UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 								PC Code 	109701

								DP Barcode	D333756

MEMORANDUM

DATE:	November 30, 2006

SUBJECT:	Response to Permethrin RED Public Comments, EFED Ecological
Risk Assessment and Mitigation

TO:		Jacqueline Guerry, Chemical Review Manager

		Michael Goodis, Branch Chief

		Reregistration Branch

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

FROM:	José Luis Meléndez, Chemist

		Michael Hoffmann, Biologist

		Faruque Khan, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist

		Environmental Risk Branch V

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division

THROUGH:	Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

The registrants of permethrin, and several interested parties, provided
comments on the Draft of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision
document (RED) for the chemical.  The purpose of this memorandum is to
address those comments related to environmental fate and effects, as
they relate to the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED).

EFED used an outline format, with the comments generally summarized by
topic, and followed by the EFED’s response in bolded letters.  The
comments were sometimes written verbatim, and other times they were
summarized, as needed.

The RED fails to consider the synergistic effects of permethrin used in
conjunction with other chemicals (e.g., DEET) or formulated with PBO.

It is the Agency’s approach to perform risk assessments on a
case-by-case basis for individual active ingredients. However, EFED is
aware of the potential for increased toxicity of permethrin when
formulated with synergists such as PBO.  When substantive data on
formulated products containing synergists were available for pyrethrins
and resmethrin, the potential for synergistic effects was evaluated and
often showed increased toxicity; however, this issue could not be
addressed in the permethrin RED due to the limited toxicity data
available for the formulated products containing PBO.  Therefore,
toxicity data for formulated products will now be requested as a RED
follow up, and will be evaluated and incorporated in the Registration
Review process for permethrin.

Public health-

AMCA recommends a standard of Dv0.5 =60 microns and Dv0.9=100 microns
for aerial applications made at less than 200’ above ground elevation.
 Several of the new efficient spray systems placed in use to
specifically eliminate the production of large drops produce a Dv0.9
greater than 80 microns and as high as 95 microns.  The environmental
risk assessment does not provide any justification for the extremely low
Dv0.9 that is proposed.  The EFED final Risk Assessment used a Dv0.5 ~
50 microns and Dv0.9 ~ 115 microns; and supplemental runs with Dv0.5 ~
60 microns and Dv0.9 ~ 95 microns

≤60 microns and Dv0.9≤100 microns).  The percentage drift
corresponding to this case was 7.1%.  PRZM/EXAMS runs were performed and
the RQs were calculated in the risk assessment for this case.  The EFED
believes that the AMCA’s suggested droplet will be similar to the
droplets modeled in the risk assessment.

An alternative droplet size should be made for higher elevations.
Dv0.5=70 microns and Dv0.9=145 microns.  In AMCA’s survey, 17% of
applicators cannot meet the 100 micron Dv0.9 standard.

The EFED conducted modeling of the above mentioned conditions (droplet
size of Dv0.5=70.89 microns and Dv0.9=145.96 microns, and a relative
span of 1.73), and found that the exposure (the value of spray drift
towards the standard pond), for a droplet size of Dv0.5~70 microns and
Dv0.9~145 microns and a boom height of 200 ft, is smaller than the
exposure obtained in the EFED risk assessment for mosquito adulticide,
with Dv0.5~60 microns, Dv0.9~95 microns and a boom height of 100 ft
(7.1% vs. 2.9%).  Based on the results of these models, the EFED
believes that qualitatively, despite the fact that EECs and RQs were not
calculated, they would be smaller for the larger droplets at the higher
altitudes or compared to those modeled in the environmental risk
assessment.

The commentator recommends 50 ground based applications (Florida only)
at a maximum application rate of 0.007 lb a.i./day (or 0.35 lb
a.i./year).

This comment is related to label changes.  It is deferred to SRRD.  For
information only, for SRRD, to allow 50 applications per year at up to
0.007 lb a.i./A means to increase the proposed application rate of 0.18
lb a.i./A/year to 0.35 lb a.i./A/year.  Such high yearly rates would be
needed in emergency situations, and the Agency provides for such
situations, with Special Section 18 Emergency Exemptions.

Remove the 300 ft maximum boom height requirement.  Currently
applications are also made at night, and the safety becomes an issue
with antennas, canopy, buildings, etc.

This comment is related to label changes.  It is deferred to SRRD.  For
information only, for SRRD, modeling shows that, using droplets with
Dv0.5~70 microns, and Dv0.9~145 microns, at 300 ft boom height, the
airborne drift could reach levels near 95%.  The American Mosquito
Control Association indicated in its comments, that a recent survey of
40 mosquito control public agencies across the country, support the boom
height (maximum and minimum) used in the risk assessment.  Furthermore,
this is a voluntary maximum height put in place by the registrants.  A
wide range of up to 300 ft appears to be appropriate.

Recent survey of mosquito control districts supports the boom height
(maximum and minimum) and the application rates used in the risk
assessment.

The EFED risk assessment was performed taking into consideration
comments from the American Mosquito Control Association.  The assessment
included low end boom heights recommended for helicopter and for
aircraft, that is, the most conservative practical boom heights.

EFEDs AGDISP model does not consider various canopy parameters, and
therefore, over estimates the deposition both within and downwind of the
spray area.  Emphasis should be given to situations where the spray zone
and/or the downwind area consist largely or exclusively of vegetated
wetlands, where pesticide deposition would be significantly mitigated by
foliar interception.

EFED considered the most conservative scenario in this screening level
risk assessment.  However, preliminary runs performed by the EFED with
various canopy heights “for information only,” show that for small
canopies, the level of drift decreases somewhat, while with higher
canopies, the levels of drift towards an adjacent pond, increases.
These results suggest that foliar interception by high canopy did not
reflect lower pesticide deposition as the AMCA suggests.  While it is
true that in swamps and marshes, the (emergent) vegetation is typically
short, this chemical is also applied on moderately to highly vegetated
areas.  In future assessments, the EFED may take this parameter into
consideration too.

Down-the-Drain Assessment-

The model relied on multiple assumptions and input parameters.  More
information is needed regarding assumptions, input parameters, and
validation of this model.

The only input parameters in the “down-the-drain” module of E-FAST
are two: (a)ProdVol = Production Volume of the chemical (permethrin) in
Kg/year, and (b)WWT = fraction of the chemical removed during wastewater
treatment.  For both input parameters, real data was used (as opposed to
modeling or estimations); that is, real production volume data and three
levels of removal from real treatment plants were used.  Plain
assumptions and limitations were described in the EFED risk assessment
for this screening model; however, for additional information on the
model, it has a manual [“Exposure and Fate Assessment Screening Tool
(E-FAST) Beta Version Documentation Manual,” Prepared for the USEPA,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Exposure Assessment Branch;
Prepared by Versar Inc., Springfield, VA; 12/31/1999]

Improve methodology to recognize that many sewage treatment plants are
not afforded significant dilution credit for their discharges.  OW can
assist OPP with development of an improved wastewater discharge modeling
methodology.  OW can also provide OPP information on how sewage sludge
are managed to be included in the assessment for potential hazard from
sewage discharge of pesticides.

The “down-the-drain” model was developed and maintained by the
OPPTS, the EFED will forward this comment to them for their
consideration, for further research, and future development of the
model.

The down-the-drain assessment did not consider high-end mass discharge
rate, such as a concentrated discharge of permethrin into sewer water
after the outbreak of head lice in school.

The “down-the-drain” model was developed and maintained by the
OPPTS, the EFED will forward this comment to them for their
consideration, for further research, and future development of the
model.

The total production number of permethrin used on products in the
down-the-drain assessment was drastically reduced from the prelimary
risk assessment and the final risk assessment.

Why did the number decrease?

The Agency received updated information on the kilograms of active
ingredient used over the counter, and as prescription drugs, from the
FDA on 02/22/06, which was incorporated in the revised risk assessment.

Request to share the CBI product information with POTWs and state
environmental agencies, which by law, are CBI and unpublished marketing
data confidential.

FIFRA CBI data (or FIFRA Confidential Business Information) cannot be
shared with POTWs and state environmental agencies. State, county and
local governments are not authorized access to FIFRA CBI.  The EPA
Administrator may release certain FIFRA CBI if it is determined that
disclosure is needed to prevent injury or “imminent harm” to the
public or the environment.  The Agency cannot disclose detailed
information, other than what was provided in the review; however, the
EFED utilized all sources of permethrin of which information was
available.

There is concern because, according to the assessment, “aquatic
organisms appear to be at acute risk from exposure in surface waters
containing permethrin from wastewaters” (citation from the EFED RED
Chapter).  Why did the Agency propose to reregister indoor uses without
mitigation action?

The EFED defers the response to this comment to the SRRD.

Endangered species and other concerns-

Permethrin is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms,
including endangered species. In late June, an estimated 100,000 to
300,000 black crappie fish dies in Clear lake in Waseca County,
Minnesota and water samples showed the presence of permethrin. A very
recent study of pesticides in bodies of water in agriculture-dominated
Central Valley in California found high levels of synthetic pyrethroids
in stream sediments-levels high enough that they were toxic to
freshwater bottom dwellers in almost 50% of the sampled locations.  In
addition, permethrin is likely to adhere to the walls of test vials, and
EPA should consider the effects this will have on the perceived
toxicity.

The EFED recognizes and has acknowledged in the RED that permethrin is
highly toxic to fish and aquatic organisms, including endangered
species.  Although there was an initial screening in the RED of the
potential effects and risk to endangered species and groundwork was
laid, a more comprehensive assessment for endangered species will be
performed in Registration Review as additional data become available and
technical approaches are developed.

The Agency is also aware of the mentioned incident in Minnesota, the
study in Central Valley, and the hydrophobic nature of permethrin and
other pyrethroids.  However, at the time the RED was written, the case
was not closed on the fish kill incident and the Central Valley Study
was not available to EFED; therefore, neither could be discussed
thoroughly in the assessment. In addition, since the RED was written,
the fish kill incident case has been resolved and the active ingredient
involved was pyrethrins, not permethrin.  Regarding the hydrophobic
nature of permethrin and other pyrethroids, it should be noted that the
Agency typically relies on toxicity endpoints that are based on
time-weighted averages of measured test concentrations when available
due to the compounds’ affinity for binding to organic matter.

EPA failed to fully consider the impacts on agriculture because
permethrin is highly toxic to bees and other beneficial insects.

See Response to General Comment 1a.

General Comments:

Mosquito adulticides:

Being sprayed on crops, it is impacted because it kills pollinators,
without them, crops would not produce harvests and wild plant
communities would decline.

The EPA recognizes and has acknowledged in the RED that permethrin is
highly toxic to bees and beneficial insects.  Although currently the
Agency does not assess quantitative risk to non-target beneficial
insects, the EPA has qualitatively identified in its assessment the
potential for risk to bees and beneficial insects if exposure to
permethrin occurs (please refer to the Risk Characterization Section of
the Environmental Fate and Effects Division’s (EFED) Screening-level
Environmental Risk Assessment for Permethrin).  EFED also concurs that
if pollinators of crops and wild plants are exposed to permethrin, there
is the potential for indirect effects to the populations/communities of
plants dependent upon these organisms.  However, the Agency does not
currently have an established approach for quantitatively evaluating the
potential impacts of decreased pollinators on agriculture, and the risk
conclusions of the RED remain unchanged.

Impacts mosquitoes natural predators such as Dragonflies

EFED acknowledges that there is the potential for direct negative
effects to beneficial non-target organisms that feed on mosquitoes
resulting from permethrin use. Although, the risk of direct effects to
various taxonomic groups that may feed on mosquitoes was assessed (e.g.,
birds, fish, aquatic invertebrates), the Agency does not currently have
any established approach for quantitatively evaluating the indirect
effects to mosquito populations and the overall risk conclusions remain
unchanged.

Increased risk of West Nile Encephalitis from sprays due to immune
systems suppression: According to the commentator “Adulticide
chemicals may be putting mosquitoes that are sprayed, but not killed,
into an immuno-compromised state, thereby allowing them to accumulate
and spread more West Nile virus than healthy mosquitoes.  Pesticide
researcher Richard Pressinger has theorized that the chemicals cause
subtle genetic damage in the mosquito population, increasing the number
of mosquitoes with genetic flaws which could, in theory, allow the
encephalitis virus to take hold and grow more rapidly.”

The EFED defers the response to this comment to the SRRD/CDC.

Spraying is ineffective:  The commentator indicates that “The U.S.
Center for Disease Control and other experts say that spraying or
fogging is the least-effective means for slowing the spread of
WNV-carrying mosquitoes.”  They also indicated that mosquitocides are
only 10% effective, and that the mosquito lifecycle is two weeks, with
the need of constant applications.

The EFED defers the response to this comment to the SRRD.  The efficacy
of a product is a matter dealt by the SRRD.

Aerial spray contributes to the development of “super mosquitoes”
resistant to pesticides and other alternatives.  According to the
commentator, mosquitoes that survive an application are likely to
develop resistance to it; later on, higher amounts of insecticides are
required.  Furthermore, over several years of applications, now
mosquitoes have a larger capacity to transmit the West Nile Virus (WNV).

The EFED defers the response to this comment to the SRRD/CDC.

Health effects to vulnerable groups in the population (children,
pregnant women, elderly, chemical sensitive and inmuno-suppressed
individuals, and people suffering from asthma.)

The EFED defers the response to this comment to the HED.

h2

@

3

Q

{

|

¡

½

2

3

|

„

…

š

ì

í

ð

ñ

H

U

Î

Ð

Ñ

â

ô

ü

"½

ï

ð

ñ

I

J

hŸJ

hŸJ

hÐ

hñ

 Since some species of fish feed on mosquito larvae, this is doubly
counterproductive.”

The EFED has acknowledged in its risk assessment that the use of
permethrin poses potential direct and indirect risks to fish and
non-target insects.

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76953-76955]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26473]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0712; Product Identifier 2019-CE-013-AD; Amendment
39-21339; AD 2020-24-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Piper Aircraft, Inc., Model PA-34-220T airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report of damage to the rudder flight control cables and
the emergency power supply (EPS) system wiring due to inadequate
clearance from the EPS wiring harness. This AD requires inspecting the
rudder flight control cables and the EPS wiring for damage, replacing
damaged cables and wires if necessary, and re-routing the EPS wiring
harness to ensure proper clearance between the EPS and the rudder
flight control cables. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 5, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 5,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2916 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida
32960; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet: https://www.piper.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0712; 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: Bryan Long, Aerospace Engineer,
Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered
Piper Aircraft, Inc., Model PA-34-220T airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on July 28, 2020 (85 FR 45353). The NPRM was
prompted by a report of damage to the rudder flight control cables and
the EPS system wiring due to inadequate clearance from the EPS wiring
harness. Use of the rudder flight control cable and the motion of the
cable rubbing against the EPS wiring can wear through the rudder flight
control cable insulation and cause an electrical path to ground. The
flow of the electrical current can burn (arc) through the rudder flight
control cable strands, eventually severing the rudder flight control
cable. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the rudder
flight control cables and the EPS wiring for damage, replacing damaged
cables and wires if necessary, and re-routing the EPS wiring harness to
ensure proper clearance between the EPS and the rudder flight control
cables.
    This condition, if not addressed, could result in electrical arcing
between the EPS and the rudder flight control cables with consequent
failure of the rudder flight control system. This failure could cause
loss of yaw control and lead to loss of control of the airplane during
an engine out condition/operation. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc., Service Bulletin No. 1337,
dated February 15, 2019. The service bulletin contains procedures for
inspecting the rudder flight control cables and the EPS wiring for
damage, replacing damaged cables and wires, and re-routing the EPS
wiring harness to the opposite side of the EPS bracket to improve
clearance from the rudder flight control cable. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 25 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect the rudder flight control  1 work-hour x $85     Not applicable.........             $85          $2,125
 cables and the EPS wiring.         per hour = $85.
Re-routing the EPS wiring harness  2 work-hours x $85    $100...................             270           6,750
                                    per hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of airplanes
that might need actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace damaged rudder flight control cable...  8 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $157            $837
                                                 $680.
Replace damaged EPS wiring....................  10 work-hours x $85 per hour =             2,770           3,620
                                                 $850.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2020-24-09 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-21339; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0712; Product Identifier 2019-CE-013-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 5, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc., Model PA-34-220T
airplanes, serial numbers 3449459 and 3449467 through 3449508,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 27. Flight Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of damage to the rudder flight
control cables and the emergency power supply (EPS) system wiring
due to inadequate clearance from the EPS wiring harness. The FAA is
issuing this AD to detect, correct, and prevent damaged rudder
flight control cables and EPS system wiring. The unsafe condition,
if not addressed, could result in electrical arcing between the EPS
and the rudder flight control cables with consequent failure of the
rudder flight control system. This failure could cause loss of yaw
control and lead to loss of control of the airplane during an engine
out condition/operation.

(f) Compliance

    Unless already done, comply with this AD within 50 hours time-
in-service after the effective date of this AD or within 6 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(g) Inspect, Replace, and Relocate

    (1) Inspect the rudder flight control cables and the EPS wiring
for chafing and damage by following step 3 of the Instructions in
Piper Service Bulletin No. 1337, dated February 15, 2019 (Piper SB
No. 1337). If there is any chafing or damage, before further flight,
replace the rudder flight control cable and EPS wiring.
    (2) Relocate the EPS wiring harness by following steps 4 through
12 of the Instructions in Piper SB No. 1337.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO 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 local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the following provisions apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Bryan Long,
Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Piper Service Bulletin No. 1337, dated February 15, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For the service information identified in this AD, contact
Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2916 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet: https://www.piper.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 17, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-26473 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35380-35383]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15102]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-1024; FRL-9320-4]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a draft revision to the Indiana
State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) to EPA on December 3, 2010, for
parallel processing. The proposed SIP revision modifies Indiana's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to establish
appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new stationary
sources and modification projects become subject to Indiana's PSD
permitting requirements for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. EPA
is proposing approval of Indiana's December 3, 2010, SIP revision
because the Agency has made the preliminary determination that this SIP
revision is in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA
regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-1024, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-1024. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Sam Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam Portanova, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Indiana's Submittal for Parallel Processing
III. What is the background for this proposed action?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Indiana's proposed SIP revision?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Indiana's Submittal for Parallel Processing

    On December 3, 2010, IDEM submitted a draft SIP revision request to
EPA to establish appropriate emission thresholds for determining which
new or modified stationary sources become subject to Indiana's PSD
permitting requirements for GHG emissions. Final approval of this SIP
revision request will be consistent with the provisions of EPA's
Tailoring Rule,\1\ which established appropriate GHG emission
thresholds for determining the applicability of PSD requirements to
GHG-emitting sources, ensuring that smaller GHG sources emitting less
than these thresholds are not subject to permitting requirements.
Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve this
revision into the Indiana SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because this draft SIP revision is not yet state-effective, Indiana
requested that EPA ``parallel process'' the SIP revision. Under this
procedure, the EPA Regional Office works closely with the state while
developing new or revised regulations. Generally, the state submits a
copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before
concluding its rulemaking process. EPA reviews this proposed state
action and prepares a proposed rulemaking action. EPA publishes this
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and solicits public comment
in approximately the same timeframe during which the state finalizes
its rulemaking process.
    After Indiana submits the formal state-effective SIP revision
request, EPA will prepare a final rulemaking action for the SIP
revision. If changes are made to the SIP revision after EPA's proposed
rulemaking, such changes must be acknowledged in EPA's final rulemaking
action. If the changes are significant, then EPA may be obliged to
repropose the action.

III. What is the background for this proposed action?

    This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG-related actions
that provide the background for this proposed action. More detailed
discussion of the background is found in the preambles for those
actions. In particular, the background is contained in what we call the
GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,\2\ and in the preambles to the actions it
cites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (December
30, 2010).

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

A. GHG-Related Actions

    EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the
regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part distinct from one
another, establish the overall framework for this proposed action on
the Indiana SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly
called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or Contribute
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action,\3\ the ``Johnson
Memo Reconsideration,'' \4\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,'' \5\ and
the ``Tailoring Rule.'' Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA,
these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such
regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs
emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the
applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis.
EPA took this last action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more
specifically, established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for
determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
    \4\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
    \5\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PSD is implemented through the SIP system, and so in December 2010,
EPA promulgated several rules to implement the new GHG PSD SIP program.
Recognizing that some states had approved SIP PSD programs that did not
apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP call and, for some of these states,
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).\6\ Recognizing that other states
had approved SIP PSD programs that do apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so
for sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) of
GHG, and that do not limit PSD applicability to GHGs to the higher
thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA issued the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing
Rule. Under that rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the affected SIPs
to the extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting sources below the
Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA based its action primarily on the
``error correction'' provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Specifically, by notice dated December 13, 2010, EPA
finalized a ``SIP Call'' that would require those states with SIPs
that have approved PSD programs but do not authorize PSD permitting
for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. ``Action
To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,'' 75 FR
77698 (Dec. 13, 2010). EPA has begun making findings of failure to
submit that would apply in any state unable to submit the required
SIP revision by its deadline, and finalizing FIPs for such states.
See, e.g., ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State
Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,'' 75 FR
81874 (December 29, 2010); ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue
Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,''
75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010). Because Indiana's SIP already
authorizes Indiana to regulate GHGs once GHGs become subject to PSD
requirements on January 2, 2011, Indiana is not subject to the
proposed SIP Call or FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Indiana's Actions

    On July 23, 2010, Indiana provided a letter to EPA, in accordance
with a request to all states from EPA in the Tailoring Rule, with
confirmation that the state has the authority to regulate GHGs in its
PSD program. The letter also confirmed that current Indiana rules
require regulating GHGs at the existing 100/250 tpy threshold, rather
than at the higher thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. See the docket
for this proposed rulemaking for a copy of Indiana's letter.
    In the SIP Narrowing Rule, published on December 30, 2010, EPA
withdrew its approval of Indiana's SIP, among other SIPs, to the extent
that SIP applies PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions from
sources emitting at levels below those set in the Tailoring Rule.\7\ As
a result, Indiana's current approved SIP provides the state with
authority to regulate GHGs, but only at and above the Tailoring Rule
thresholds; and Federally requires new and modified sources to receive
a PSD permit based on GHG emissions only if they emit at or above the
Tailoring Rule thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (December
30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indiana is currently in the process of amending its state
regulations to also incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds, and has
submitted its draft regulations to EPA for parallel processing. Indiana
is seeking to revise its SIP to incorporate expected state regulatory
changes adopted at the local level into the Federally-approved SIP.
Doing so will clarify the applicable thresholds in the Indiana SIP.
    The basis for this SIP revision is that limiting PSD applicability
to GHG sources to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule is
consistent with the SIP provisions that provide required assurances of
adequate resources, and thereby addresses the flaw in the SIP that led
to the SIP Narrowing Rule. Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)
includes as a requirement for SIP approval that states provide
``necessary assurances that the State * * * will have adequate
personnel [and] funding * * * to carry out such [SIP].'' In the
Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher thresholds for PSD applicability
to GHG-emitting sources on grounds that the states generally did not
have adequate resources to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the
Tailoring Rule thresholds,\8\ and no state, including Indiana, asserted
that it did have adequate resources to do so.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31,517/1.
    \9\ SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82,540/2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA found that the affected states,
including Indiana, had a flaw in their SIPs at the time they submitted
their PSD programs, which was that the applicability of the PSD
programs was potentially broader than the resources available to them
under their SIP.\10\ Accordingly, for each affected state, including
Indiana, EPA concluded that EPA's action in approving the SIP was in
error, under CAA section 110(k)(6), and EPA rescinded its approval to
the extent the PSD program applies to GHG-emitting sources below the
Tailoring Rule thresholds.\11\ EPA recommended that states adopt a SIP
revision to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds, thereby (i)
assuring that under state law, only sources at or above the Tailoring
Rule thresholds would be subject to PSD; and (ii) avoiding confusion
under the Federally-approved SIP by clarifying that the SIP applies to
only sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 82,542/3.
    \11\ Id. at 82,544/1.
    \12\ Id. at 82,540/2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Indiana's proposed SIP revision?

    The regulatory revisions that IDEM submitted for parallel
processing on December 3, 2010, establish thresholds for determining
which stationary sources and modifications become subject to permitting
requirements for GHG emissions under Indiana's PSD program.
Specifically, the submittal includes changes to Indiana's PSD

regulations at 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 2-2-1 and 326 IAC
2-2-4.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Attachment A to the December 3, 2010, submittal includes
revisions to 326 IAC 2-7 to add GHG provisions to Indiana's Title V
regulations. However, these regulations are not part of the SIP and
IDEM has not included 326 IAC 2-7 in the December 3, 2010, request
for SIP approval. IDEM intends to make a separate submittal
requesting approval of the 326 IAC 2-7 regulatory revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indiana is currently a SIP-approved state for the PSD program, and
has incorporated EPA's 2002 NSR reform revisions (67 FR 80186) for PSD
into its SIP (72 FR 33395). In a letter provided to EPA on July 23,
2010, Indiana notified EPA of its interpretation that the state
currently has the authority to regulate GHGs under its 326 IAC 2-2 PSD
regulations. The current Indiana program (adopted prior to the
promulgation of EPA's Tailoring Rule) applies to major stationary
sources (having the potential to emit at least 100 tpy or 250 tpy or
more of a regulated NSR pollutant, depending on the type of source) or
modifications undertaken in areas designated attainment or
unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS.
    Indiana has revised 326 IAC 2-2-1 to add GHG-related language to
the definitions of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' and ``significant'' and
to add a new definition for ``subject to regulation.'' We find these
revisions to be consistent with the Tailoring Rule.
    In 326 IAC 2-2-4, Indiana has added language that says the air
quality analysis requirements of this section shall not apply with
respect to GHGs. This does not affect the air quality-related
requirements elsewhere in the PSD rule, including requirements for
source information (326 IAC 2-2-10), additional impact analysis (326
IAC 2-2-7), or additional requirements for sources impacting Federal
Class I areas (326 IAC 2-2-14). We find this revision to be approvable.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's December 3, 2010, SIP
submittal, relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources in 326
IAC 2-2-1 and 326 IAC 2-2-4. Specifically, Indiana's December 3, 2010,
proposed SIP revision establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for
determining PSD applicability to new and modified GHG-emitting sources
in accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this SIP submittal is approvable because it is in
accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting
for GHGs.
    If EPA does approve Indiana's changes to its air quality
regulations to incorporate the appropriate thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability into Indiana's SIP, then 40 CFR 52.773(k), as
included in EPA's SIP Narrowing Rule, which codifies EPA's limiting its
approval of Indiana's PSD SIP to not cover the applicability of PSD to
GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds, is no longer
necessary. In this proposed action, EPA is also proposing to amend 40
CFR 52.773 to remove this unnecessary regulatory language.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: June 9, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011-15102 Filed 6-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 10378]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4297-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Georgia; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4297-DR), dated January 26, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 3, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of January 26, 2017.

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

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-02819 Filed 2-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: July 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 43610]
[DOCID:fr26jy10-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

 Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and
49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), seeking approval for the discontinuance
or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of
49 CFR Part 236, as detailed below.

Docket Number FRA-2010-0119

    Applicant: CSX Transportation, Inc., Mr. Joseph S. Ivanyo, Chief
Engineer, Communications and Signals, 500 Water Street, SC J-350,
Jacksonville, Florida 32202.
    CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) seeks approval of the proposed
modification of the traffic control system at Mileposts OWA 63.8 and
OWA 63.0 on the W&A Subdivision, Atlanta Division, at Adairsville,
Georgia. The modification consists of the removal of Control Points
North Halls and South Halls, including the removal of the power-
operated switch, switch frog, and turnout, and signals 26LA, 26LC, and
26R, at South Halls (Milepost OWA 63.0); and the conversion of the
power-operated switch to a hand-throw switch, and removal of signals
28LA, 28RA, and 28RC, at North Halls (Milepost OWA 63.8). Intermediate
Signals 631 and 630 will be installed at Milepost 63.0.
    The reason given for the proposed change is that the existing
siding is no longer needed for current operations.
    Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an
application shall set forth, specifically, the grounds upon which the
protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the
party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be
furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
    FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral
hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is
accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present
his or her position by written statements, an application may be set
for public hearing.
    All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified
by Docket Number FRA-2010-0119, and may be submitted by one of the
following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic site;
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; or
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
     Communications received within 45 days of the date of this
notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that 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 (65 FR
19477) or at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, 2010.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-18237 Filed 7-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47504-47505]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19474]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[P-14430-007]

Apple, Inc. ; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Non-capacity amendment of license.
    b. Project No.: P-14430-007.
    c. Date Filed: August 28 & 29, 2019, supplemented on September 3,
2019.
    d. Applicant: Apple, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Monroe Drop Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located at the Monroe Drop on the North
Unit Irrigation District Main Canal in Jefferson County, Oregon.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Jessica Penrod, 2401 Monarch St., Alameda, CA
95401,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 15 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-14430-007.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to replace the
project's SLH100 turbine with a new Restoration Hydro Turbine and
replacing the upper section of the rectangular draft tube with a
cylindrical section. To accommodate the new draft tube section, the
applicant will have to enlarge the current notch in the canal wall. The
proposed action would not change the authorized installed capacity or
the hydraulic capacity. The applicant does not propose any changes to
operations or other aspects of the project.
    l. Locations of the Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. The filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit
comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to
intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, MOTION TO INTERVENE, or
PROTEST as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions
to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project
works which are the subject of the temporary variance request. Agencies
may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A
copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each
representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: September 4, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19474 Filed 9-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 245 (Thursday, December 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75464-75466]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30646]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68439; File No. TP 11-10]

Order Granting Limited Exemptions From Exchange Act Rules 101 and
102 of Regulation M to Shares of JPM XF Physical Copper Trust Pursuant
to Exchange Act Rules 101(d) and 102(e)

December 14, 2012.
    By letter dated December 14, 2012 (the ``Letter''),\1\ as
supplemented by conversations with the staff of the Division of Trading
and Markets, counsel for J.P. Morgan Commodity ETF Services LLC
(``Sponsor'') on behalf of the Sponsor, JPM XF Physical Copper Trust
(``Trust''), and persons or entities engaging in transaction in the
shares of the Trust requested that the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') issue an exemption from Rules 101 and 102
of Regulation M in connection with secondary market transactions in the
shares of the Trust, and the creation or redemption of shares of the
Trust.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter from John Crowley to Josephine Tao (December 14,
2012), re: Request of J.P. Morgan Commodity ETF Services LLC for
Relief from Certain Provisions of Regulation M, available at: http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mr-noaction.shtml.
    \2\ For additional information regarding the Trust please see
the Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change to List and Trade Shares
of the JPM XF Physical Copper Trust Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 8.201, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68440;----FR----
(``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Trust's registration statement, the Trust was
formed as a Delaware statutory trust on October 15, 2010. The Trust,
based on representations in the Letter, is a passive, unmanaged
investment vehicle and will have no directors, officers, or employees.
Additionally, the Letter represents that the Trust is an exchange-
traded investment vehicle that will hold only Grade A Copper in
physical form. The Letter also states that each share of the Trust
represents a fractional undivided interest in the net assets of the
Trust (``Share''). The Trust's investment objective, according to the
Letter, is for the value of the Shares to reflect, at any given time,
the value of copper owned by the Trust less the Trust's expenses and
liabilities at that time.
    The Letter contains the following representations:
     Shares of the Trust will trade on a national securities
exchange.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See also Approval Order, supra, note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Shares will be issued and redeemed in basket-size
aggregations (``Creation Units'') to registered broker-dealers or
certain other persons that have entered into a participation agreement
with the Trust and the Sponsor (``Authorized Participants'').
     Creation Units will be issued and redeemed daily in
exchange for a specified amount of physical metal that represents a pro
rata share of the metal then held in the Trust.
     The Sponsor does not expect the difference in price based
on the locational premia to be significant.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ According to the Letter, the copper will be held in one or
more warehouses in locations throughout the world. The value of
copper depends in part on its location, i.e., copper stored in a
location that is low in supply and high in demand carries a higher
premium than copper that is stored in a location where supply is
high and demand is low. To assist in valuing the Trust's copper, by
9:00 a.m. EST, an independent valuation agent will provide the
administrative agent (the administrative agent, which initially will
by J.P. Morgan Treasury Securities Services, will administer various
daily functions of the Trust (``Administrative Agent'')) the
locational premia for the locations at which the Trust is permitted
to hold copper. The locational premium for a warehouse location for
a business day will be calculated as an amount expressed in U.S.
dollars that is equal to the average value of copper per metric ton
in such location minus the LME Settlement Price of copper on such
business day. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66816 (April
16, 2012); 77 FR 23772, 23779 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Sponsor believes that the copper selection
protocol,\5\ the independent third-party valuation agent,\6\ and
information transparency measures \7\ will cause the price of Shares in
the secondary market to closely track the net asset value per Share of
the Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ According to the Letter, the selection protocol is intended
to provide a consistent and transparent method of selecting lots to
satisfy redemption orders and calculating and paying expenses, by
requiring the Administrative Agent to select lots in the following
manner: (1) Lots will be selected first from the warehouse where it
holds available copper that has the lowest locational premium at a
particular time (i.e., the ``cheapest-to-deliver location''), and
then from other warehouse locations successively based on a ranking
of their respective locational premia from lowest to highest; (2) if
there are multiple lots in the same warehouse location specified by
the first step, lots in such warehouse location will be selected
based on the date such lots were first delivered to the relevant
account, with the earliest delivered lot being selected first; and
(3) if there are multiple lots in the same warehouse location that
were first delivered to the relevant account on the same date, lots
will be selected based on the actual weight of the lot, with the lot
having the lowest actual weight being selected first. For additional
information, see Notice, supra, note 3, 77 FR at 23781-82.
    \6\ According to the Letter, the valuation agent, which is
independent from and unaffiliated with the Sponsor, is responsible
for providing the locational premium for each permitted warehouse
location, which is used to calculate the Trust's net asset value,
determine the cheapest-to-deliver location, and make other
determinations for the Trust.
    \7\ According to the Letter, the Administrative Agent will
provide full transparency on its Web site of the Trust's assets. The
Sponsor anticipates that, through a combination of the use of the
selection protocol and transparency of information, each Authorized
Participant will be able to assess which lots of copper are likely
to be delivered in connection with a redemption order by the
Authorized Participant. Additionally, the Exchange will publish two
intraday indicative values throughout the course of the day. These
two intraday indicative values, discussed in subsequent bullets
below, will provide Authorized Participants with an indication of
the underlying value of the Trust's Shares during the trading day,
on any day the Exchange is open for business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Trust will continuously redeem baskets of Shares at
net asset value expressed as a pro rata portion of the weight of copper
held by the Trust.
     The Sponsor states that it believes that, because
Authorized Participants have full, transparent information about the
Trust's copper, including the locational premium and the brand for each
lot of copper held by the Trust and whether the brand of any such lot
is or has ceased to be an Acceptable Delivery Brand,\8\ factors such as
locational premia and de-registering of copper will not impair the
price alignment process or the arbitrage mechanism.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ According to the Letter, the LME oversees the registration
process for each refinery seeking to register its brand of copper as
an acceptable delivery brand for LME registered transactions
(``Acceptable Delivery Brand''). Any copper that is delivered to the
Trust by an Authorized Participant must, at the time of delivery, be
of an Acceptable Delivery Brand. If the LME de-registers a brand of
copper that is held by the Trust, the Trust will use the de-branded
copper to satisfy redemptions before using any other lots of copper,
even if the de-branded copper is not held in the cheapest-to-deliver
location.
    \9\ See supra notes 4 and 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     NYSE Arca will calculate and disseminate, approximately
every 15 seconds during the Exchange's core

trading session, two different intraday indicative values for the
Shares: the First-Out IIV and the Liquidation IIV.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The ``First-Out IIV'' is designed to facilitate arbitrage
activity by authorized participants by indicating whether the Shares
are trading at a discount or premium during the trading day. See
Notice, supra, note 3, 77 FR at 23785. It represents, as of the time
of such calculation, the hypothetical U.S. dollar value per Share of
the copper that would need to be transferred to or from the Trust to
create or redeem one Share included in a Creation Unit, assuming
that copper in the cheapest-to-deliver location was used for such
creation or redemption. See id. at 23783. The ``Liquidation IIV'' is
an intraday indicative value that represents, as of the time of the
calculation, the hypothetical U.S. dollar value per Share of all of
the copper owned by the Trust divided by the number of Shares then
outstanding. See id. at 23783. For a description of how the Exchange
will calculate the First-Out IIV and the Liquidation IIV, see id. at
23784-86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Authorized Participants can generally expect to receive
copper from the cheapest-to-deliver location whenever they redeem
Creation Units of Shares and are expected to seek to create Creation
Units of Shares by transferring copper from the cheapest-to-deliver
location at which they have copper available.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra, note 3, 77 FR at 23784.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Arbitrage activity by Authorized Participants is expected
to result in the Shares trading within a limited range, with the lower
end of that range approximating the first-out intraday indicative value
and the higher end of that range approximating the value of copper in
the cheapest-to-deliver location at which the Authorized Participants
have copper available.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 23785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 101 of Regulation M

    Generally, Rule 101 of Regulation M is an anti-manipulation
regulation that, subject to certain exemptions, prohibits any
``distribution participant'' and its ``affiliated purchasers'' from
bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for
or purchase, any security which is the subject of a distribution until
after the applicable restricted period, except as specifically
permitted in the rule. Rule 100 of Regulation M defines
``distribution'' to mean any offering of securities that is
distinguished from ordinary trading transactions by the magnitude of
the offering and the presence of special selling efforts and selling
methods. The provisions of Rule 101 of Regulation M apply to
underwriters, prospective underwriters, brokers, dealers, or other
persons who have agreed to participate or are participating in a
distribution of securities, and affiliated purchasers of such persons.
Shares of the Trust are in a continuous distribution and, as such, the
restricted period in which distribution participants and their
affiliated purchasers are prohibited from bidding for, purchasing, or
attempting to induce others to bid for or purchase extends
indefinitely. As a result, absent an exemption from Rule 101 of
Regulation M, the distribution participants would be prohibited from
bidding for or purchasing Shares during the distribution without
violating Rule 101 of Regulation M.
    On the basis of the representations and the facts presented in the
Letter, particularly that the Trust will continuously redeem baskets of
Shares at net asset value expressed as a pro rata portion of the weight
of copper held by the Trust and that the secondary market price of
Shares is expected to trade within a limited range with the lower end
of that range approximating the first-out intraday indicative value and
the higher end of that range approximating the value of copper in the
cheapest-to-deliver location at which the Authorized Participants have
copper available, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors, to
grant the Shares of the Trust a limited exemption from Rule 101 of
Regulation M pursuant to paragraph (d) thereof,\13\ to permit persons
participating in the distribution of Shares and their affiliated
purchasers to bid for or purchase Shares during their participation in
such distribution.\14\ In particular, the price alignment process and
arbitrage mechanism, which are expected to align the price of the
Shares in the secondary market to the copper held by the Trust, should
mitigate the potential manipulation concerns that Rule 101 of
Regulation M is designed to prevent. Accordingly, granting such relief
to the Shares to permit persons participating in the distribution of
Shares and their affiliated purchasers to bid for or purchase Shares
during their participation in such distribution is appropriate in the
public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Rule 101(d) of Regulation M specifies the Commission may
grant an exemption from the provision of Rule 101, either
unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, to any
transaction or class of transactions, or to any security or class of
securities.
    \14\ The Commission, pursuant to delegated authority, has
granted similar exemptive relief from Rule 101 to other exchange-
traded vehicles that hold only physical metal. See, e.g., Letters
from James A. Brigagliano, Assistant Director, Division of Market
Regulation, (i) to Kathleen Moriarty, Esq., Carter Ledyard &
Milburn, dated November 17, 2004, with respect to the trading of
StreetTRACKS Gold Trust, (ii) to David Yeres, dated January 27,
2005, with respect to the trading of the iShares COMEX Gold Trust,
and (iii) to David Yeres, dated April 27, 2006, with respect to the
trading of iShares Silver Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 102 of Regulation M

    Rule 102 of Regulation M prohibits issuers, selling security
holders, or any affiliated purchaser of such persons from bidding for,
purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase a
covered security \15\ during the applicable restricted period in
connection with a distribution of securities effected by or on behalf
of an issuer or selling security holder, except as specifically
permitted in the rule. As a result, absent an exemption from Rule 102
of Regulation M, the Shares could not be redeemed by the Trust without
violating Rule 102 of Regulation M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Covered security is defined as any security that is the
subject of a distribution, or any reference security. Rule 100(b),
17 CFR 242.100(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the basis of the representations and the facts presented in the
Letter, particularly that the Trust will continuously redeem baskets of
Shares at net asset value expressed as a pro rata portion of the weight
of copper held by the Trust and that the secondary market price of
Shares is expected to be within a limited range with the lower end of
that range approximating the first-out intraday indicative value and
the higher end of that range approximating the value of copper in the
cheapest-to-deliver location at which the Authorized Participants have
copper available, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors, to
grant the Shares of the Trust a limited exemption from Rule 102 of
Regulation M, pursuant to paragraph (e) thereof,\16\ to permit the
Trust and any of its affiliated purchasers to redeem Shares during the
distribution of the Shares.\17\ In particular, the price alignment
process and arbitrage mechanism, which are expected to align the price
of the Shares in the secondary market to the copper held by the Trust,
should mitigate the potential manipulation concerns that Rule 102 of
Regulation M is designed to prevent.

Accordingly, granting such relief to the Shares to permit the Trust and
any of its affiliated purchasers to redeem Shares during the
distribution of the Shares is appropriate in the public interest, and
is consistent with the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Rule 102(e) specifies the Commission may grant an exemption
from the provision of Rule 102, either unconditionally or on
specified terms and conditions, to any transaction or class of
transactions, or to any security or class of securities.
    \17\ The Commission, pursuant to delegated authority, has
granted similar exemptive relief from Rule 102 to other exchange-
traded vehicles that hold only physical metal. See, e.g., Letters
from James A. Brigagliano, Assistant Director, Division of Market
Regulation, (i) to Kathleen Moriarty, Esq., Carter Ledyard &
Milburn, dated November 17, 2004, with respect to the trading of
StreetTRACKS Gold Trust, (ii) to David Yeres, dated January 27,
2005, with respect to the trading of the iShares COMEX Gold Trust,
and (iii) to David Yeres, dated April 27, 2006, with respect to the
trading of iShares Silver Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to Rule 101(d) of Regulation M,
that, based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter,
the Shares of the Trust are exempt from the requirements of Rule 101 to
permit persons participating in the distribution of Shares of the Trust
and their affiliated purchasers to bid for or purchase such Shares
during their participation in such distribution.
    It is further ordered, pursuant to Rule 102(e) of Regulation M,
that, based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter,
the Shares of the Trust are exempt from the requirements of Rule 102 to
permit the Trust and any of its affiliated purchasers to redeem Shares
of the Trust during the distribution of such Shares.
    This exemptive relief is subject to modification or revocation at
any time the Commission determines that such action is necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Persons
participating in the distribution of Shares of the Trust shall
discontinue creations and redemptions involving the Shares of the
Trust, in the event that any material change occurs with respect to any
of the facts or representations made by the Trust, the Sponsor, or its
counsel. In addition, persons relying on this exemption are directed to
the anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the Exchange Act,
particularly Sections 9(a), 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Responsibility for compliance with these and any other applicable
provisions of the federal securities laws and rules must rest with the
persons relying on this exemption. This order does not represent the
Commission views with respect to any other question that the proposed
transactions may raise, including, but not limited to the adequacy of
the disclosure concerning, and the applicability of other federal or
state laws and rules to, the proposed transactions.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30646 Filed 12-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P