapter I of title 14
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    (c) The certificate holder must develop and maintain processes to
develop safety risk controls that are necessary as a result of the
safety risk assessment process under paragraph (b) of this section.
    (1) The certificate holder must evaluate whether the risk will be
acceptable with the proposed safety risk control applied, before the
safety risk control is implemented.
    (2) The safety risk controls must, at a minimum, comply with the
applicable regulatory requirements set forth in Chapter I of title 14
of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Subpart D--Safety Assurance

Sec.  5.71  Safety performance monitoring and measurement.

    (a) The certificate holder must develop and maintain processes and
systems to acquire data with respect to its operations, products, and
services to monitor the safety performance of the organization. These
processes and systems must include, at a minimum, processes, and
systems for the following:
    (1) Continuous monitoring of operational processes.
    (2) Periodic monitoring of the operational environment to detect
changes.
    (3) Auditing of operational processes and systems.
    (4) Evaluations of the SMS and operational processes and systems.
    (5) Investigations of incidents and accidents.
    (6) Investigations of reports regarding potential non-compliance
with regulatory standards or other safety risk controls established by
the certificate holder through the safety risk management process
established in subpart B of this part.
    (7) A confidential employee reporting system in which employees can
report, including, but not limited to: Hazards, issues, concerns,
occurrences, incidents, as well as propose solutions and safety
improvements.
    (b) The certificate holder must develop and maintain processes that
analyze the data acquired through the processes and systems identified
under paragraph (a) of this section and any other relevant data with
respect to its operations, products, and services.

Sec.  5.73  Safety performance assessment.

    (a) The certificate holder must conduct assessments of its safety
performance against its safety objectives, which include reviews by the
accountable executive, to:
    (1) Ensure the certificate holder's compliance with the applicable
regulatory requirements in Chapter I of title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations and additional safety risk controls established by the
certificate holder.
    (2) Evaluate the performance of the SMS.
    (3) Evaluate the effectiveness of the safety risk controls
established under Sec.  5.55(c) and identify any ineffective controls.
    (4) Identify changes in the operational environment that may
introduce new hazards.
    (5) Identify potential new hazards or safety issues and concerns.
    (b) Upon completion of the assessment, if ineffective controls, new
hazards, or potential hazards are identified under paragraph (a)(2)
through (a)(4) of this section, the certificate holder must use the
safety risk management process described in subpart C of this part.

Sec.  5.75  Continuous improvement.

    The certificate holder must establish and implement processes to
correct substandard safety performance identified in the assessments
conducted under Sec.  5.73.

Subpart E--Safety Promotion

Sec.  5.91  Competencies and training.

    The certificate holder must provide training to each individual
identified in Sec.  5.23 to ensure the individuals attain and maintain
the qualifications necessary to perform their duties relevant to the
operation and performance of the SMS.

Sec.  5.93  Safety communication.

    (a) The certificate holder must develop and maintain means for
communicating safety information that, at a minimum:
    (b) Ensures that all personnel are aware of the SMS.
    (c) Conveys safety critical information.
    (d) Explains why particular safety actions are taken.
    (e) Explains why safety procedures are introduced or changed.

Subpart F--SMS Documentation and Recordkeeping

Sec.  5.95  SMS documentation.

    The certificate holder must develop and maintain SMS documentation
that describes the certificate holder's:
    (a) Safety policy.
    (b) SMS processes and procedures.

Sec.  5.97  SMS records.

    (a) The certificate holder must maintain records of outputs of
safety risk management processes as described in subpart C of this
part. Such records must be retained for as long as the control remains
relevant to the operation.
    (b) The certificate holder must maintain records of outputs of
safety assurance processes as described in subpart D of this part. Such
records must be retained for a minimum of 5 years.
    (c) The certificate holder must maintain a record of all training
provided under Sec.  5.91 for each individual. Such records must be
retained for a minimum of 24 consecutive calendar months after
completion of the training.
    (d) The certificate holder must retain records of all
communications provided under Sec.  5.93 for a minimum of 24
consecutive calendar months.

PART 119--CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS

    3. The authority citation for part 119 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: Public Law 111-216, sec. 215 (August 1, 2010); 49
U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113, 44105, 44106,
44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906, 44912, 44914,
44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.

    4. Add Sec.  119.8 to read as follows:

Sec.  119.8  Safety Management Systems.

    (a) Certificate holders authorized to conduct operations under part
121 of this chapter must have a safety management system that meets the
requirements of part 5 of this chapter and is acceptable to the
Administrator by [date 3 years after effective date of final rule].
    (b) Certificate holders required to have an SMS under this section
must submit an SMS implementation plan in a form and manner prescribed
by the Administrator to the certificate-holding district office for
approval by [date 6 months after effective date of final rule].
    (c) A person applying to the Administrator for an air carrier
certificate or operating certificate to conduct operations under part
121 of

this chapter after [effective date of final rule] must demonstrate, as
part of the application process under Sec.  119.35, that it has an SMS
that meets the standards set forth in part 5 of this chapter and is
acceptable to the Administrator.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 29, 2010.
Margaret Gilligan,
Associate Administrator, Office of Aviation Safety.
[FR Doc. 2010-28050 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 27887]
[DOCID:fr14my08-128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; FAA Acquisition Management System
(FAAAMS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. Pursuant to Public Law 104-50, the FAA
implements an acquisition management system that addresses the unique
needs of the agency. This document established the policies and
internal procedures for the FAA's acquisition system.

DATES: Please submit comments by July 14, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: FAA Acquisition Management System (FAAAMS).
    Type of Request: Extension without change of an approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0595.
    Form(s): 93 Forms available online: http://fast.faa/gov/docs/forms/
form.html.
    Affected Public: A total of 15,298 respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 6.5 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 1,701,099 hours
annually.
    Abstract: Pursuant to Public Law 104-50, the FAA implements an
acquisition management system that addresses the unique needs of the
agency. This document established the policies and internal procedures
for the FAA's acquisition system.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-10561 Filed 5-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


Appendix A. Differences in Maximum Predicted Daily 8 hour Averaged Ozone Concentrations Between the 2007 Future Case with No Local Controls Applied and with Emission Control Scenarios Under Evaluation by the Austin MSA 2 Appendix A includes ozone isopleth maps showing differences in maximum predicted daily 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with emission control scenarios under evaluation by the Austin MSA. The following figures/ scenarios have been included:

Figure No. Emission Control Scenario A. 1 A. 6 I& M programs in Travis and Williamson Counties only A. 7 A12 Voluntary point source reductions in the Austin area A. 13 A. 18 TERP implementation in the Austin area A. 19 A. 24 Area source VOC reductions in the Austin area A. 25 A. 30 All controls excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County A. 31 A. 36 All controls excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County and with Alcoa emissions reduced from 26.7 tpd to 4.44 tpd A. 37 A. 42 All controls excluding low RVP gasoline, I& M in Hays County, and commute program reductions A. 43 A. 48 All controls excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in all counties A. 49 A54 Doubling VOC emissions form point sources in the Austin area The final package of emission controls adopted for Austin's EAC is underlined above. 3 Figure A. 1. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 15 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with I& M programs in Travis and Williamson Counties. 4 Figure A. 2. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 16 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with I& M programs in Travis and Williamson Counties. 5 Figure A. 3. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 17 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with I& M programs in Travis and Williamson Counties. 6 Figure A. 4. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 18 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with I& M programs in Travis and Williamson Counties. 7 Figure A. 5. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 19 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with I& M programs in Travis and Williamson Counties. 8 Figure A. 6. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 20 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with I& M programs in Travis and Williamson Counties. 9 Figure A. 7. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 15 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with voluntary point source reductions in the Austin area. 10 Figure A. 8. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 16 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with voluntary point source reductions in the Austin area. 11 Figure A. 9. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 17 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with voluntary point source reductions in the Austin area. 12 Figure A. 10. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 18 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with voluntary point source reductions in the Austin area. 13 Figure A. 11. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 19 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with voluntary point source reductions in the Austin area. 14 Figure A. 12. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 20 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with voluntary point source reductions in the Austin area. 15 Figure A. 13. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 15 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with the TERP program in the Austin area. 16 Figure A. 14. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 16 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with the TERP program in the Austin area. 17 Figure A. 15. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 17 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with the TERP program in the Austin area. 18 Figure A. 16. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 18 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with the TERP program in the Austin area. 19 Figure A. 17. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 19 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with the TERP program in the Austin area. 20 Figure A. 18. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 20 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with the TERP program in the Austin area. 21 Figure A. 19. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 15 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with area source VOC reductions in the Austin area. 22 Figure A. 20. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 16 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with area source VOC reductions in the Austin area. 23 Figure A. 21. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 17 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with area source VOC reductions in the Austin area. 24 Figure A. 22. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 18 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with area source VOC reductions in the Austin area. 25 Figure A. 23. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 19 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with area source VOC reductions in the Austin area. 26 Figure A. 24. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 20 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with area source VOC reductions in the Austin area. 27 Figure A. 25. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 15 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County. 28 Figure A. 26. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 16 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County. 29 Figure A. 27. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 17 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County. 30 Figure A. 28. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 18 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County. 31 Figure A. 29. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 19 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County. 32 Figure A. 30. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 20 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County. 33 Figure A. 31. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 15 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County, and with Alcoa emissions reduced from 26.7 tpd to 4.44 tpd. 34 Figure A. 32. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 16 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County and with Alcoa emissions reduced from 26.7 tpd to 4.44 tpd. 35 Figure A. 33. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 17 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County and with Alcoa emissions reduced from 26.7 tpd to 4.44 tpd. 36 Figure A. 34. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 18 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County, and with Alcoa emissions reduced from 26.7 tpd to 4.44 tpd. 37 Figure A. 35. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 19 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County, and with Alcoa emissions reduced from 26.7 tpd to 4.44 tpd. 38 Figure A. 36. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 20 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in Hays County, and with Alcoa emissions reduced from 26.7 tpd to 4.44 tpd. 39 Figure A. 37. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 15 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline, I& M in Hays County, and commute program reductions. 40 Figure A. 38. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 16 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline, I& M in Hays County, and commute program reductions. 41 Figure A. 39. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 17 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline, I& M in Hays County, and commute program reductions. 42 Figure A. 40. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 18 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline, I& M in Hays County, and commute program reductions. 43 Figure A. 41. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 19 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline, I& M in Hays County, and commute program reductions. 44 Figure A. 42. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 20 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline, I& M in Hays County, and commute program reductions. 45 Figure A. 43. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 15 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in all counties. 46 Figure A. 44. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 16 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in all counties. 47 Figure A. 45. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 17 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in all counties. 48 Figure A. 46. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 18 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in all counties. 49 Figure A. 47. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 19 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in all counties. 50 Figure A. 48. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 20 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with all controls in the CAAP for the Austin area excluding low RVP gasoline and I& M in all counties. 51 Figure A. 49. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 15 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with doubling point source VOC emissions in the Austin area. 52 Figure A. 50. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 16 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with doubling point source VOC emissions in the Austin area. 53 Figure A. 51. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 17 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with doubling point source VOC emissions in the Austin area. 54 Figure A. 52. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 18 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with doubling point source VOC emissions in the Austin area. 55 Figure A. 53. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 19 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with doubling point source VOC emissions in the Austin area. 56 Figure A. 54. Difference in predicted daily maximum 8 hour averaged ozone concentrations on September 20 between the 2007 Future Case with no local controls applied and with doubling point source VOC emissions in the Austin area.


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, and that they can save the lives of others.  I successfully gave up a habit of smoking half a pack a day last year in July.  It took only one week, and I have no inclination to resume smoking cigarettes.  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 and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19715-19716]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07580]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1153]

Implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act Provision
Requiring FDA To Establish Pilot Projects and Submit a Report to
Congress for the Improvement of Tracking and Tracing of Food; Extension
of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the
comment period for the notice entitled ``Implementation of the FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act Provision Requiring FDA To Establish Pilot
Projects and Submit a Report to Congress for the Improvement of
Tracking and Tracing of Food'' that appeared in the Federal Register of
March 5, 2013 (78 FR 14309). In the notice, FDA requested comments on
the findings and recommendations contained in the Institute of Food
Technologists (IFT) report to FDA and the submission of information
relevant to improving product tracing. The Agency is taking this action
in response to requests for an extension to allow interested persons
additional time to submit comments.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by July 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and information, identified by
Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1153, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments and information in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments and information.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following way:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name
and Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1153 for this notice. All comments and
information received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For
additional information on submitting comments and information, see the
``Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments and information received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number(s), found in brackets in the heading of this
document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to
the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherri A. McGarry, Office of Foods,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm.
1212, Silver Spring, MD 20903,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of March 5, 2013 (78 FR 14309), FDA
published a

notice with a 30-day comment period to request comments on the findings
and recommendations contained in the IFT report and the submission of
information relevant to improving product tracing. Comments on the
findings and recommendations contained in the IFT report and the
submission of information relevant to improving product tracing will
help FDA as it forms its own recommendations, to be contained in the
Agency report to Congress that is required by the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA), and as it implements the FSMA provisions
relating to the tracking and tracing of food.
    The Agency has received requests for a 120-day extension of the
comment period for the notice. Each request conveyed concern that the
current 30-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop
a meaningful or thoughtful response to the notice.
    FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period
for all interested persons for 90 days, until July 3, 2013. The Agency
believes that a 90-day extension allows adequate time for interested
persons to submit comments.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 26, 2013.
Peter Lurie,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2013-07580 Filed 4-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P