[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65392-65393]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26165]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9918-79-ORD]

Office of Research and Development; Ambient Air Monitoring
Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of Two New Reference
Methods and Two New Equivalent Methods

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of designation of two reference methods and two
equivalent methods for monitoring ambient air quality.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has designated, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53, two new
reference methods and two new equivalent methods. The reference methods
include one for measuring PM2.5, and one for measuring
PM10-2.5 in the ambient air. The two equivalent methods are
one for measuring carbon monoxide (CO) and one for measuring ozone
(O3) in the ambient air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Vanderpool, Human Exposure and
Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD-D205-03), National Exposure Research
Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR
part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the
concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs), as set
forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet
specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either
reference methods or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby
permitting their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies
for determining compliance with the NAAQSs.
    The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new reference
method for measuring PM2.5, one new reference method for
measuring PM10-2.5, one new equivalent method for measuring
concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), and one equivalent method for
measuring ozone (O3) in the ambient air. These designations
are made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as amended on August
31, 2011 (76 FR 54326-54341).
    The new reference method for PM2.5 is a manual
monitoring method based on a particular PM2.5 sampler and is
identified as follows:
    RFPS-1014-219, ``Tisch Environmental Model TE-Wilbur2.5
PM2.5 Low-Volume Air Particulate Sampler,'' configured as a
PM2.5 reference method, with firmware version 1.70 or later
and a TE-PM10-D PM10 size-selective inlet as
specified in 40 CFR 50 Appendix L Figs. L-2 thru L-19, with either a
BGI VSCCTM Very Sharp Cut Cyclone particle size separator or
WINS impactor, and operated for 24 sample periods at a flow rate of
16.67 L/min, using 47 mm PTFE membrane filter media, and in accordance
with the Tisch Environmental Model TE-Wilbur2.5 PM2.5 Low-
Volume Air Particulate Sampler instruction manual and with the
requirements and sample collection filters as specified in 40 CFR part
50, Appendix L.
    The new PM10-2.5 reference method utilizes a pair of
filter samplers than have been designated individually as reference
methods, one for PM2.5 and the other one for
PM10, and have been shown to meet the requirements specified
in Appendix O of 40 CFR part 50. The PM2.5 and
PM10 samplers are designated as reference methods RFPS-1014-
219 and RFPS-0714-216, respectively. The newly designated
PM10-2.5 sampler is identified as follows:
    RFPS-1014-220, ``Tisch Environmental Model TE-Wilbur Low-Volume Air
Particulate Sampler Pair'' for the determination of coarse particulate
matter as PM10-2.5, consisting of a pair of Tisch
Environmental Model TE-Wilbur samplers, with one being the TE-Wilbur
2.5 PM2.5 sampler (RFPS-1014-219) and the other being a TE-
Wilbur 10 PM10 sampler (RFPS-0714-216), and operated in
accordance with the associated TE-Wilbur instruction manual. This
designation applies to PM10-2.5 measurements only.
    The application for reference method determination for the
PM2.5 method was received by the Office of Research and
Development on September 29, 2014 and the PM10-2.5 method
application was received on October 8, 2014. These monitors are
commercially available from the applicant, Tisch Environmental, Inc.,
145 S. Miami Avenue, Village of Cleves, OH 45002.
    The newly designated equivalent method for CO is a mercury
replacement-UV photometric method and is identified as follows:
    EQCA-0814-217, ``Peak Laboratories, Model 910-170 Carbon Monoxide
Analyzer'', (Mercury replacement--UV photometric method) operated on
any

full scale range between 0-50 ppm, at any operating temperature from 20
[deg]C to 30 [deg]C, using a back-flushing GC scrubber, 99.9999%
nitrogen carrier gas at a gas pressure of 60-80 psig, with a column
temperature of 105 [deg]C, and a detector temperature of 265 [deg]C;
inlet flow of 20-100 mL/min; in accordance with the associated
instrument manual, and with or without any of the following options:
Rack mount kit, internal sample pump, 4-20 mA output module, particle
filter, and data collection software.
    The application for equivalent method determination for the CO
method was received by the Office of Research and Development on
January 3, 2011. This monitor is commercially available from the
applicant, Peak Laboratories, LLC, 2330 Old Middlefield Way Suite 10,
Mountain View, CA 94043.
    One new O3 equivalent method is an automated monitoring
method (analyzer) utilizing a measurement principle based on
ultraviolet absorption photometry. The newly designated equivalent
method is identified as follows:
    EQOA-0914-218, ``2B Technologies Model 106-L or OEM-106-L Ozone
Monitor'' operated in a range of 0-0.5 ppm in an environment of 20-30
[deg]C, with temperature and pressure compensation, internal dewLine
for humidity control, using a 1 minute average, with a 12V DC source
supplied by a 100-240V AC power adapter, operated according to the
Model 106 Ozone Monitor Operation Manual and with or without the
following: Cigarette lighter adapter or a 12V DC battery for portable
operation, external PTFE or PVDF inlet filter and holder, USB data port
with computer cable.
    The application for equivalent method determination for the
O3 method was received by the Office of Research and
Development on June 24, 2014. This monitor is commercially available
from the applicant, 2B Technology, Inc., 2100 Central Ave., Suite 105,
Boulder, CO 80303.
    Test monitors representative of these methods have been tested in
accordance with the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part
53, as amended on August 31, 2011. After reviewing the results of those
tests and other information submitted in the application, EPA has
determined, in accordance with part 53, that these methods should be
designated as equivalent methods.
    As designated reference and equivalent methods, these methods are
acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under
the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance.
For such purposes, the methods must be used in strict accordance with
the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and
subject to any specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or
operational settings) specified in the applicable designated method
description (see the identification of the method above).
    Use of the methods also should be in general accordance with the
guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the ``Quality
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,''
EPA/600/R-94/038a and ``Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Program'' EPA-454/B-08-003, December, 2008. Provisions concerning
modification of such methods by users are specified under Section 2.8
(Modifications of Methods by Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.
    Consistent or repeated noncompliance should be reported to:
Director, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD-E205-
01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
    Designation of these reference and equivalent methods is intended
to assist the States in establishing and operating their air quality
surveillance systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the
commercial availability or technical aspects of the method should be
directed to the applicant.

    Dated: October 24, 2014.
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta,
Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2014-26165 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Attachment 5 Nonattainment Area Designations for Atlanta under the PM2.5 Standard Additional Analysis for Jasper and Putnam Counties U. S. EPA's June 29, 2004 letter added Jasper and Putnam Counties to Georgia EPD's recommendation for the Atlanta PM2.5 nonattainment area. EPA's letter states that Putnam County was included in EPA's recommendation in order to ensure that a sufficient portion of the county that includes identifiable large emitting facilities be included within the boundaries of the nonattainment area. EPA invited Georgia EPD to submit a recommendation of a partial county that will include these large emitting facilities. Based on conversations with U. S. EPA staff, the " large emitting facility" of concern in Putnam County is Georgia Power's Plant Branch. Based on conversations with EPA Region 4 staff, it is also EPD's understanding that U. S. EPA is also amenable to considering a partial county area for Jasper county in order to include large emitting facilities. For Jasper County, the " large emitting facilities" is the Georgia Pacific complex located in Monticello.

EPD has determined that is not practical to design partial county nonattainment boundaries for Jasper or Putnam Counties which include the Geogia Pacific complex and Plant Branch that are contiguous to the remainder of the Atlanta PM2.5 nonattainment area. This is because the Georgia Pacific complex is located in the middle of Jasper County and Plant Branch is located in the southeastern corner of Putnam County.

There are only three major sources of PM2.5 emissions or precursors in Jasper County. All three are part of a Georgia Pacific Complex southwest of Monticello. These include Georgia Pacific Corporation   Monticello Plywood Plant, Georgia Pacific Corporation   Monticello Panelboard Plant, and Georgia Pacific Corporation   Monticello MDF plant. PM2.5 emissions and precursor emissions as reported in the 2003 CERR ( for Panelboard and MDF) and 2002 CERR ( for Plywood) are shown below.

Facility VOC ( tons/ yr) NOx ( tons/ yr) SO2 ( tons/ yr) PM2.5 ( tons/ yr) Ammonia ( tons/ yr) Plywood 74.7 115.2 0 0 0 Panelboard 178.5 13.4 0.1 0.3 0 MDF 1.5 14.8 1.3 0 0 Total 254.7 143.4 1.4 0.3 0 The Georgia Pacific complex emits no ammonia and insignificant amounts of sulfur dioxide and PM2.5. The VOC emissions of 254 tons/ yr and NOx emissions of 143.4 tons/ yr are insignificant to the total VOC emissions of 231,140 tons/ yr and NOx emissions of 286,049 tons/ yr for EPD's recommended PM2.5 nonattainment area for Atlanta.

The Georgia Pacific Monticello Complex is approximately 43 miles and Plant Branch is approximately 65 miles from the nearest PM2.5 monitor in the Atlanta area ( South DeKalb monitor). Georgia Pacific Monticello and Plant Branch are closer to other PM2.5 monitors than they are to the closest Atlanta monitor. Georgia Pacific is approximately 54 miles NW of the Sandersville monitor, 33 miles NW of the Gordon monitor, and 33 miles N of both Macon monitors. Plant Branch is approximately 32 miles NW of the Sandersville monitor, 21 miles N of the Gordon monitor, and about 36 miles NE of both Macon monitors.

Wind frequency data was obtained from U. S. EPA's PM2.5 Designation Technical Information web page ( www. epa. gov/ ttn/ naaqs/ pm/ pm25_ tech_ info. html) for Clayton, DeKalb, and Gwinnett Counties. These three counties contain the PM2.5 monitors in the Atlanta area that are closest to Jasper and Putnam Counties and thus would more likely affected by emissions from those counties than other monitors in the Atlanta area. Review of this data shows that the prevailing winds for all three counties are predominantly from the northwest and secondarily from the east. Both Jasper and Putnam Counties lie southeast of the Atlanta area. While the wind patterns in middle Georgia are fairly evenly dispersed, the most frequent wind direction for all three of these counties is from the WNW.

Because of the distances and wind patterns of these monitors in relation to Georgia Pacific Monticello and Plant Branch, both of these facilities would have a bigger impact on the Sandersville and Gordon monitors, both of which are in compliance with the PM2.5 standard ( 14.0 ug/ m3 for Sandersville and 14.9 ug/ m3 for Gordon) than the closest non complying monitors ( 15.7 ug/ m3 for the South DeKalb monitor and 15.2 for the Macon Allied Chemical monitor).

In Georgia EPD's June 17, 2004, submittal, we stated that both Putnam and Jasper Counties met only one of the six " other factor" thresholds as determined by EPD. The June 17 submittal also discusses how both Jasper and Putnam Counties are already subject to VOC and NOx control regulations that are more stringent than other portions of the state.

EPA's April 1, 2003, guidance memo " Designations for the Fine Particulate National Ambient Air Quality Standards" states the following:

Boundaries used for implementation of the 8 hour ozone standard may also be an important factor in determining boundaries for the PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Indeed, there are many areas that violate both the 8 hour ozone and the PM2.5 standards, and States and Tribes may wish the nonattainment boundaries for the two pollutants to be identical in order to coordinate air quality planning, control strategy development, and the implementation of the transportation conformity rule.

Thus, keeping the Atlanta PM2.5 nonattainment area as similar as possible to the existing 8 hour ozone nonattainment will ensure more efficient air quality and transportation planning and control strategy development. The only difference between the 8 hour ozone nonattainment area and EPD's recommended PM2.5 nonattainment area for Atlanta is a small portion of northeast Heard County. There are no public roads in this section of Heard County and only one stationary source of emissions   Georgia Power's Plant Wansley.

All of the above information provides sound evidence that neither Jasper nor Putnam County should be included in the Atlanta PM2.5 nonattainment area. As stated in EPD's June 17th submittal, should EPD find it necessary to require emission reductions from Plant Branch ( or any other source not located within a designated nonattainment area) to achieve and maintain attainment of the PM2.5 standard in Atlanta, EPD already has the authority to require such controls under Rule 391 3 1. 03( 8)( e).


[Federal Register: April 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 80)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23254-23255]
[DOCID:fr26ap11-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0052]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Granting petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This notice grants the petition for rulemaking submitted by
the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) requesting that the agency amend
the license plate holder requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 to allow motorcycles to mount license plates
at an upward angle of up to 30 degrees.\1\ Based on the information
received in MIC's petition and the petitions for reconsideration of the
December 4, 2007 final rule reorganizing FMVSS No. 108,\2\ the agency
believes that MIC's petition merits further consideration through the
rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Motorcycle Industry Council Petition for Rulemaking, March
14, 2005 (Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20286-0009)
    \2\ 72 FR 68234 (December 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to
initiate the rulemaking process on this issue with a notice of proposed
rulemaking later this year. The determination of whether to issue a
rule will be made in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in
accordance with statutory criteria.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Markus Price,
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (NVS-121), NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 366-
0098) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For legal issues: Jesse Chang, Office of the Chief Counsel (NCC-
112), NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC
20590 (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 14, 2005, MIC submitted to the agency a petition for
rulemaking requesting that the agency include an additional subpart to
FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, MIC requested the addition of a subpart to
be designated as S<IP_ADDRESS>, which would read as follows:

    ``S<IP_ADDRESS> On a motorcycle where the upper edge of the license
plate is not more than 1.2 m (47.25 in.) from the ground, the plate
bearing the license numbers shall face between 30 degrees upward and
15 degrees downward from the vertical plane.''

    MIC submitted this petition for rulemaking with the understanding
that the current FMVSS No. 108 requires license plates to be mounted at
 15 degrees of perpendicular to the plane on which the
vehicle stands. In their petition, MIC took note that ``although the
lighting standard doesn't directly speak to license plate mounting, the
requirement at issue is contained in SAE J587 October 1981, which is
incorporated into FMVSS No. 108 in Table III for license plate lamps.''
Petitioner notes that the requirements of the October 1981 Standard
J587 are different from the European Community (ECE) regulations. By
including the proposed subpart, petitioner hopes to harmonize the
current motorcycle license plate requirements with the requirements in
the ECE regulations.
    Petitioner stated that this harmonization would not adversely
affect safety or law enforcement efforts but would serve to reduce
unnecessary design and manufacturing complexities for its member
companies. Further, petitioner believes that by allowing a 30 degree
upward angle, the manufacturers will be afforded greater flexibility in
design without any detriment to real world reflective illumination of
the license plates. As additional support for

their request, MIC mentions that SAE Standard J587 was updated in 1997
to also allow for the 30 degree upward angle permitted by the ECE
regulations.
    In addition to the MIC petition for rulemaking of March 14, 2005,
the agency has received petitions for reconsideration of the December
4, 2007 final rule that reorganized FMVSS No. 108. These petitions for
reconsideration were also concerned with license plate holders and the
mounting requirements. In that final rule, the agency included the
license plate mounting requirements of SAE Standard J587 (October 1981)
directly into the regulatory text. Petitioners objected on the grounds
that the license plate mounting requirements of the 1981 SAE standard
were never incorporated into FMVSS No. 108 and thus should not be
included in an administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 where the agency
has stated no intent to substantively change the standard. A more
detailed discussion of these petitions is available in today's Federal
Register where the agency has issued a notice denying, in part, the
petitions for reconsideration of the December 4, 2007 final rule.

Conclusion

    Having received this petition for rulemaking and the aforementioned
petitions for reconsideration of the December 4, 2007 final rule
reorganizing FMVSS No. 108, the agency has decided that MIC's petition
merits further consideration through the rulemaking process and hereby
grants its petition for rulemaking. The agency plans to initiate the
rulemaking process later this year through the publication of a notice
of proposed rulemaking. This agency also announces in a separate notice
published in today's Federal Register that it is denying the
aforementioned petitions for reconsideration as the agency has decided
to resolve this issue through rulemaking. However, due to the special
circumstances and confusion surrounding the license plate mounting
requirements among the relevant stakeholders, the agency announces
through this notice that it will not enforce the 15 degree license
plate holder mounting requirement during the pendency of rulemaking on
the issue of that requirement.
    The granting of the petition from MIC, however, does not indicate
that a final rule will be issued as requested by MIC. The determination
of whether to issue a rule and the content of the rule is made after
the study of the requested action and the various alternatives in the
course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory
criteria.

    Issued on: April 21, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-10025 Filed 4-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14403-14405]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0318]

Alabama Metal Coil Securement Act; Petition for Determination of
Preemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Order; Grant of Petition for Determination of Preemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA grants a petition submitted by the American Trucking
Associations (ATA) requesting a determination that the State of
Alabama's Metal Coil Securement Act (the Act) is preempted by Federal
law. Federal law provides for preemption of State commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) safety laws that are more stringent than Federal
regulations and (1) Have no safety benefit; (2) are incompatible with
Federal regulations; or (3) would cause an unreasonable burden on
interstate commerce. FMCSA has determined that there is insufficient
support for the claimed safety benefits and that the Act places an
unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

DATES: This decision is effective April 4, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genevieve D. Sapir, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at time or Room W12-140 on
the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on December
29, 2010 (75 FR 82132).

Background

The Metal Coil Securement Act

    The Act, adopted in 2009, prohibits a motor carrier from
transporting metal coils in a movement that originates or terminates in
Alabama unless the driver is certified in load securement (Ala. Code
Sec.  32-9A-2(a)(4)a.). The law, as originally enacted, also required
the driver to carry a copy of the certification in the vehicle and
produce it upon demand (Ala. Code Sec.  32-9A-2(a)(4)b.). Maximum
penalties for violating these requirements include fines of between
$5,000 and $10,000, jail time and/or a court order prohibiting the
driver from operating a CMV in the State (Ala. Code Sec.  32-9A-4(d)--
(g)). Alabama Promulgated Rule No. 760-X-1-.16, adopted on April 5,
2011, offers CMV drivers three options to become certified in load
securement: (1) Obtain a Metal Coil Certificate by taking and passing
the ``Securing Metal Coils Course'' available for $25.00 on the web
site, www.metalcoiltraining.com; (2) obtain a commercial driver's
license (CDL) endorsement that allows the driver to haul metal coils in
the issuing State; or (3) obtain a Metal Coil Certificate from a motor
carrier authorized by the Alabama Department of Public Safety (ADPS) to
issue the Certificate, which would require the carrier's safety
compliance officer to submit a notarized affidavit that he/she has
personal knowledge that the carrier requires every driver to be trained
in the requirements of 49 CFR 393.120 before hauling metal coils.
Federal regulations for securing metal coil loads, codified in 49 CFR
393.120, do not require any such driver certification.
    In June 2011, Alabama amended the Act, rescinding the requirement
that drivers carry copies of their metal coil load securement
certification in their vehicles. Currently, the Act continues to
require drivers to obtain certification, as specified in Alabama
Promulgated Rule No. 760-X-1-.16, but drivers are no longer required to
produce the certification upon demand.

FMCSA and ATA Responses

    On June 26, 2009, FMCSA sent a letter to then-Governor Bob Riley of
Alabama stating that the Act appeared to be incompatible with the
requirements of FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. FMCSA
also drew attention to two Federal laws authorizing preemption of State
legislation (49 U.S.C. 14506 and 31141) and indicated that they might
be applicable. The Agency urged State officials to work together with
FMCSA officials to resolve any conflict between State and Federal law.
Governor Riley responded on August 26, 2009, explaining that the Act
was adopted in response to a number of accidents in Alabama involving
the transport of metal coils. Governor Riley took the position that
Alabama's metal coil load securement certification requirements were
not preempted by Federal law.
    On December 22, 2010, ATA petitioned FMCSA for a determination that
Alabama's metal coil load securement certification requirements and
penalties create an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce and are
preempted under 49 U.S.C. 31141. ATA contended that Alabama's
requirement that drivers obtain certification in metal coil load
securement is more stringent than and incompatible with Federal metal
coil safety regulations.
    In its December 22, 2010 letter, ATA also requested a determination
that the requirement that the driver carry the certification and
display it upon demand is preempted by 49 U.S.C. 14506. The recent
amendment to the

Act, however, removed this requirement, rendering this aspect of ATA's
request moot.
    By letter dated January 25, 2011, the ADPS responded to ATA's
petition. ADPS acknowledged that the requirements of the Act are more
stringent than Federal regulations, but stated that the requirements
should not be preempted because they have safety benefits and do not
place an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

Applicable Law

    Section 31141 of title 49, United States Code, prohibits States
from enforcing a law or regulation on CMV safety that the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) has determined to be preempted. To determine
whether a State law or regulation is preempted, the Secretary must
decide whether a State law or regulation: (1) Has the same effect as a
regulation prescribed under 49 U.S.C. 31136, which is the authority for
much of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs); (2) is
less stringent than such a regulation; or (3) is additional to or more
stringent than such a regulation (49 U.S.C. 31141(c)(1)). If the
Secretary determines that a State law or regulation has the same effect
as a regulation based on Sec.  31136, it may be enforced (49 U.S.C.
31141(c)(2)). A State law or regulation that is less stringent may not
be enforced (49 U.S.C. 31141(c)(3)). And a State law or regulation the
Secretary determined to be additional to or more stringent than a
regulation based on Sec.  31136 may be enforced unless the Secretary
decides that the State law or regulation (1) Has no safety benefit; (2)
is incompatible with the regulation prescribed by the Secretary; or (3)
would cause an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce (49 U.S.C.
31141(c)(4)). To determine whether a State law or regulation will cause
an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, the Secretary may
consider the cumulative effect that the State's law or regulation and
all similar laws and regulations of other States will have on
interstate commerce (49 U.S.C. 31141(c)(5)). The Secretary's authority
under Sec.  31141 is delegated to the FMCSA Administrator by 49 CFR
1.87(f).

Comments

    FMCSA published a notice in the Federal Register on November 23,
2011 (76 FR 72495) seeking comment on whether the Act is preempted by
Federal law. Although preemption under Sec.  31141 is a legal
determination reserved to the judgment of the Agency, FMCSA sought
comment on what effect, if any, Alabama's metal coil load securement
certification requirement has on interstate motor carrier operations.
FMCSA received thirteen comments in response. The five comments
opposing preemption included one each from an individual driver, a
motor carrier, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS), the
Alabama Trucking Association and the ADPS. The eight comments
supporting the preemption petition included four from motor carriers,
and one each from an owner-operator, ATA, an Alabama aluminum coil
producer and the Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association
(OOIDA).
    Commenters opposing the petition stated that the Act is appropriate
because there is a lack of Federal enforcement of training
requirements; cargo load securement is a leading cause of crashes; and
there have not been any metal coil spills in Alabama since the Act was
enacted. Commenters supporting the petition stated that the Act should
be preempted because it is simply an administrative requirement and
does not have safety benefits; it imposes costs on the motor carrier
and metal coil industries; it is likely to lead to a proliferation of
other State requirements with burdensome cumulative effects; it
unfairly affects less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers; and safety risks
other than improper load securement (such as excessive speed at a
crash-prone Interstate highway junction) are contributing factors to
the coil spills cited as justification for the Act.

Decision

    The Agency concludes that the Act does not meet the standards set
forth in 49 U.S.C. 31141 and may not be enforced. The Act imposes
certification requirements on interstate CMV drivers that are not
required under FMCSA's regulations. As a result, and as the ADPS has
acknowledged, the Act imposes requirements more stringent than those
imposed by Federal law. The only remaining issue, therefore, is whether
the Act (1) Has a safety benefit; (2) is incompatible with FMCSA's
regulations; or (3) would cause an unreasonable burden on interstate
commerce. The Agency concludes that there is insufficient support for
the claimed safety benefits and that the Act places an unreasonable
burden on interstate commerce.
    Although several commenters argued that the Act's requirements have
safety benefits, the only evidence presented--by ADPS--was a paper
showing that there were eight metal coil spills in Jefferson County
(i.e., the Birmingham area) in the three years prior to adoption of the
Act and apparently none thereafter. ADPS implied that there was a
correlation between reduced crashes and the adoption of the Act, but
that is easier to assume than to demonstrate. For example, other
commenters observed that the majority of the metal coil spills that
occurred in Alabama were at ``Malfunction Junction,'' a particularly
dangerous Interstate highway junction in Birmingham, and that speed was
a factor in many of these spills. They also commented that in 2007, the
State reduced the speed limit at this junction in an effort to reduce
crashes. Crashes typically have multiple causes; determining the
``basic'' cause is therefore difficult, if not impossible. Identifying
the reason or reasons for a reduction in crashes is even more
problematic, especially when the annual number of incidents--like those
involving metal coils in Alabama--is small enough to be affected
significantly by random variations. Given the variety of factors that
may have contributed both to the occurrence of and reduction in metal
coil spills, attributing the reduction to a single piece of legislation
is unwarranted.
    In addition, the Act's requirements are largely administrative;
Alabama does not test a driver's skills in securing a load. As one
commenter observed, in the case of the on-line certification option,
there is no way of determining whether the person taking the test is
even the driver being certified. In the case of motor carrier
certification option, individual drivers are not tested; the motor
carrier simply certifies that its drivers have been trained in the
Federal regulations. In either case, all the driver or motor carrier is
required to do is demonstrate knowledge of Federal regulations--
knowledge the driver is required to have in any case. (See 49 CFR
390.3(e)(1)-(2)). In short, the Act imposes costs on interstate
carriers and drivers that are not commensurate with any readily
identifiable safety benefits.
    Moreover, not preempting the Act could have wide-ranging
implications. For example, an individual driver commented that he was
required to obtain an Alabama Metal Coil Certificate before being hired
by a Minnesota-based motor carrier. Although the carrier did not haul
coils into or out of Alabama, it apparently wanted to be prepared to
handle that kind of business should the opportunity arise. Similarly,
two LTL motor carriers stated that, because of the nature of their
business, they would require all drivers to obtain an Alabama Metal
Coil Certificate to cover the

possibility that a driver would be asked to transport a load of metal
coils in or out of Alabama at some point during their employment. The
ripple effect of the Act in imposing both potential burdens and costs
beyond dedicated metal-coil transporters is extensive.
    Finally, the cumulative effect of multiple States requiring their
own metal-coil certifications, each with an associated fee, would
create an even more unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. Several
commenters noted that other States have metal coil certification
requirements, but that they apply only to intrastate operations. If
these and other States extended their metal coil certification
requirements to interstate carriers, the effect would be a patchwork of
requirements, with accompanying burdens and costs.

Conclusion

    Accordingly, FMCSA grants ATA's petition for preemption. Alabama
may no longer enforce the Act on interstate motor carriers.

    Issued on: February 27, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-05114 Filed 3-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: January 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 806-811]
[DOCID:fr08ja07-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55029; File No. SR-Amex-2006-76]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendments No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 Thereto and Notice of Filing of
Amendments No. 3 and 4 Relating to the Listing and Trading of the DB
Multi-Sector Commodity Trust

December 29, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On August 16, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to list and trade the DB Multi-Sector Commodity
Trust under Commentary .07 to Amex Rule 1202. On October 12, 2006, Amex
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal. On November 3, 2006, Amex filed
Amendment No. 2 to the proposal. The proposed rule change, as amended,
was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 24, 2006
for a 15-day comment period.\3\ The Commission received no comments
regarding the proposal. On December 19, 2006, Amex filed Amendment No.
3 to the proposed rule change.\4\ On December 29, 2006, Amex filed
Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change.\5\ This order approves the
proposed rule change as modified by Amendments No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 on an
accelerated basis and solicits comments from interested persons on
Amendments No. 3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54770 (November 16,
2006), 71 FR 67935 (``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 3, Amex clarified that (1) relevant
Indicative Fund Values calculated by the Index Sponsor between 9:30
a.m. (when trading begins on the Amex) to 10:00 a.m. (when the oil
futures open at the NYMEX) will be based on prices obtained from
Reuters; (2) the Exchange will obtain a representation for each
series of Portfolio Depositary Receipts that the net asset value per
share will be calculated daily and will be made available to all
market participants at the same time; and (3) the Exchange will
require for each Fund that 200,000 Shares be outstanding prior to
the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 4, Amex clarified that the Exchange will
delist or remove the listing of the Shares pursuant to Amex rules if
a substitute index or other replacement benchmark is used in
connection with the Shares, unless the Exchange files with the
Commission a related proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4
under the Act seeking approval to continue trading the Shares of
such Fund and such rule change is approved by the Commission. Amex
also corrected a typographical error to clarify that the Shares will
begin to trade on the Amex from 9:30 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Amex Rules 1200, 1201 and 1202 provide for the listing and trading
of Trust Issued Receipts (``TIRs''). Amex Rule 1202 sets out listing
and trading criteria for TIRs. Pursuant to Commentary .07 to Amex Rule
1202, the Exchange may list and trade TIRs where the trust holds
securities (``Investment Shares'') issued by an entity that invests in
any combination of securities, futures contracts, options on futures
contracts, forward contracts, commodities, swaps or high credit quality
short-term fixed income securities or other securities. Commentary .07
requires the Exchange to submit a proposal pursuant to Section 19(b) of
the Act subject to Commission review and approval for each new series
of such TIRs holding Investment Shares.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to list and trade shares
(``Shares'') of: (1) The PowerShares DB Energy Fund (the ``Energy
Fund''); (2) the PowerShares DB Oil Fund (the ``Oil Fund''); (3) the
PowerShares DB Precious Metals Fund (the ``Precious Metals Fund''); (4)
the PowerShares DB Gold Fund (the ``Gold Fund''); (5) the PowerShares
DB Silver Fund (the ``Silver Fund''); (6) the PowerShares DB Base
Metals Fund (the ``Base Metals Fund''); and (7) the PowerShares DB
Agriculture Fund (the ``Agriculture Fund'') (collectively the
``Funds'').
    In its proposal, the Exchange provided detailed description
regarding the structure of the Funds and the listing and trading of the
Shares. In particular, the Exchange addressed (i) the designation and
calculation of each Fund's underlying index, (ii) the calculation and
dissemination of net asset value (``NAV''), (iii) the application of
initial and continued listing criteria specified in Commentary .07 to
Amex Rule 1202, (iv) the creation and redemption process, (v)
dissemination of pricing and other information pertaining to the
Shares, including intraday indicative value, Share price, and
underlying index value, (vi) arbitrage of the Shares, (vii) listing
fees, (viii) applicable Exchange trading rules, (ix) events triggering
trading halts and/or delisting, (x) applicable suitability
requirements, (xi) the distribution of an information circular
regarding the Shares to Exchange members, and (xii) surveillance
procedures.

Product Description

    Each Fund's Shares represent beneficial ownership interests in a
corresponding Master Fund's net assets.\6\ These assets consist solely
of the common units of beneficial interests of the DB Energy Master
Fund, the DB Oil Master Fund, the DB Precious Metals Master Fund, the
DB Gold Master Fund, the DB Silver Master Fund, the DB Base Metals
Master Fund, and the DB Agriculture Master Fund (collectively, the
``Master Funds'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Each of the Funds will be formed as a separate series of the
DB Multi-Sector Commodity Trust (the ``Trust''), a Delaware
statutory trust. Likewise, each of the Master Funds represents a
series of the DB Multi-Sector Commodity Master Trust (the ``Master
Trust''), also a Delaware statutory trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the Funds and each of the Master Funds are commodity pools
operated by DB Commodity Services LLC (the ``Managing Owner'').\7\ The
Master Funds will hold primarily \8\ futures contracts \9\ on the
commodities

comprising the: (1) Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index--Optimum Yield
Energy Excess Return \TM\ (``Energy Index''); (2) Deutsche Bank Liquid
Commodity Index--Optimum Yield Crude Oil Excess Return \TM\ (``Oil
Index''); (3) Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index--Optimum Yield
Precious Metals Excess Return \TM\ (``Precious Metals Index''); (4)
Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index--Optimum Yield Gold Excess Return
\TM\ (``Gold Index''); (5) Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index--
Optimum Yield Silver Excess Return \TM\ (``Silver Index''); (6)
Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index--Optimum Yield Industrial Metals
Excess Return \TM\ (``Base Metals Index''); and (7) Deutsche Bank
Liquid Commodity Index--Optimum Yield Agriculture Excess Return \TM\
(``Agriculture Index'') (collectively, the ``Indexes''), as the case
may be. Certain of the Indexes are based on a single commodity
component. The Exchange noted that the commodities industry uses such
indexes to track changes in the value of the underlying commodity over
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Managing Owner, a subsidiary of DB London, is a
commodity pool operator and commodity trading advisor.
    \8\ Other holdings of the Master Fund will include cash and U.S.
Treasury securities for deposit with futures commission merchants as
margin and other high credit quality short-term fixed income
securities.
    \9\ The futures contracts in which the respective Master Fund
may invest are as follows: Energy Index--sweet light crude (NYMEX),
heating oil (NYMEX), brent crude oil (ICE Futures), RBOB gasoline
(NYMEX), natural gas (NYMEX); Oil Index--sweet light crude (NYMEX);
Precious Metals Index--gold (COMEX), silver (COMEX); Gold Index--
gold (COMEX); Silver Index--silver (COMEX); Base Metals Index--
aluminum (LME), zinc (LME), copper-grade A (LME); Agriculture
Index--corn (CBOT), wheat (CBOT), soybeans (CBOT), sugar (NYBOT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Managing Owner of the Master Funds will manage the futures
contracts in order to track the performance of the respective Index.
The Master Funds will include U.S. Treasury securities for margin
purposes and other high credit quality short-term fixed income
securities. The Master Funds are not ``actively managed.''

Underlying Indexes

    Deutsche Bank AG London (``Index Sponsor'') sponsors each of the
Indexes. Additional description of each Index was included in the
Exchange's proposal. Notably, the Exchange stated that the Index
Sponsor has in place procedures to prevent the improper sharing of
information between different affiliates and departments. Specifically,
an information barrier exists between the personnel within DB London
that calculate and reconstitute the Indexes and other personnel of the
Index Sponsor, including but not limited to the Managing Owner, sales
and trading, external or internal fund managers, and bank personnel who
are involved in hedging the bank's exposure to instruments linked to
the Indexes, in order to prevent the improper sharing of information
relating to the composition of the Indexes.
    The Index Sponsor calculates intraday and closing levels of each
Index on the basis of reported trading prices of the futures
contract(s) constituting that index. The futures contract of each
applicable Index commodity that is closest to expiration is used in the
calculation of the respective Indexes. While the Index is calculated
and disseminated by the Index Sponsor, a number of independent sources
may verify both the intraday and closing Index values. The Index
Sponsor uses independent feeds from Reuters to verify all pricing
information used to calculate the Index.

Creation and Redemption of Shares

    Like other exchange traded fund products, each of the Funds will
issue and redeem its Shares on a continuous basis at a price equal to
the NAV per share next determined after an order is received in proper
form. Also, each of the Funds will issue and redeem its Shares only in
aggregations of 200,000 shares (``Basket Aggregations'') and only
through qualified market participants that have entered into agreements
with the Managing Owner (each, an ``Authorized Participant'').
Additional information about the creation and redemption process is
included in Amex's proposal.\10\ In summary, to create Shares, an
Authorized Participant must properly place a creation order and deliver
the specified ``cash deposit amount'' \11\ and applicable transaction
fee to the Fund Administrator, designated to be The Bank of New York.
The Fund Administrator will issue to the Authorized Participant the
appropriate number of Basket Aggregations. To redeem Shares, an
Authorized Participant must properly place a redemption order and
deliver Shares that in the aggregate constitute one or more Basket
Aggregations, plus any applicable transaction fee. The Fund
Administrator will deliver the appropriate ``cash redemption amount''
\12\ for each Basket Aggregation that an Authorized Participant
redeems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, 71 FR at 67941.
    \11\ The ``cash deposit amount'' equals the NAV per Share of the
applicable Fund times 200,000 (i.e., NAV per Basket Aggregation).
    \12\ The ``cash redemption amount'' equals the NAV per Basket
Aggregation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net Asset Value

    As detailed in the Exchange's proposal,\13\ the NAV for each Fund
equals the total assets of the corresponding Master Fund less total
liabilities of such Master Fund. The NAV of each Share equals the NAV
of the corresponding Fund divided by the number of its Shares
outstanding. When calculating NAV for each of the Funds and each of the
Master Funds, the Administrator will value U.S. futures contracts held
by such Master Fund on the basis of their then current market value.
All non-U.S. futures contracts will be calculated based upon the
liquidation value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, 71 FR at 67941-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arbitrage

    In its proposal, the Exchange stated that it did not expect the
Shares to trade at a material discount or premium to the Shares of the
corresponding Master Fund held by the corresponding Fund. As is the
case for other exchange traded products, the Exchange believes that,
because the Shares can be created and redeemed, arbitrage opportunities
should provide a mechanism to mitigate the effect of any premiums or
discounts that may exist from time to time.

Dissemination of Index and Underlying Futures Contracts Information

    The Index Sponsor will publish the intraday value and closing level
of each of the Indexes at least every fifteen (15) seconds on its Web
site at http://index.db.com and through major market data vendors

(e.g., Bloomberg and Reuters). The Index Sponsor and the Exchange will
also provide any adjustments or changes to any of the Indexes on their
respective Web sites.
    Daily settlement prices, delayed futures contract information, and
market news are publicly available on the Web sites of the futures
exchanges where the relevant contract trades.\14\ Pricing and other
information for the futures contracts underlying each of the Indexes is
widely disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors
worldwide, including Bloomberg and Reuters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The particular futures exchange for each futures contact
with Web site information are as follows: (i) Aluminum, zinc and
copper--grade A--London Metals Exchange (LME) at http://www.lme.com;

(ii) corn, wheat and soybeans--Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) at
http://www.cbot.com; (iii) crude oil, heating oil, RBOB gasoline,

natural gas, gold, and silver--New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)
at http://www.nymex.com; (iv) brent crude oil--IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. (ICE) at http://www.theice.com; and

(v) sugar--Board of Trade of the City of New York (NYBOT) at http://www.nybot.com
.

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

Availability of Information Regarding the Shares

1. Indicative Fund Value
    During each day the Shares trade on the Exchange, Amex will
disseminate through the facilities of CTA an

indicative value for each of the Funds (``Indicative Fund Value''),
representing an estimated net asset value for each Fund Share. The
respective Indicative Fund Values will be disseminated on a per Share
basis at least every 15 seconds during regular Amex trading hours of
9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. ET.
    Notably, the Indicative Fund Values will not reflect price changes
to the price of an underlying commodity between the close of trading of
the futures contract at the relevant futures exchange and the close of
trading on the Amex at 4:15 p.m. ET.\15\ The value of a Share may
accordingly be influenced by non-concurrent trading hours between the
Amex and the various futures exchanges where constituents of the
Indexes trade.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A list of trading hours for each of the Index commodities
underlying the futures contracts was included in Amex's proposal.
See Notice, supra note 3, 71 FR at 67943.
    \16\ The Exchange states that between 9:30 a.m. (when trading
begins on the Amex) to 10:00 a.m. (when the oil futures open at the
NYMEX), the Index Sponsor calculates relevant Indicative Fund Values
based on prices obtained from Reuters. See Amendment No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Other Information
    In addition to the Indicative Fund Values, the Amex also intends to
disseminate for each of the Funds on a daily basis by means of CTA/CQ
High Speed Lines and on its Web site at http://www.amex.com the

following information:
     The daily trading volume of each of the Shares;
     The closing prices of each Fund's Shares and the
corresponding NAV;
     A hyperlink on its Web site at http://www.amex.com to the Index Sponsor's Web site at http://index.db.com.

    Additionally, the Web site for each of the Funds and/or the
Exchange, which are publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the
following information: (a) The current NAV per share daily and the
prior business day's NAV and the reported closing price; (b) the mid-
point of the bid-ask price \17\ in relation to the NAV as of the time
the NAV is calculated (the ``Bid-Ask Price''); (c) calculation of the
premium or discount of such price against such NAV; (e) data in chart
form displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of
the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges for each
of the four (4) previous calendar quarters; (f) the Prospectus; and (g)
other applicable quantitative information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The bid-ask price of Shares is determined using the highest
bid and lowest offer as of the time of calculation of the NAV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The closing price and settlement prices of the futures contracts
comprising the Indexes and held by the corresponding Master Funds are
also readily available from the relevant futures exchanges, automated
quotation systems, published or other public sources, or on-line
information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters.

Criteria for Initial and Continued Listing

    Each of the Funds will be subject to the criteria in Commentary
.07(d) of Amex Rule 1202 for initial and continued listing of their
respective Shares. The Exchange states that it will comply with the
initial listing criteria set forth in Amex Rule 1002(a)(ii) which
states that the Exchange will obtain a representation for each series
of Portfolio Depositary Receipts that the NAV per share will be
calculated daily and will be made available to all market participants
at the same time.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Amendment No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The continued listing criteria provides for the delisting or
removal from listing of the Shares under any of the following
circumstances:
     Following the initial twelve month period from the date of
commencement of trading of the Shares: (i) If the Fund has more than 60
days remaining until termination and there are fewer than 50 record
and/or beneficial holders of the related Shares for 30 or more
consecutive trading days; (ii) if the Fund has fewer than 50,000 Shares
issued and outstanding; or (iii) if the market value of all Shares
issued and outstanding is less than $1,000,000;
     If the value of the underlying index or portfolio is no
longer calculated or available on at least a 15-second delayed basis
through one or more major market data vendors during the time the
Shares trade on the Exchange; \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In calculating the Indexes, if futures prices are not
available, the Index Sponsor will typically use the prior day's
futures prices. In exceptional cases (such as when a daily price
limit is reached on a futures exchange), the Index Sponsor may
employ a ``fair value'' price (i.e., the price for unwinding the
futures position by OTC dealers). The Exchange represents that if
the use of a prior day's price or ``fair value'' pricing for an
Index commodity or commodities is more than of a temporary nature,
the Exchange will submit a proposed rule change pursuant to Rule
19b-4 under the Act seeking Commission approval to continue to trade
the Shares of a Fund. Unless approved for continued trading, the
Exchange would commence delisting procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Indicative Fund Value is no longer made available on
at least a 15-second delayed basis during the time the Shares trade on
the Exchange;
     If a substitute index or other replacement benchmark is
used in connection with the Shares, unless the Exchange files with the
Commission a related proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under
the Act seeking approval to continue trading the Shares of such Fund
and such rule change is approved by the Commission; \20\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Amendment No. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If such other event shall occur or condition exists which
in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealings on the Exchange
inadvisable.
    For each Fund, a minimum of 200,000 Shares will be required to be
outstanding at the time of commencement of trading on the Exchange.\21\
The initial price of a Share is expected to be approximately $25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Amendment No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the anticipated minimum number of Shares
of each of the Funds outstanding at the start of trading is sufficient
to provide adequate market liquidity and to further the objectives of
the respective Funds.
    The Exchange represents that, for the initial and continued
listing, the Shares must be in compliance with Section 803 of the Amex
Company Guide and Rule 10A-3 under the Act.

Trading Rules

    The Exchange represents that the Shares are equity securities
subject to Amex Rules governing the trading of equity securities,
including, among others, rules governing priority, parity and
precedence of orders, specialist responsibilities, account opening, and
customer suitability (Amex Rule 411). Initial equity margin
requirements of 50% will apply to transactions in the Shares. Shares
will trade on the Amex from 9:30 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. ET each business
day and will trade in a minimum price variation of $0.01 pursuant to
Amex Rule 127.
    Importantly, specialist trading of the Shares will be subject to
Amex Rule 1202 regarding conflicts of interest and the maintenance of
books and records. Commentary .07(e) to Amex Rule 1202 prohibits the
specialist in the Shares from acting as or being affiliated with a
market maker in the Index commodities, related futures or options on
futures, or any other related derivatives, unless information barriers
are in place that satisfy the requirements of Amex Rule 193. Commentary
.07(g)(1) and (g)(2) to Amex Rule 1202 also ensures that specialists
handling the Shares provide the Exchange with all the necessary
information relating to their trading in physical assets or
commodities, related futures contracts and options thereon or any other
derivative. Commentary .07(g)(3) to Amex Rule 1202 also prohibits the
specialist in the Shares from using any material nonpublic

information received from any person associated with a member, member
organization or employee of such person regarding trading by such
person or employee in the Index commodities, related futures or options
on futures, or any other related derivatives.
    Also, pursuant to Commentary .07(f) to Amex Rule 1202, the Shares
will generally be subject to the Exchange's stabilization rule, Amex
Rule 170, except that specialists may buy on ``plus ticks'' and sell on
``minus ticks,'' in order to bring the Shares into parity with the
underlying commodity or commodities and/or futures contract price.
Pursuant to Commentary .05 to Amex Rule 190, specialist transactions of
the Shares made in connection with the creation and redemption of
Shares will not be subject to the prohibitions of Amex Rule 190. The
Shares will not be subject to the short sale rule pursuant to no-action
relief granted in petition to Rule 10a-1 under the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See letter to George T. Simon, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP,
from Racquel L. Russell, Branch Chief, Office of Trading Practices
and Processing, Division of Market Regulation, (``Division''),
Commission, dated July 21, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Halts

    Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will issue an
Information Circular (described below) to members informing them of,
among other things, Exchange policies regarding trading halts in the
Shares. First, the circular will advise that trading will be halted in
the event the market volatility trading halt parameters set forth in
Amex Rule 117 have been reached. Second, the circular will advise that,
in addition to the parameters set forth in Amex Rule 117, the Exchange
will halt trading in any of the Shares if trading in the underlying
related futures contract(s) is halted or suspended. Third, with respect
to a halt in trading that is not specified above, the Exchange may also
consider other relevant factors and the existence of unusual conditions
or circumstances that may be detrimental to the maintenance of a fair
and orderly market.
    The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares of a Fund if (a) the
NAV per share is not disseminated to all market participants at the
same time, (b) trading in the underlying related futures contract(s) is
halted or suspended, (c) the value of the underlying Index is no longer
calculated or available on at least a fifteen (15) second basis through
one or more major market data vendors during the time the Shares trade
on the Amex, or (d) if the Indicative Fund Value per Share updated
every fifteen (15) seconds is no longer calculated or available.
However, in the case of (c) or (d), above, where an Indicative Fund
Value or Index Value is no longer calculated or disseminated as
required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the
interruption occurs. If such interruption to the calculation and
dissemination of an Indicative Fund Value or Index Value persists past
the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no
later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption.

Information Circular

    The Amex will distribute an Information Circular to its members in
connection with the trading of the Shares. Specifically, the Circular,
among other things, will discuss what the Shares are, special
characteristics and risks of trading this type of security, the
requirement that members and member firms deliver a prospectus to
investors purchasing the Shares prior to or concurrently with the
confirmation of a transaction, applicable Amex rules and trading hours,
and dissemination of pricing and other information pertinent to the
Shares. The Circular will explain that the Funds are subject to various
fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Circular
will also reference the fact that the CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction
over the trading of futures contracts.
    The Circular will also notify members and member organizations
about the procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in
Baskets, and that Shares are not individually redeemable but are
redeemable only in one or more Baskets. The Circular will advise
members of their suitability obligations with respect to recommended
transactions to customers in the Shares. The Circular will also discuss
any relief, if granted, by the Commission or the staff from any rules
under the Act.

Surveillance

    The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures are
adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares and to deter and
detect violations of Exchange rules. Specifically, the Exchange will
rely on its existing surveillance procedures applicable to TIRs,
Portfolio Depository Receipts and Index Fund Shares, which have been
deemed adequate under the Act. The Exchange currently has in place an
Comprehensive Surveillance Sharing Agreement ICE Futures, LME, and
NYMEX, for the purpose of providing information in connection with
trading in or related to futures contracts traded on their respective
exchanges comprising the Indexes. The Exchange also notes that the CBOT
and NYBOT are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'').

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendments No. 3
and 4 to the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments
may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
 or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Amex-2006-76 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 No. SR-Amex-2006-76. 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 Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
 Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the Amendments No. 3 and 4 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 Amex. 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 No. SR-Amex-2006-76 and should be
submitted on or before January 29, 2007.

IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder, applicable to a national securities
exchange.\23\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\24\ which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's
rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
facilitate transactions in securities, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Surveillance

    The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that its
surveillance procedures for the Shares are adequate to monitor the
trading of the Shares. The Exchange's Comprehensive Surveillance
Sharing Agreement with the ICE Futures, LME, and NYMEX, for the purpose
of providing information in connection with trading in or related to
futures contracts traded on their respective exchanges comprising the
Indexes and membership in the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'')
creates the basis for the Amex to monitor fraudulent and manipulative
practices in the trading of the Shares.
    In addition, the Exchange represents that, in the event that a
successor or substitute index is used by the Managing Owner, or the
Index Sponsor substantially changes either the Index component
selection methodology or the weighting methodology, Amex will file with
the Commission a proposed rule change, which addresses, among other
things, applicable surveillance procedures, and unless approved by the
Commission, the Exchange will commence delisting of the Shares.
    Moreover, Amex Rule 1202 should facilitate surveillance of trading
of the Shares because it requires Exchange specialists, upon Amex's
request, to provide the Exchange with information that the specialist
uses in connection with pricing and trading the Shares. In particular,
Commentaries .07(g)(1) and (g)(2) to Amex Rule 1202 require that the
specialist handling the Shares provide the Exchange with information
relating to its trading in the Shares and the accounts of the member
organization acting as specialist, member organization, or approved
person of such member organization in the Index components, related
futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives.

B. Dissemination of Information

    The Commission believes that sufficient venues exist for obtaining
reliable information so that investors in the Shares should be able to
monitor the underlying Indexes relative to the Indicative Values of
their Shares.
    Real-time information is available about the trading of relevant
futures contracts through major market data vendors by subscription.
Delayed information is often publicly available from futures exchanges.
The Exchange stated that the daily settlement prices for the futures
contracts held by each of the Master Funds are publicly available on
the Web sites of the futures exchanges trading those contracts.
    The Exchange has represented that the Index Sponsor, Deutsche Bank
AG London, will calculate and publish the value of the Indexes at least
every 15 seconds during Amex trading hours to Bloomberg, Reuters, and
the Index Sponsor's Internet Web site, http://index.db.com. While the

Index is calculated and disseminated by the Index Sponsor, an affiliate
of a registered broker-dealer, the Commission notes that a number of
independent sources may verify both the intraday and closing Index
values.
    Additionally, the Exchange has represented that it will calculate
and publish to the CTA the Indicative Fund Values for the Shares, at
least every 15 seconds during the time that the Shares trade on the
Amex. The Commission believes that dissemination of the Indicative Fund
Values provides additional information that is not otherwise available
to the public and is useful to professionals and investors in
connection with the Shares trading on the Exchange or the creation or
redemption of the Shares. The Commission believes that publication of
such information should promote transparency with regard to the Shares.
    The Commission further notes that the NAV of each Fund will be
calculated and disseminated daily on a per share basis and made
available to all market participants at the same time. If not, the
Exchange has represented that it will halt trading of the relevant
series of Shares. Likewise, if trading in a futures contract included
in an Index is halted or suspended, the Exchange will halt trading of
the relevant series of Shares. If an Indicative Fund Value or Index
Value is not disseminated as described in its proposal, the Exchange
may halt trading of the relevant series of Shares during the day in
which the interruption occurs. If such interruption to the calculation
and dissemination of an Indicative Fund Value or Index Value persists
past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt
trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the
interruption.
    The Commission believes that these trading halt rules, together
with the NAV dissemination requirements and the Exchange's delisting
criteria, will help ensure that an appropriate level of transparency
exists with respect to the proposed Shares to allow for the maintenance
of fair and orderly markets.

C. Listing and Trading

    The Commission finds that the Exchange's proposed rules and
procedures for the listing and trading of the proposed Shares are
consistent with the Act. Shares will trade as equity securities subject
to Amex rules including, among others, rules governing priority, parity
and precedence of orders, specialist responsibilities and prohibitions,
account opening, and customer suitability requirements.\25\ Notably,
the Commission believes that the listing and delisting criteria for the
Shares should provide a minimum level of liquidity and, therefore,
minimize the potential for manipulation of the Shares. The Commission
further believes that Commentary .07 to Amex Rule 1202 is reasonably
designed to address potential conflicts of interest in connection with
specialist trading of the Shares and help ensure that the Exchange has
the information it needs with regard to transactions in the Shares.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Commission notes that these Funds are substantially
similar to other Funds recently approved by the Commission, the
share of which shares are trading pursuant to this Commentary .07 to
Amex Rule 1202. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53105
(January 11, 2006), 71 FR 3129 (January 19, 2006) (SR-Amex-2005-059)
(DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund); 54450 (September 14, 2006), 71
FR 55230 (September 21, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-44) (PowerShares DB G10
Harvest Fund (formerly the DB Currency Index Value Fund).
    \26\ See Commentaries .07(e), 07(g)(3), and .07(g)(1)-(2) to
Amex Rule 1202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Information Circular the Exchange
will distribute will inform members and member organizations about the
terms, characteristics and risks in trading the Shares, including their
prospectus delivery obligations.

D. Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendments No. 3 and 4 Thereto

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change
as modified by Amendments No. 3 and 4 prior to the 30th day after the
amendment is published for comment in the Federal Register. Amendments
No. 3 and 4 makes clarifying changes to the description of the proposed
rule change. The Commission believes that, as a whole, Amendments No. 3
and 4 strengthen the proposed rule change and do not raise any new
regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause,
consistent with section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\27\ to approve the
proposal, as amended, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\28\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2006-76), as modified
by Amendments No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 be, and it hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-16 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64172-64173]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25190]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30925; Amdt. No. 3560]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective October 28, 2013. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and
(3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 11, 2013.
John Duncan
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 14 NOVEMBER 2013

Indianapolis, IN, Indianapolis Executive, VOR/DME RWY 36, Amdt 9A
Cape Girardeau, MO, Cape Girardeau Rgnl, VOR RWY 10, AMDT 3A
Fayetteville, NC, Fayetteville Rgnl/Grannis Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4,
Amdt 3
Fayetteville, NC, Fayetteville Rgnl/Grannis Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22,
Amdt 5

Effective 12 DECEMBER 2013

Red Bluff, CA, Red Bluff Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1
Red Bluff, CA, Red Bluff Muni, VOR/DME RWY 15, Amdt 8
Savanna, IL, Tri-Township, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig-A
Rocky Mount, NC, Rocky Mount-Wilson Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 2
Rocky Mount, NC, Rocky Mount-Wilson Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 2
Fremont, NE., Fremont Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 2
Fremont, NE., Fremont Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig
Fremont, NE., Fremont Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6A
Fremont, NE., Fremont Muni, VOR/DME RWY 14, Amdt 3
Norwich, NY, Lt Warren Eaton, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 4, CANCELED
Oneonta, NY, Oneonta Muni, LOC RWY 24, Amdt 2B
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10R, ILS RWY 10R (SA
CAT I), ILS RWY 10R (SA CAT II), Amdt 9A
Memphis, TN, Memphis Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 4
Memphis, TN, Memphis Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 2
Memphis, TN, Memphis Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Coleman, TX, Coleman Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig
[FR Doc. 2013-25190 Filed 10-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 44267]
[DOCID:fr28jy10-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0495]

Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Medical Devices; Neurological and Physical Medicine Device
Guidance Document; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reopening until
September 7, 2010, the comment period for the notice that appeared in
the Federal Register of April 5, 2010 (75 FR 17143). In the notice, FDA
requested comments on draft guidance documents for 11 neurological and
physical medicine devices. FDA is reopening the comment period to allow
further comment and to receive any new information.

DATES:  Submit either electronic or written comments by September 7,
2010.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Robert J. DeLuca, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. G214, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>301-796-6630.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of April 5, 2010 (75 FR 17093), FDA
published a notice announcing the availability of draft special
controls guidance documents for 11 neurological and physical medicine
devices. Interested persons were originally given until July 6, 2010,
to comment on the draft guidance documents. The agency expressed
specific interest in comments on the types of claims appropriate for
devices included within the 11 classifications and, for devices that
remain subject to premarket review, the data sponsors should submit to
support those claims.

II. Request for Comments

    Following publication of the April 5, 2010, notice, FDA received
requests to allow interested persons additional time to comment. The
requests asserted that the 90-day time period was insufficient to
respond fully to FDA's specific requests for comments and to allow
potential respondents to thoroughly evaluate and address pertinent
issues. The agency has considered the requests and is reopening the
comment period until September 7, 2010. The agency believes the
additional comment period allows adequate time for interested persons
to submit comments without significantly delaying rulemaking on these
important issues.

III. How to Submit Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: July 22, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-18406 Filed 7-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 67538]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26876]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-113]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

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

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before December 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0825 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20951.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2014.
James M. Crotty,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0825.
    Petitioner: Danis Building Construction Company.
    Section of 14 CFR: Part 21 Subpart H, 45.23, 45.29, 91.9, 91.119,
91.121, 91.151, 91.203(a) and (b), 91.401, 91.403, 91.405, 91.407,
91.409, 91.411, 91.413, 91.415, and 91.417.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner, a general contractor,
is seeking an exemption to commercially operate their small unmanned
aircraft systems (sUAS), weighing 4.4 pounds or less, on their own
sites in order to improve employee safety and ensure quality assurance
for the structures they are creating.

[FR Doc. 2014-26876 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P