[Federal Register: May 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 29353-29354]
[DOCID:fr25my07-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0047]

Student Data Form; Extension of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
contained in the Student Data Form.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
July 24, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0047,
U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and
courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and
Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0047). All comments,
including any personal information you provide, are placed in the
public docket without change, and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting

comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of
this notice titled Supplementary Information.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You also may contact Gail Butler at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Butler, Division of
Administration and Training Information, OSHA Office of Training and
Education, 2020 S. Arlington Heights Road, Arlington Heights, Illinois
60005; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). Section 21 of the
OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 670) authorizes OSHA to conduct education and
training courses. These courses must ensure an adequate number of
qualified personnel to fulfill the purposes of the OSH Act, provide
them with short-term training, inform them of the importance and proper
use of safety and health equipment, and train employers and employees
to recognize, avoid, and prevent unsafe and unhealthful working
conditions.
    Under Section 21 of the OSH Act, the OSHA Training Institute (the
``Institute'') provides basic, intermediate, and advanced training and
education in occupational safety and health for Federal and State
compliance officers, Agency professionals and technical support
personnel, employers, employees, organizations representing employees
and employers, educators who develop curricula and teach occupational
safety and health courses, and representatives of professional safety
and health groups. The Institute provides courses on occupational
safety and health at its national training facility in Arlington
Heights, Illinois.
    Students attending Institute courses complete the one-page Student
Data Form (OSHA Form 182, 8/04 edition) on the first day of class. The
form collects information under five major categories titled ``Course
Information,'' ``Personal Data,'' ``Employer Data,'' ``Emergency
Contacts,'' and ``Student Groups.'' The OSHA Office of Training and
Education (the ``Office'') compiles, for each fiscal year, the
following information from the ``Course Information'' and ``Student
Groups'' categories: Total student

attendance at the Institute; the number of students attending each
training course offered by the Institute; and the types of students
attending these courses (for example, students from Federal or State
occupational safety and health agencies). The Office uses this
information to demonstrate, in an accurate and timely manner, that the
Agency is providing the training and employee education mandated by
Section 21 of the Act. OSHA also uses this information to evaluate
training output, and to make decisions regarding program/course
revisions, budget support, and tuition costs.
    The Agency uses the information collected under the ``Course
Information,'' ``Personal Data,'' and ``Employer Data'' to identify
private sector students so that it can collect tuition costs from them
or their employers as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701 (``Fees and Charges
for Government Services and Things of Value''); Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-25 (``User Charges''); and 29 CFR part 1949
(``Office of Training and Education, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration''). The information in the ``Personal Data'' and
``Emergency Contacts'' categories permits OSHA to contact students who
are residing in local hotels/motels if an emergency arises at their
home or place of employment, and to alert supervisors/alternate
contacts of a trainee's injury or illness.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden (time
and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

 III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting OMB to extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Student Data Form. The Agency
will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and
will include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved information
collection requirement.
    Title: Student Data Form.
    OMB Number: 1218-0172.
    Affected Public: Individuals; business or other for-profit
organizations; Federal government; State, Local, or Tribal governments.
    Number of Respondents: 2,000.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 2,000.
    Average Time per Response: 5 minutes.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 167 hours.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $-0-.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0047).
You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or a facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled Addresses).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and docket number so the Agency can attach them to
your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA
Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit

comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases

and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page
at http://www.osha.gov.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 17, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E7-9943 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 28394-28398]
[DOCID:fr16my06-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53783; File No. SR-ISE-2005-60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1
and 2 Thereto Relating to the Criteria for Securities that Underlie
Options Traded on the Exchange

May 10, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 14, 2005, the International Securities Exchange, Inc.
(``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') 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. On May 5, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ On May 9, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended,
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its
entirety.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 replaced the text of proposed ISE Rules
408(a) and 807(a) in their entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rules 408(a), 502(h), 503(h),
807(a), and 1400 to enable the initial and continued listing and
trading on the Exchange of Fund Shares that hold specified non-U.S.
currency options, futures or options on futures on such currency, or
any other derivatives based on such currency. The text of the proposed
rule change is provided below (italics indicates additions; [brackets]
indicate deletions):
* * * * *

Rule 408. Prevention of the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information

    (a) Every Member, other than a lessor that is neither registered,
nor required to be registered, as a broker-dealer under section 15 of
the Exchange Act, shall establish, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration
the nature of the Member's business, to prevent the misuse of material
nonpublic information by such Member or persons associated with such
Member in violation of the Exchange Act and Exchange Rules.
    (1) Misuse of material nonpublic information includes, but is not
limited to:
    (i) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation or Funds, as
defined in Rule 502(h), or a trust or similar entities, or in any
related securities or related options or other derivative securities,
or in any related non-U.S. currency, non-U.S. currency options, futures
or options on futures on such currency, or any other derivatives based
on such currency while in possession of material nonpublic information
concerning that corporation or those Funds or that trust or similar
entities;
    (ii) Trading in an underlying security or related options or other
derivative securities, or in any related non-U.S. currency, non-U.S.
currency options, futures or options on futures on such currency, or
any other derivatives based on such currency while in possession of
material nonpublic information concerning imminent transactions in the

above; [underlying security or related securities;] and
    (iii) Disclosing to another person any material nonpublic
information involving a corporation or Funds or a trust or similar
entities whose shares are publicly traded or an imminent transaction in
an underlying security or related securities or in the underlying non-
U.S. currency or any related non-U.S. currency options, futures or
options on futures on such currency, or any other derivatives based on
such currency for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of
such material nonpublic information.
    (2) No change.
    (b)-(c) No change.
* * * * *

Rule 502. Criteria for Underlying Securities

* * * * *
    (h) Securities deemed appropriate for options trading shall include
shares or other securities (``Fund Shares'') that (i) represent
interests in registered investment companies (or series thereof)
organized as open-end management investment companies, unit investment
trusts or similar entities that are [principally] traded on a national
securities exchange or through the facilities of a national securities
association and are defined as an ``NMS stock'' under Rule 600 of
Regulation NMS [reported as ``national market'' securities], and that
hold portfolios of securities comprising or otherwise based on or
representing investments in broad-based indexes or portfolios of
securities (or that hold securities in one or more other registered
investment companies that themselves hold such portfolios of
securities) or (ii) represent interests in a trust that holds a
specified non-U.S. currency deposited with the trust when aggregated in
some specified minimum number may be surrendered to the trust by the
beneficial owner to receive the specified non-U.S. currency and pays
the beneficial owner interest and other distributions on the deposited
non-U.S. currency, if any, declared and paid by the trust (``Funds'');
provided that all of the following conditions are met:
    (1) Any non-U.S. component securities of [the] an index or
portfolio of securities on which the Fund Shares are based that are not
subject to comprehensive surveillance agreements do not in the
aggregate represent more than 50% of the weight of the index or
portfolio;
    (2) Component securities of an index or portfolio of securities on
which the Fund Shares are based for which the primary market is in any
one country that is not subject to a comprehensive surveillance
agreement do not represent 20% or more of the weight of the index;
    (3) Component securities of an index or portfolio of securities on
which the Fund Shares are based for which the primary market is in any
two countries that are not subject to comprehensive surveillance
agreements do not represent 33% or more of the weight of the index;
[and]
    (4) For Funds that hold a specified non-U.S. currency deposited
with the trust, the Exchange has entered into an appropriate
comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the marketplace or
marketplaces with last sale reporting that represent(s) the highest
volume in derivatives (options or futures) on the specified non-U.S.
currency, which are utilized by the national securities exchange where
the underlying Funds are listed and traded; and
    [(4)](5) The Fund Shares either (i) meet the criteria and
guidelines set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) above; or (ii) the Fund
Shares are available for creation or redemption each business day from
or through the issuing trust, investment company or other entity [Fund]
in cash or in kind at a price related to net asset value, and the
issuer [Fund] is obligated to issue Fund Shares in a specified
aggregate number even if some or all of the [securities] investment
assets required to be deposited have not been received by the issuer
[Fund], subject to the condition that the person obligated to deposit
the [securities] investment assets has undertaken to deliver them
[securities] as soon as possible and such undertaking is secured by the
delivery and maintenance of collateral consisting of cash or cash
equivalents satisfactory to the issuer of Fund Shares [Fund], all as
described in the Fund Shares' [Fund's] prospectus.
    (i) through (j) No change.

Rule 503. Withdrawal of Approval of Underlying Securities

* * * * *
    (h) Fund Shares approved for options trading pursuant to Rule
502(h) will not be deemed to meet the requirements for continued
approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional
series of option contracts of the class covering such Fund Shares if
the [issuer is] Fund Shares are delisted from trading as provided in
subparagraph (b)(5)[(6)] of this Rule or the Fund Shares are halted
from trading on their primary market. In addition, the Exchange shall
consider the suspension of opening transactions in any series of
options of the class covering Fund Shares in any of the following
circumstances:
    (1) In the case of options covering Fund Shares approved pursuant
to Rule 502(h)(5)[4](i), in accordance with the terms of subparagraphs
(b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) of this Rule 503;
    (2) In the case of options covering Fund Shares approved pursuant
to Rule 502(h)(5)[(4)](ii), following the initial twelve-month period
beginning upon the commencement of trading in the Fund Shares on a
national securities exchange or [as NMS securities] through the
facilities of a national securities association and are defined as an
``NMS stock'' under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, there were fewer than
50 record and/or beneficial holders of such Fund Shares for 30 or more
consecutive trading days;
    (3)-(4) No change.
    (i) through (j) No change.
* * * * *

Rule 807. Securities Accounts and Orders of Market Makers

    (a) Identification of Accounts. A Primary Market Maker in the Fund
Shares, as defined in Rule 502(h), is obligated to conduct all trading
in the Fund Shares in account(s) that have been reported to the
Exchange. In addition, [I]in a manner prescribed by the Exchange, each
market maker shall file with the Exchange and keep current a list
identifying all accounts for stock, options, non-U.S. currency, non-
U.S. currency options, futures or options on futures on such currency,
or any other derivatives based on such currency and related securities
trading in which the market maker may, directly or indirectly, engage
in trading activities or over which it exercises investment direction.
No market maker shall engage in stock, options, non-U.S. currency, non-
U.S. currency options, futures or options on futures on such currency,
or any other derivatives based on such currency or related securities
trading in an account which has not been reported pursuant to this
Rule.
    (b)-(c) No change.
* * * * *

Rule 1400. Maintenance, Retention and Furnishing of Books, Records and
Other Information

    (a)-(b) No change.

Supplementary Material to Rule 1400

    .01 In addition to the existing obligations under Exchange rules
regarding the production of books and records, a Primary Market Maker
in non-U.S. currency options, futures or options on futures on such
currency, or any other derivatives based on such

currency, shall make available to the Exchange such books, records or
other information pertaining to transactions in the applicable non-
U.S.-currency options, futures or options on futures on such currency,
or any other derivatives on such currency, as may be requested by the
Exchange.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend ISE Rules
408(a), 502(h), 503(h), 807(a), and 1400 to enable the initial and
continued listing and trading on the Exchange of Fund Shares that hold
specified non-U.S. currency options, futures or options on futures on
such currency, or any other derivatives based on such currency.
Currently, the term ``Fund Shares,'' as defined in ISE Rule 502(h),
requires that the investment assets held by a trust, investment
company, or other similar entity consist of portfolios of securities.
As proposed, amended ISE Rule 502(h) would also permit the investment
assets to consist of a trust that holds a specified non-U.S. currency
deposited with the trust.
    In particular, the proposed amendment to ISE Rule 502(h) would
permit the Exchange to list options on the Euro Currency Trust
(``Trust''). The Trust issues Euro Shares (``Shares'') that represent
units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in, and ownership of,
the Trust. PADCO Advisors II, Inc., d/b/a Rydex Investments, is the
sponsor of the Trust (``Sponsor'') \5\ and may be deemed the ``issuer''
of the Shares pursuant to section 2(a)(4) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.\6\ The Bank of New York is the trustee of the Trust
(``Trustee''), JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., London Branch, is the
depository for the Trust (``Depository''), and Rydex Distributors, Inc.
is the distributor for the Trust (``Distributor''). The Trust intends
to issue additional Shares on a continuous basis through the Trustee.
The Sponsor, Trustee, Depository, and Distributor are not affiliated
with the Exchange or one another, with the exception that the Sponsor
and Distributor are affiliated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Sponsor maintains a public Web site on behalf of the
Trust, http://www.currencyshares.com, which contains information

about the Trust and the Shares.
    \6\ Rydex Investments is not an ``issuer'' as per ISE rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the Trust's Registration Statement,\7\ the investment
objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the price of the
euro. The Shares are intended to provide institutional and retail
investors with a simple, cost-effective means of gaining investment
benefits similar to those of holding euro.\8\ The Sponsor believes that
the Trust is the first exchange traded fund (``ETF'') \9\ whose assets
are limited to a particular foreign currency. The Shares may be
purchased from the Trust only in one or more blocks of 50,000 Shares,
as described in the prospectus under ``Creation and Redemption of
Shares.'' A block of 50,000 shares is called a Basket. The Trust issues
Shares in Baskets on a continuous basis to certain authorized
participants (``Authorized Participants'') as described in the
prospectus under ``Plan of Distribution.'' Each Basket, when created,
is offered and sold to an Authorized Participant at a price in euro
equal to the net asset value (``NAV'') for 50,000 Shares on the day
that the order to create the Basket is accepted by the Trustee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, filed the Form S-1 (the
``Registration Statement'') on June 7, 2005, Amendment No. 1 thereto
on August 12, 2005, Amendment No. 2 thereto on October 25, 2005,
Amendment No. 3 thereto on November 28, 2005, and Amendment No. 4
thereto on December 6, 2005. See Registration No. 333-125581.
    \8\ The Exchange notes that the Commission has permitted the
listing of prior securities products for which the underlying was a
commodity or otherwise was not a security trading on a regulated
market. See, e.g., Exchange Act Release Nos. 50603 (October 28,
2004), 69 FR 64614 (November 5, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2004-22) (approving
listing and trading on NYSE of StreetTRACKS[reg] Gold Shares); 36505
(November 22, 1995), 60 FR 61277 (November 29, 1995) (SR-PHLX-95-42)
(approving the listing of dollar-denominated delivery of foreign
currency options on the Japanese Yen; 36165 (August 29, 1995), 60 FR
46653 (September 7, 1995) (SR-NYSE-94-41) (approving listing
standards for, among other things, currency and currency index
warrants); and 19133 (October 14, 1982), 47 FR 46946 (October 21,
1982) (SR-PHLX-81-4) (approving the listing of standardized options
on foreign currencies).
    \9\ The Exchanges notes that the Trust is not a registered
investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``1940
Act'') and is not required to register under the 1940 Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 12, 2005, the Shares were sold to the public by
Authorized Participants at varying prices in dollars by reference to,
among other things, the market price of euro and the trading price of
the Shares on the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') at the time of
each sale. The Shares trade on the NYSE under the symbol ``FXE.'' The
Shares may also trade in other markets.
    The Exchange believes that permitting options on foreign currency-
based Fund Shares to be traded on the Exchange is consistent with the
Commission's recent approval order of a rule change filed by the NYSE
to list and trade shares of the Trust.\10\ This rule change to ISE's
listing criteria for Fund Shares is intended to provide appropriate
listing standards for options on shares of these and similar types of
foreign currency-based Fund Shares that may be listed in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52843 (November 28,
2005), 70 FR 72486 (December 5, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fund Shares will continue to need to satisfy the listing standards
in ISE Rule 502(h). Specifically, the Fund Shares must be traded on a
national securities exchange or through the facilities of a national
securities association and must be an ``NMS stock'' as defined under
Rule 600 of Regulation NMS.\11\ The Fund Shares must also either: (1)
Meet the criteria and guidelines under ISE Rules 502(a) and 502(b)
(Criteria for Underlying Securities); or (2) be available for creation
or redemption each business day from and through the issuer in cash or
in-kind at a price related to net asset value, and the issuer is
obligated to issue Fund Shares in a specified aggregate number even if
some or all of the investments required to be deposited have not been
received by the issuer, subject to the condition that the person
obligated to deposit the investments has undertaken to deliver the
investment assets as soon as possible, and such undertaking is secured
by the delivery and maintenance of collateral consisting of cash or
cash equivalents satisfactory to the issuer, as described in the
issuer's prospectus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In light of the implementation of certain aspects of
Regulation NMS, the Exchange hereby seeks to amend ISE Rule 502(h)
to reflect that Fund Shares must be National Market System stocks as
defined under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, instead of ``national
market'' securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the applicable continued listing criteria in ISE Rule 503(h),
the Fund Shares may be delisted as follows: (1) Following the initial
twelve-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading of the
Fund

Shares, there are fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of the
Fund Shares for 30 or more consecutive trading days; (2) the value of
the euro is no longer calculated or available; \12\ or (3) such other
event occurs or condition exists that in the opinion of the Exchange
makes further dealing on the Exchange inadvisable. Additionally, the
Fund Shares shall not be deemed to meet the requirements for continued
approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional
series of option contracts of the class covering such Fund Shares, if
the Fund Shares are halted from trading on their primary market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Euro pricing information based on the euro spot price is
available to investors on 24-hour basis from various financial
information service providers. There are a variety of other public
Web sites providing information on foreign currency and euro,
including Bloomberg, CBS MarketWatch and Yahoo! Finance. The Trust
Web site's euro spot price will be provided by The Bullion Desk
(http://www.thebulliondesk.com). The Bullion Desk is not affiliated

with the Trust, Trustee, Sponsor, Depository, Distributor or the
Exchange. In the event that the Trust's Web site should cease to
provide this euro spot price information, the Fund Shares shall fail
this maintenance requirement and may be delisted by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange represents that the expansion of the types of
investments that may be held by a Fund Share under ISE Rule 502(h) will
not have any effect on the rules pertaining to position and exercise
limits \13\ or margin.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ISE Rules 412 and 414.
    \14\ See ISE Rule 1202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to amend ISE Rule 408(a) to ensure
that, in connection with trading in the applicable non-U.S. currency,
non-U.S. currency options, futures or options on futures on such
currency, or any other derivatives on such currency, the ISE Primary
Market Maker does not use any material nonpublic information it might
have or receive from any person associated with it in the applicable
non-U.S. currency options, futures or options on futures on such
currency, or any other derivatives on such currency. Finally, the
Exchange is proposing to amend ISE Rules 807(a) and 1400 to ensure that
market makers handling Fund Shares provide the Exchange with all
necessary information relating to their trading in the applicable non-
U.S. currency, non-U.S. currency options, futures or options on futures
on such currency, or any other derivatives based on such currency.
    The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance
program in place for options on the Shares, and intends to apply those
same program procedures that it applies to options on Fund Shares
currently traded on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange may obtain
trading information via the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'')
from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG.
Specifically, ISE can obtain such information from the Philadelphia
Stock Exchange (``Phlx'') in connection with euro options trading on
the Phlx and from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (``CME'') and the
London International Financial Futures Exchange (``LIFFE'') in
connection with euro futures trading on those exchanges.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Phlx is a member of ISG. CME and LIFFE are affiliate
members of ISG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that, with the commencement of trading of a
currency-based ETF on the NYSE, amending its rules to accommodate the
listing and trading of options on publicly traded shares or other
securities that hold investment assets consisting of foreign currency
will benefit investors by providing them with the same valuable risk
management tool that is currently available with respect to other
publicly traded ETFs whose investment assets consist of securities.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)
of the Act, in general and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5)
in particular, in that it would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism for a free and open market in a manner consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (a) By order approve such proposed rule change, as amended; or
    (b) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, should be 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, as amended, 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 E-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-ISE-2005-60 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2005-60. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2005-60 and should be submitted by June 6, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7454 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39996-40003]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13151]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0921; Project Identifier AD-2022-01430-T;
Amendment 39-22471; AD 2023-12-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2022-05-
04, which applied to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C,
-300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
airplanes, except for Model 737-200 and -200C series airplanes equipped
with a certain flight control system. AD 2022-05-04 required revising
the limitations and operating procedures sections of the existing
airplane flight manual (AFM) to incorporate specific operating
procedures for instrument landing system (ILS) approaches, speedbrake
deployment, go-arounds, and missed approaches, when in the presence of
interference from wireless broadband operations in the 3.7-3.98 GHz
frequency band (5G C-Band) as identified by Notices to Air Missions
(NOTAMs). Since the FAA issued AD 2022-05-04, the FAA determined that
additional limitations are needed due to the continued deployment of
new 5G C-Band base stations whose signals are expected to cover most of
the contiguous United States at transmission frequencies between 3.7-
3.98 GHz. This AD requires revising the limitations and operating
procedures sections of the existing AFM to incorporate specific
operating procedures for ILS approaches, speedbrake deployment, go-
arounds, and missed approaches, due to the presence of 5G C-Band
interference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov
under Docket No. FAA-2023-0921; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any comments
received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations is
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Portwood, Continued Operational
Safety Technical Advisor, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-05-04, Amendment 39-21955 (87 FR
10299, February 24, 2022) (AD 2022-05-04). AD 2022-05-04 applied to all
The Boeing Company (Boeing) Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, -
500, -600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, except
for Model 737-200 and -200C series airplanes equipped with a certain
flight control system. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
May 3, 2023 (88 FR 27725). The NPRM was prompted by a determination
that radio altimeters cannot be relied upon to perform their intended
function if they experience 5G C-Band interference, and a determination
that, during approach, landings, and go-arounds, as a result of this
interference, certain airplane systems may not properly function,
resulting in increased flightcrew workload while on approach with the
flight director, autothrottle, or autopilot engaged.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain the AFM revisions required
by AD 2022-05-04 until June 30, 2023. On or before June 30, 2023, the
FAA proposed to require replacing those AFM revisions with limitations
requiring the same procedures for dispatch or release to airports, and
approach, landing, and go-around on runways, at all airports for non-
radio altimeter tolerant airplanes. For radio altimeter tolerant
airplanes, the FAA proposed to allow the procedures at 5G CMAs as
identified in an FAA Domestic Notice. The FAA proposed this AD to
address 5G C-Band interference that could result in increased
flightcrew workload and could lead to reduced ability of the flightcrew
to maintain safe flight and landing of the airplane.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the
proposed AD and received comments from seven commenters. The following
presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.

Support for NPRM

    Boeing, the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), and
an individual supported the NPRM without change.
    The supportive comments from ALPA included additional viewpoints
without a suggestion specific to the AD or a request the FAA can act
on. These comments are outside the scope of this AD.

Request To Clarify AD Issue Dates

    Comment summary: FlyPersia Airlines commented that the issue dates
referenced for AD 2022-23-12 and AD 2022-05-04 in the background
section of the proposed AD are incorrect. The commenter stated that
where ``The FAA issued AD 2022-23-12 (86 FR 69984, December 9, 2021)''
is stated, the correct date should be December 7, 2021; in same section
where the proposed AD specifies ``AD 2022-05-04 (87 FR 10299, February
24, 2022),'' the commenter stated the correct date should be February
16, 2022.
    FAA response: The dates quoted by the commenter are within the
parenthetical citations for referencing documents published in the
Federal Register by volume, page, and publication date. These dates
represent the dates each AD published in the Federal Register. The
December 7, 2021, and February 24, 2022, dates the commenter referenced
are the issuance dates specified in the signature block at the end of
each AD (i.e., the dates on which the ADs were issued by the FAA). No
change to this AD is necessary because the citation dates are the
correct publication dates.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    Comment summary: Southwest Airlines and American Airlines expressed
concern regarding the compliance time for the proposed actions and
requested the FAA revise the AD to provide a minimum of 30 days from
the effective date of the AD.

    FAA response: The FAA understands the commenters' concerns and made
every effort to publish this AD as soon as possible. After refraining
from operating at their FCC-authorized levels for a year and a half,
wireless companies are now able to operate at higher levels, yet still
not at the levels authorized. Specifically, wireless companies expect
to operate their networks in urban areas with minimal restrictions due
to the completion of retrofits. Additionally, the FAA anticipates 19
additional telecommunication companies will begin transmitting in the
C-Band after June 30, 2023. Although the FAA continues to work with the
companies that intend to transmit in the 3.7-3.98-GHz band near 5G
CMAs, the FAA has no agreement with those companies to provide the FAA
with tower locations and other information necessary to support the
current NOTAM/AMOC process. Therefore, the FAA will not be able to
extend the June 30, 2023, date.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Comment summary: Aviation Partners Boeing stated that installing
winglets under supplemental type certificate (STC) STC01219SE and STC
ST00830SE on applicable Boeing models does not affect accomplishment of
the actions specified in the proposed AD.
    FAA response: The FAA agrees. The FAA has not changed this AD in
this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. Once the
Technical Standard Order (TSO) standard for radio altimeters is
established, which will follow the existing international technical
consensus on the establishment of the minimum operational performance
standards (MOPS), the FAA anticipates that the MOPS will be
incorporated into the TSO. Once a new radio altimeter TSO is developed,
approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

Effective Date

    Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
551 et seq.) requires publication of a rule not less than 30 days
before its effective date. However, section 553(d) authorizes agencies
to make rules effective in less than 30 days when the agency finds
``good cause.'' Radio altimeters cannot be relied upon to perform their
intended function if they experience interference from wireless
broadband operations in the 5G C-Band. This interference can cause
other airplane systems to not properly function, resulting in increased
flightcrew workload while on approach with the flight director,
autothrottle, or autopilot engaged. To address this unsafe condition,
the actions required by this AD must be accomplished before the
compliance date of June 30, 2023. The FAA based this date on the
changes to the 5G C-Band environment beginning on July 1, 2023. These
changes include increased wireless broadband deployment and
transmissions closer to the parameters authorized by the FCC. The
earlier operators learn of the requirements in this AD, the earlier
they can take action to ensure compliance. An effective date less than
30 days would ensure the AD is codified earlier, thereby increasing
awareness of its requirements. Therefore, the FAA finds that good cause
exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment
immediately effective.

Costs of Compliance

    The cost information below describes the costs to change the AFM.
Although this AD largely maintains the AFM limitations currently
required by AD 2022-05-04, the FAA acknowledges that this AD may also
impose costs on some aircraft operators from having to change their
conduct to comply with the amended AFM. However, the FAA lacks the data
necessary to quantify the costs associated with aircraft operators
changing their conduct.
    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2,328 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision (retained actions from AD  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85        $197,880
 2022-05-04).                            hour \1\ = $85.
New AFM revisions (new action)........  1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85     \2\ 197,880
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The labor rate of $85 per hour is the average wage rate for an aviation mechanic.
\2\ The estimated cost for this revision would not constitute a significant economic impact (even for small
  entities) because $85 is a minimal cost compared to the regular costs of maintaining and operating a Model 737-
  100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, or -900ER transport category airplane.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2022-05-04, Amendment 39-21955
(87 FR 10299, February 24, 2022), and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2023-12-13 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-22471; Docket No. FAA-
2023-0921; Project Identifier AD-2022-01430-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 21, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2022-05-04, Amendment 39-21955 (87 FR 10299,
February 24, 2022) (AD 2022-05-04).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company 737-100, -200, -200C,
-300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
airplanes, certificated in any category, except for Model 737-200
and -200C series airplanes equipped with an SP-77 flight control
system.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that radio altimeters
cannot be relied upon to perform their intended function if they
experience interference from wireless broadband operations in the
3.7-3.98 GHz frequency band (5G C-Band), and a determination that,
during approach, landings, and go-arounds, as a result of this
interference, certain airplane systems may not properly function,
resulting in increased flightcrew workload while on approach with
the flight director, autothrottle, or autopilot engaged. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address 5G C-Band interference that could result
in increased flightcrew workload and could lead to reduced ability
of the flightcrew to maintain safe flight and landing of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Definitions

    (1) For purposes of this AD, a ``5G C-Band mitigated airport''
(5G CMA) is an airport at which the telecommunications companies
have agreed to voluntarily limit their 5G deployment at the request
of the FAA, as identified by an FAA Domestic Notice.
    (2) For purposes of this AD, a ``radio altimeter tolerant
airplane'' is one for which the radio altimeter, as installed,
demonstrates the tolerances specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this AD, using a method approved by the FAA.
    (i) Tolerance to radio altimeter interference, for the
fundamental emissions (3.7-3.98 GHz), at or above the power spectral
density (PSD) curve threshold specified in figure 1 to paragraph
(g)(2)(i) of this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(2)(i)--Fundamental Effective Isotropic PSD
at Outside Interface of Aircraft Antenna
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.078

    (ii) Tolerance to radio altimeter interference, for the spurious
emissions (3.7-3.98 GHz), at or above the PSD curve threshold
specified in figure 2 to paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

Figure 2 to paragraph (g)(2)(ii)--Spurious Effective Isotropic PSD
at Outside Interface of Aircraft Antenna
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.079

    (3) For purposes of this AD, a ``non-radio altimeter tolerant
airplane'' is one for which the radio altimeter, as installed, does
not demonstrate the tolerances specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this AD.

(h) Retained Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2022-05-04.
    (1) Within 2 days after February 24, 2022 (the effective date of
AD 2022-05-04): Revise the Limitations Section of the existing AFM
to include the information specified in figure 3 to paragraph (h)(1)
of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of figure 3 to
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD into the existing AFM.

Figure 3 to paragraph (h)(1)--AFM Limitations Revisions
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.080

    (2) Within 2 days after February 24, 2022 (the effective date of
AD 2022-05-04): Revise the Operating Procedures Section of the
existing AFM to include the information specified in figure 4 to
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD or figure 5 to paragraph (h)(2) of this
AD, as applicable. This may be done by inserting a copy of figure 4
to paragraph (h)(2) or figure 5 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, as
applicable, into the Operating Procedures Section of the existing
AFM.

Figure 4 to paragraph (h)(2)--AFM Operating Procedures Revision for
Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.081

Figure 5 to paragraph (h)(2)--AFM Operating Procedures Revision for
Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.082

(i) New Requirement: AFM Limitations Revision for Non-Radio Altimeter
Tolerant Airplanes

    For non-radio altimeter tolerant airplanes, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) On or before June 30, 2023, revise the Limitations Section
of the existing AFM to include the information specified in figure 6
to paragraph (i) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of
figure 6 to paragraph (i) of this AD into the existing AFM.
Incorporating the AFM revision required by this paragraph terminates
the AFM revision required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before further flight after incorporating the limitations
specified in figure 6 to paragraph (i) of this AD, remove the AFM
revision required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

Figure 6 to paragraph (i)--AFM Limitations Revision for Non-Radio
Altimeter Tolerant Airplanes
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.083

(j) New Requirement: AFM Limitations Revision for Radio Altimeter
Tolerant Airplanes

    For radio altimeter tolerant airplanes, do the actions specified
in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) On or before June 30, 2023, revise the Limitations Section
of the existing AFM to include the information specified in figure 7
to paragraph (j) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of
figure 7 to paragraph (j) of this AD into the existing AFM.
Incorporating the AFM revision required by this paragraph terminates
the AFM revision required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before further flight after incorporating the limitations
specified in figure 7 to paragraph (j) of this AD, remove the AFM

revision required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

Figure 7 to paragraph (j)--AFM Limitations Revision for Radio
Altimeter Tolerant Airplanes
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.084

(k) New Requirement: AFM Operating Procedures Revision

    For all airplanes, do the actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1)
and (2) of this AD.
    (1) On or before June 30, 2023, revise the Operating Procedures
Section of the existing AFM to include the information specified in
figure 8 to paragraph (k) of this AD or figure 9 to paragraph (k) of
this AD, as applicable. This may be done by inserting a copy of
figure 8 to paragraph (k) of this AD or figure 9 to paragraph (k) of
this AD, as applicable, into the Operating Procedures Section of the
existing AFM. Incorporating the AFM revision required by this
paragraph terminates the AFM revision required by paragraph (h)(2)
of this AD.
    (2) Before further flight after incorporating the operating
procedures specified in figure 8 to paragraph (k) of this AD or
figure 9 to paragraph (k) of this AD, remove the AFM revision
required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

Figure 8 to paragraph (k)--AFM Operating Procedures Revision for
Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.085

Figure 9 to paragraph (k)--AFM Operating Procedures Revision for
Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JN23.086

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the Operational Safety Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 2021-23-12, Amendment 39-21810 (86 FR
69984, December 9, 2021) providing relief for specific radio
altimeter installations are approved as AMOCs for the requirements
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD until June 30, 2023.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Brett Portwood,
Continued Operational Safety Technical Advisor, COS Program
Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on June 9, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-13151 Filed 6-16-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


                                                 AGENDA
          FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL
                                              OPEN MEETING
                                            June 11-14, 2019

                  FIFRA SAP Website https://www.epa.gov/sap
                     Docket https://www.regulations.gov
                     Docket No. EPA - HQ - OPP - 2019-0161

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Conference Center Lobby Level One
               Potomac Yard (South Bldg.) 2777 S. Crystal Drive
                                           Arlington, VA 22202

Topic: Peer Review of EPA's Proposed Methods for Efficacy Testing of Treatments Topically Applied to Pets to Control Certain Invertebrate Ectoparasitic Pests

                                         TUESDAY, June 11, 2019

 Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of agenda).

             9:00 AM 	Meeting Opening and Administrative Procedures  -  Sue Shallal, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

             9:10 AM	Introduction of Panel Members  -  Robert Chapin, Ph.D., Chair of the FIFRA SAP

 9:20 AM	Agenda Review  -  Robert Chapin, Ph.D., Chair of the FIFRA SAP

             9:30 AM	Introduction - Product Performance Data Requirements and the Importance of Efficacy Testing Guidance- Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

             9:45 AM	Background and Introduction to Proposed Methods for Efficacy Testing of Treatments Topically Applied to Pets to Control Certain Invertebrate Ectoparasitic Pests  -  Jennifer Saunders, Ph.D., Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

             10:00 AM	Treatments Topically Applied to Pets to Control Certain Invertebrate Ectoparasitic Pests  -  Eric Bohnenblust, Ph.D. Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, and Autumn Metzger, M.S., Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

 11:00 AM					BREAK

             11:15 AM	Public Comments

 12:15 PM					LUNCH

             Panel Deliberations

             1:30 PM	Charge question #1- General Methods
   The draft guideline describes test methods for evaluating the efficacy of a variety of pesticidal pet products to control fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, and biting flies on pets. Please discuss whether, given the objectives and the types of products being evaluated, the test methods described in the following sections are appropriate to evaluate the efficacy based on the pesticide labeling claims made, e.g. relating to repellency, mortality, and residual control:
       i. Fleas (section (j)); ii. Ticks (section (k)); iii. Mosquitoes and biting flies (section (l))
       iv. Insecticidal shampoo products (section (m)); v. Environmental conditions (section (n))

 2:15 PM	Charge Question #2- General Methods
   New approach methodologies (NAMs) is a broadly descriptive reference to any non-animal technology, methodology, approach, or combination thereof that can be used in this case for efficacy purposes. EPA seeks to reduce the number of vertebrate animals needed for testing, where possible, while ensuring confidence in test results.
     a. For each of the following sections from the guideline, please discuss potential alternative methods, including ways to reduce or replace, the use of animals in testing:
      i. Fleas (section (j)); ii. Ticks (section (k)); iii. Mosquitoes and biting flies (section (l));
      iv. Insecticidal shampoo products (section (m)); v. Environmental conditions (section (n))
     b. Considering the importance of accurate animal behavior (e.g., grooming) during these tests and confidence in the results of these tests for protecting public health, for each of the following sections of the guideline, please discuss methods for refining (e.g., reduce the pain and suffering) the use of animals.
      i. Fleas (section (j)); ii. Ticks (section (k)); iii. Mosquitoes and biting flies (section (l));
      iv. Insecticidal shampoo products (section (m)); v. Environmental conditions (section (n))

 3:00 PM				BREAK

 3:15 PM 	Charge Question #3- General Methods
   Should protocols for testing ear mites and Sarcoptic mange mites be included in the guideline?
     a. Why or why not?
     b. If so, please provide appropriate detailed test methods for evaluating the efficacy against
     these pests for on-animal treatments.

4:00 PM	Charge Question #4- General Methods
    For each section listed below, comment on the proposed sample sizes for vertebrate test animals (e.g., dogs, cats). EPA recommends these numbers based on the power vs. sample size analysis provided to ensure adequate power using the minimum number of vertebrate animals. Are these numbers of animals practical?
     a. Fleas (section (j))
     b. Ticks (section (k))
     c.	 Mosquitoes and biting flies (section (l))

 4:45 PM	Recap  -  Robert Chapin Ph.D., Chair of the FIFRA SAP

 5:00 PM	Recess  -  Sue Shallal, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official

                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2019

 Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of agenda).

             9:00 AM	Meeting Opening and Administrative Procedures  -  Sue Shallal, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

 9:10 AM	Agenda Review  -  Robert Chapin Ph.D., Chair of the FIFRA SAP

             9:15 AM	Charge Question #5- General Methods
    For each section listed below, comment on the proposed numbers of different arthropod pest species. EPA recommends these numbers based on review of studies available in the literature studies submitted to EPA, and analysis of power vs. sample size.   Are there ways to reduce the number of pests used per test?
       a.	Fleas (section (j))
    b.	Ticks (section (k))
    c.	Mosquitoes and biting flies (section (l))

             10:15 AM 	Charge Question #6- General Methods
    Comment on the timing of exposing vertebrate test animals to fleas and ticks.
     a.	 Are the number of exposures for products with different durations of efficacy adequate for determining efficacy? Why or why not?
     b. If the number of exposures to pests can be decreased, please indicate specifically which exposures can be skipped. If efficacy should be evaluated at more timepoints, indicate when exposures should occur and for what product types (e.g., spot-ons, collars, and residual shampoos), and discuss the value provided by the additional time points.

 11:15 AM				BREAK

 11:30 AM	Charge Question #7- General Methods
    In the interest of reducing the use of vertebrate animals in testing, we have suggested in the guideline to allow testing of up to two species simultaneously for fleas and ticks (e.g., fleas and 1 tick species, 2 tick species). Are there any potential known interactions between multiple tick species or ticks and fleas if on a single vertebrate animal at the same time which would require individual pest species be tested separately? If there are interactions, please describe the interactions and provide references.

 12:30 PM				LUNCH

 1:45 PM	Charge Question #8- General Methods
    For pet collars, one of the typical methods of application requires cutting the collar to size and therefore the collar application rates are often dependent on neck size and not animal's weight as for other pet products like spot-ons that have dosing labeled based on weight ranges. Because neck size may not correlate with body weight or surface area, there is uncertainty that testing with the formulated collar sized for the neck may not represent the most conservative situations encountered in the field (e.g., dog breeds with small necks but relatively big bodies). Please discuss how application rate should be addressed during testing of collars. Is cutting the formulated collar to neck size sufficient for testing, even though the typical breeds used in testing may not represent the most conservative ratio of neck size to body weight/surface area? Why or why not? If not, how should this issue be practically addressed during testing?

2:45 PM	Charge Question #9- General Methods
     Historically the agency has requested studies for fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes on pets be conducted with 6 to 8 animals per treatment, although, the agency has received studies with sample sizes ranging from 2 to 12 animals per treatment.  Based on the statistical simulations provided in Appendix 1, EPA is proposing a minimum number of vertebrate animal subjects for each test type (i.e., pest) in the guideline. This number varies according to test type, ranging from 6 to 14, and is intended to achieve 80% statistical power (confidence) with a precision of 4 or 5%, depending on the specific methods employed for each pest.  Please discuss and provide comment on:
     a. The appropriateness of statistical methods to analyze the data and calculate percent efficacy and the associated 95% confidence interval.
     b. The appropriateness of statistical methods and simulations EPA has developed to estimate the power of the proposed design, and specifically to achieve an adequate estimate of precision around the estimated mortality/repellency in the treated group for each section below: i. Fleas (section (j)); ii.	Ticks (section (k)); iii.	Mosquitoes and biting flies (section (l))
     c. The assumptions used to inform the simulations (e.g., minimum blood-feeding rate of mosquitoes on 	control test animals, number of pests per animal) for each section. Specifically, please discuss any information that can be used to update or clarify these assumptions, especially where doing so would increase power with a smaller sample size (i.e., using fewer animals). Where possible, indicate which assumptions can be changed for each pest species or type of test animal and provide value estimates. i. Fleas (section (j));
     ii. Ticks (section (k)); iii. Mosquitoes and biting flies (section (l))

 3:45 PM				BREAK

 4:00 PM	Charge Question #10- General Methods
     Please provide comments on the overall clarity, accuracy, and completeness of the draft pet product guidelines. Please provide any additional comments that highlight areas of the draft guidelines that may need to be clarified and note any critical topics that are missing. Please include references to published literature that could help improve the completeness and clarity of the draft guidelines.

4:30 PM 	Charge Question #11- Fleas (Section (j))
     The proposed studies currently are not blinded but untreated controls are used.
     a. Should the study be blinded and/or utilize an inert control (i.e., formulation minus active ingredient)?
     b. Why or why not?

5:00 PM	Recap  -  Robert Chapin Ph.D., Chair of the FIFRA SAP

5:15 PM	Recess  -  Sue Shallal, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official

                        THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2019

 Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of agenda).

             9:00 AM	Meeting Opening and Administrative Procedures  -  Sue Shallal, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:10 AM	Agenda Review  -  Robert Chapin Ph.D., Chair of the FIFRA SAP

9:15 AM	Charge Question #12- Fleas (Section (j))
     Repellency is typically determined by whether or not an insect takes a blood meal. Based on flea feeding behavior, repellency is not considered relevant for flea control and therefore is not included in the guideline.
     a. Please discuss whether repelling fleas is a viable endpoint. Why or why not?
     b. If repellency can be considered a viable endpoint, please provide detailed methods to test for repellency against fleas.
     c. Can repellency be determined by assessing the number of live fleas on treated vs. untreated animals? If so, can repellency based on counts of 	live fleas on treated vs. untreated animals be differentiated from mortality, which is also currently measured by counts of live fleas on treated vs. untreated animals? If the two endpoints can be differentiated please describe the methods, including specifically how and why the 	counts of live fleas on treated vs untreated animals differ for repellency and mortality, and provide literature references.

10:00 AM	Charge Question #13- Ticks (Section (k))
     The guideline states that tick infestations should consist of a 50:50 ratio of male to female ticks for all species. The European guideline contains a clause that for Ixodes spp. infestations the sex ratio should consist of approximately 10% males: 90% females since males do not readily attach (Marchiondo et al. 2013). However, the scientific literature for Ixodes spp. appears to be split between using a 50:50 ratio or a 90:10 ratio. Please discuss the merits of each ratio:
     a. Is one of the ratios better for testing Ixodes spp., or are they both 	appropriate? If one ratio is better than the other, please explain why.
     b. Is one of the ratios better for testing Rhipicephalus spp., or are they both appropriate? If one ratio is better than the other, please explain why.
     c. Is one of the ratios better for testing Amblyomma spp., or are they both appropriate? If one ratio is better than the other, please explain why.

 10:45 AM				BREAK

             11:00 AM	Charge Question #14- Ticks (Section (k))
     The guideline states that ticks that feed to engorgement can transmit pathogens that may cause disease; therefore, mortality after blood-feeding to the point of engorgement should not be considered a viable endpoint.
     a. Is the determination of engorgement a feasible data collection point? Why or why not?
     b. If so, please provide detailed methods with references for determining engorgement.
     c. Can blood feeding be determined prior to engorgement and would this be a viable endpoint? If so, please describe methods for determining blood feeding prior to engorgement and provide any relevant references.

 11:45 AM	Charge Question #15- Ticks (Section (k))
     The endpoints for repellency and mortality contain numerous different categories which define how ticks should be recorded for each endpoint (e.g., repellency).
     a. Are there any additional categories which might be needed for the different endpoints (e.g., repellency)? Is the separate presentation of the endpoints clear?
     b. Can both repellency and mortality be assessed in a single 	study, or does each endpoint need to be assessed separately? Please explain.

 12:30 PM				LUNCH

 1:45 PM	Charge Question #16- Mosquitoes/Flies (Section (l))
     Comment on the adequacy of outcrossing lab-reared colonies of mosquitoes every 3 years.
     a. Is three years an adequate timeframe to retain genetic diversity in lab-reared populations? Why or why not?
     b. If not, how often should lab-populations be outcrossed with wild-type mosquitoes? Please provide references if relevant.

2:15 PM	Charge Question #17- Mosquitoes/Flies (Section (l))
     In the interest of reducing vertebrate animal testing, we propose simultaneous testing of up to three mosquito species on a single vertebrate animal.
     a. Is simultaneous testing of three mosquito species feasible? Why or why not?
     b. If simultaneous testing of three mosquito species on a single vertebrate animal is feasible, then please comment if the proposed methods are adequate, and if there are alternative methods please 	provide detailed methods and references.
     c. If testing three species at once is not feasible, provide additional detailed methods and associated references to limit the number of vertebrate test animals necessary to complete efficacy testing 	against the three required mosquito species and maintain adequate statistical power.

3:15 PM				BREAK

3:30 PM	Charge Question #18- Mosquitoes/Flies (Section (l))
     The proposed methods to test mosquitoes and biting flies indicate vertebrate test animals should be sedated prior to exposure to invertebrate pests.
     a. In the interest of minimizing stress of sedation on vertebrate test animals please discuss whether sedation is necessary. If sedation is not necessary, please provide detailed methods and references and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the methods for conducting efficacy testing.
     b. If sedation is necessary, please provide methods to minimize the number of times vertebrate animals should be sedated.

4:00 PM 	Charge Question #19- Mosquitoes/Flies (Section (l))
     Comment on the timing of exposing vertebrate test animals to mosquitoes and biting flies.
     a. Are the number of exposures for products with different durations of efficacy adequate for determining efficacy? Why or why not?
     b. If the number of exposures to pests can be decreased, please indicate specifically which exposures can be skipped. If efficacy should be evaluated at more timepoints, indicate when exposures should occur and for what product types (e.g., spot-ons, collars, and residual shampoos), and discuss the value provided by the additional time points in relation to the 	additional stress on test animals from additional sedations.

 4:45 PM	Recap  -  Robert Chapin Ph.D., Chair of the FIFRA SAP

 5:00 PM	Recess  -  Sue Shallal, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official

                          FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 2019

 Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of agenda).

             9:00 AM	Meeting Opening - Meeting Opening and Administrative Procedures  -
             	Sue Shallal, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

 9:10 AM	Agenda Review  -  Robert Chapin Ph.D., Chair of the FIFRA SAP

 9:15 AM	Charge Question #20- Mosquitoes/Flies (Section (l))
     Comment on the methods for assessing mosquito and biting fly blood-feeding.
     a. Are the proposed methods adequate to determine blood feeding for insects where blood feeding status cannot be visually observed through the abdomen?
     b. Are there other methods for determining if insects blood-feed? If so, please provide additional methods and references.

 10:00 AM	Charge Question #21- Mosquitoes/Flies (Section (l))
     To reduce the amount of vertebrate animal testing, we propose to allow assessment of repellency and mortality within the same study by evaluating half of the insects for repellency before determining mortality.
     a. Discuss the viability of evaluating both endpoints in the same study by using a subset of the total mosquitoes to determine repellency and provide any additional methods that would determine both 	endpoints within the same study.

     b. The proposed endpoints for mortality are secondary to repellency (i.e., for mortality to be assessed repellency should be observed first) because a mosquito or fly that is not repelled may blood-feed and could potentially transmit pathogens that cause disease. Discuss the potential value of assessing mosquito mortality that are not also repelled. Should mortality of mosquitoes that blood-feed be considered a viable endpoint to show efficacy of a repellent-product? Why or why not? If yes, provide specific rationale as to why.

 10:45 AM				BREAK

 11:00 AM	Charge Question #22- Shampoos (Section (m))
     Efficacy testing is based on the specific label claims proposed for product marketing. Common claims are "kills," "repels," and "controls" (i.e., residual efficacy). For most pesticide products (e.g., direct sprays and residual applications), the typical endpoint to support claims of "kills" or "controls" is based on dead arthropods. To evaluate dead arthropods for shampoo products, we propose animals should be shampooed in a tub with a screen over the drain to keep fleas and/or ticks in the tub. This may differentiate the pesticidal effect from the effect of pest removal, which could also occur by using a non-insecticidal shampoo. Discuss the value of using counts of dead arthropods vs. using counts of live arthropods on treated compared to untreated vertebrate animals to determine different endpoints (e.g., kills).
     a. Is assessing live arthropods on treated vs. untreated animals an adequate and practical endpoint for determining mortality? Why or why not?
     b. Are there alternative methods for determining mortality for shampoo products? If so, please provide the methods and supporting references.

12:00 Noon				LUNCH

1:15 PM	Charge Question #23- Shampoos (Section (m))
     Typically, efficacy testing for pet products is conducted with a treated group and an untreated control group. To determine efficacy of shampoo products, the mechanical removal of arthropods during the shampoo process should be considered. Efficacy of a product would therefore be considered in relation to a group treated with non-insecticidal shampoo. In this guideline we propose a non-pesticidal/non-medicated shampoo as the control when testing insecticidal shampoo products.
     a. Please discuss the value of using a non-pesticidal/non-medicated shampoo as the control
      i. Does this provide valuable additional information about efficacy beyond an untreated control?
      ii. If so, please provide an appropriate methodology for the comparison of treatment vs. control groups, including references.
     b. Should an untreated control also be provided for comparison with the non-pesticidal 	shampoo? If so, please describe the most appropriate untreated control (e.g., water only, 	massaging the animal). What is the value of the untreated control and is the informational 	value of an additional treatment group offset by the increased number of vertebrate animals 	used for testing?
     c. If an untreated control group is included, how should efficacy be determined? Which control 	group (the non-insecticidal shampoo control or the untreated control) should be compared with the treated group to determine efficacy?

2:15 PM	Charge Question #24- Env Conditions (Section (n))
     Discuss whether the timing for infesting vertebrate test animals after water exposure are adequate.
     a. Are the number of infestations presented in the guideline adequate to support bathing and water immersion claims?
     b. Discuss appropriate timing of infestations after vertebrate test animals are immersed in water.
     c. Are the methods for determining exposure to sunlight adequate? If not, please provide detailed methods for evaluating the effects of exposure to sunlight along with supporting references.

3:30 PM	Panel Deliberation Summary and Closing Remarks  -  Robert Chapin Ph.D., Chair of the FIFRA SAP

4:00 PM	Adjourn  -  Sue Shallal, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official

 As noted above, please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official for information regarding this meeting, Dr. Sue Shallal, via email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78103-78104]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26816]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0087]
RIN 2127-AK92

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0083]
RIN 2126-AB63

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation;
Speed Limiting Devices

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA and FMCSA have received requests to extend the comment
period for their proposal that would require vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight rating of more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds)
to be equipped with a speed limiting device and that such device be
maintained for the service life of the vehicle. In the proposal, NHTSA
and FMCSA established a deadline for the submission of written comments
of November 7, 2016. The Agencies have also received a letter opposing
any extension of the comment period. To ensure that all interested
parties have a sufficient amount of time to fully develop their
comments, the Agencies are extending the deadline for the submission of
written comments on the proposal, including comments on the Preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
and Draft Environmental Assessment accompanying the proposal, by 30
days.

DATES: Written comments must be received by December 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by one or both of the
docket numbers in the heading of this document, by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the discussion
under the Public Participation heading of the September 7, 2016 notice
of proposed rulemaking (81 FR 61942). Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    NHTSA: For technical issues, you may contact Mr. Wayne McKenzie,
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. David
Jasinski, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Facsimile:
(202) 366-3820. You may send mail to these officials at: The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: NVS-010, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    FMCSA: For technical issues, you may contact Mr. Michael Huntley,
Vehicle and Roadside Operations, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Facsimile:
(202) 366-8842. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Charles Medalen,
Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Facsimile: (202)
366-3602. You may send mail to these officials at: The Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, Attention: MC-PSV, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 7, 2016, NHTSA and FMCSA
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing regulations
that would require vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more
than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds) to be equipped with a speed
limiting device initially set to a speed no greater than a speed to be
specified in a final rule and would require motor carriers operating
such vehicles in interstate commerce to maintain functional speed
limiting devices set to a speed no greater than a speed to be specified
in the final rule for the service life of the vehicle.
    The American Trucking Associations (ATA) (with the support of the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance), the EMA Truck & Engine
Manufacturers Association (EMA) and the Owner Operator Independent
Drivers Association (OOIDA) have requested that NHTSA and FMCSA extend
the public comment period beyond the November 7, 2016 date specified in
the NPRM. The ATA and EMA requested a 30-day extension. In support of
its request, ATA states that the proposal differs significantly from
its initial petition for rulemaking in a number of areas, and
additional time is needed to confer with its membership on these
issues. EMA states that at least 30 additional days is needed to more
thoroughly analyze the issues in order to develop detailed and complete
comments.
    The OOIDA requested a 60-day extension of the comment period. In
support of its request, OOIDA states that it will take a considerable
amount of time and resources to develop meaningful comments from its
members, many of which are on the road and away from home upwards of
250 days a year.
    NHTSA and FMCSA have also received a letter signed by a number of
safety advocacy groups and individuals opposing any extension of the
comment period. The letter states that in the 10 years since the
petitions for rulemaking were initially filed, truck crashes and
fatalities have increased at rates faster than overall crashes and
fatalities, and that additional time for comment is not

necessary and would further delay issuance of a final rule implementing
the proposal.
    In considering the requests to extend the public comment period and
the letter opposing any extension, NHTSA and FMCSA weighed the
complexity and importance of this rulemaking and the rationale provided
in support of each position. We have determined that there is good
cause to grant the requests to extend the comment period, and have
decided to extend the comment period for an additional 30 days. The
extension is in the public interest since it will provide the public
additional time to prepare and submit useful technical information and
comments that should benefit Agency decision-making in this rulemaking
action. Accordingly, NHTSA and FMCSA will extend the period for the
submission of written comments in this proceeding to December 7, 2016.
In addition, NHTSA and FMCSA are extending the comment period for the
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis and the Draft Environmental Assessment, which have
been placed in the rulemaking docket, until December 7, 2016 as
well.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A notice of availability of the Draft Environmental
Assessment specifically seeking comment on the Draft Environmental
Assessment was published in the Federal Register on September 29,
2016. See 81 FR 67056.

    Issued pursuant to authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.95
on: November 2, 2016.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
    Issued pursuant to authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.87.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-26816 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P