[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59791-59793]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 766

[Docket No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]
RIN 0694-AJ36

Revisions of Temporary Denial Order Provisions To Allow for
Extended Renewals in Certain Circumstances

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to create an
additional option for the renewal of temporary denial orders (TDOs) by
allowing BIS, under certain circumstances, to request that the
Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement renew an existing TDO for a
period of no more than one year, rather than the current renewal period
of no more than 180 days. This final rule also makes some conforming
changes to remove references to the ``EAA,'' the Export Administration
Act (EAA), and add in their place references to ``ECRA,'' the Export
Control Reform Act (ECRA), to reflect the EAR's current statutory
authority.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 29, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Sonderman, Director, Office of
Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security, Phone: (202) 482-
5079, Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A. Amendment of Temporary Denial Order Provisions To Allow for Extended
Renewals in Certain Circumstances

    This final rule amends Sec.  766.24 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730
through 774) by adding an additional sentence after the first sentence
of paragraph (d)(1). Specifically, this final rule creates an
additional option for the renewal of temporary denial orders (TDOs) by
allowing BIS, under certain circumstances, to request that the
Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement renew an existing TDO for a
period of no more than one year, rather than the current renewal period
of no more than 180 days.
    This final rule does not change the current language set forth in
the first sentence of paragraph (d)(1), which allows BIS to request the
renewal of a TDO for a period of 180 days by demonstrating that such a
renewal is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent
violation of the EAR. Rather, this final rule allows BIS to request the
renewal of a TDO for an extended period by demonstrating that a party
that is subject to an existing TDO has engaged in a pattern of
repeated, ongoing and/or continuous apparent violations of the EAR.
    Under the current standard set forth in Sec.  766.24(d)(1), a
``violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of likelihood''
(15 CFR 766.24(b)(3)), and BIS may show ``either that a violation is
about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the matter under
investigation or case under criminal or administrative charges
demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.'' Id. As to the
likelihood of future violations, BIS may show that the violation under
investigation or charge ``is significant, deliberate, covert and/or
likely to occur

again, rather than technical or negligent[.]'' Id. A ``lack of
information establishing the precise time a violation may occur does
not preclude a finding that a violation is imminent, so long as there
is sufficient reason to believe the likelihood of a violation.'' Id.
    By contrast, this new standard requires BIS to show that since the
issuance of a TDO, the respondent has engaged in a pattern of repeated,
ongoing and/or continuous apparent violations of the EAR, including the
terms of the TDO, and that renewal of the TDO for an extended period is
appropriate to address such continued apparent violations. Such a
showing should demonstrate not just the likelihood of future imminent
violations of the EAR but should include specific facts demonstrating
past apparent violations of the EAR.
    An extended renewal is appropriate, for instance, in cases where a
respondent has acted in apparent blatant disregard of the EAR, where a
respondent has attempted to circumvent or has otherwise appeared to
violate the restrictions of a TDO or the EAR, or has otherwise acted in
a manner demonstrating a pattern of apparent noncompliance with the
requirements of the EAR.
    This final rule also makes conforming changes to paragraphs (a),
(b)(1) and (e)(5) of Sec.  766.24 to remove references to the `EAA' and
add in their place references to `ECRA' to reflect the EAR's current
statutory authority.

B. Importance of TDOs To Address Entities That Have Engaged in a
Pattern of Repeated, Ongoing, and/or Continuous Apparent Violations of
the Russia- or Iran-Related Restrictions

    Since the imposition of sanctions on Russia in response to its
further invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and the imposition of
similar sanctions on Belarus for its substantial enablement of Russia's
invasion, BIS has imposed a number of TDOs on entities that have
engaged in a pattern of repeated, ongoing, and/or continuous apparent
violations of these Russia-related restrictions, most notably on a
number of Russian and Belarusian airlines. Beginning with the issuance
of a TDO against PJSC Aeroflot (``Aeroflot'') on April 7, 2022 (87 FR
21611, Apr. 12, 2022), which was subsequently renewed on October 3,
2022 (87 FR 60985, Oct. 7, 2022) and on March 29, 2023 (88 FR 19609,
Apr. 3, 2023), BIS has issued a number of TDOs targeting Russian and
Belarusian airlines that have repeatedly and deliberately continued to
operate international and/or domestic flights involving aircraft
subject to the EAR in apparent violation of the EAR and the applicable
TDOs.
    Similarly, on March 17, 2008, BIS imposed a TDO (73 FR 15130) which
has been repeatedly renewed, most recently on May 5, 2023 (88 FR 30078,
May 10, 2023), against Mahan Airways in connection with its numerous
ongoing apparent violations of the EAR. The most recent renewal of this
TDO stated that according to publicly available information, Aeroflot
has begun sending its aircraft to Mahan Airways for repairs and/or
maintenance. Id. at 30085.
    Cases such as these, which involve an existing TDO combined with a
pattern of repeated, ongoing, and/or continuous conduct that appears to
violate a TDO or the EAR, leading to the need to repeatedly renew the
applicable TDOs, are emblematic of the type of conduct which this
extended renewal option is intended to address.
    Such extended renewals will serve as an enhanced deterrent for such
actors who are engaging in such apparent violative conduct and others
who may be inclined to engage in behavior to facilitate such
activities. Moreover, such extended renewals will provide enhanced
notice to companies and individuals in the United States and abroad
that they should avoid dealing with such actors of concern in
connection with export, reexport, and transfer (in-country)
transactions involving items subject to the EAR and in connection with
any other activity subject to the EAR, e.g., the provision of services
in connection with an aircraft subject to the EAR that is operated by a
denied person, or with respect to an aircraft that has been exported in
violation of the EAR (see 15 CFR 736.2(b)(10)). BIS maintains a non-
exhaustive list of aircraft that have potentially been exported to
Russia or Belarus in violation of the EAR, including aircraft operated
by certain denied persons, which can be found on the BIS website:
https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/country-guidance/russia-belarus.
    In the event that the Assistant Secretary determines that a request
for renewal of a TDO does not satisfy this new standard for an extended
renewal as described above under section A, it may nonetheless be
extended for a period not exceeding 180 days, provided that BIS has
demonstrated that such renewal is necessary in the public interest to
prevent an imminent violation.

Export Control Reform Act of 2018

    On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S.
McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which
included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-
4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities
and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless
that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves an
information collection approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088,
Simplified Network Application Processing System. BIS does not
anticipate a change to the burden hours associated with this collection
as a result of this rule. Information regarding the collection,
including all supporting materials, can be accessed at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of
2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity
for public participation, and delay in effective date.
    5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C.
553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none
has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 766

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Exports, Law enforcement, Penalties.

    Accordingly, part 766 of the Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR

parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:

PART 766--ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 766 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p.
783.

0
2. Section 766.24 is amended by revising the third sentence of
paragraph (a), paragraphs (b)(1), (d)(1), and the last sentence of
paragraph (e)(5), to read as follows:

Sec.  766.24   Temporary denials.

    (a) * * * Without limiting any other action BIS may take under the
EAR with respect to any application, order, license or authorization
issued under ECRA, BIS may ask the Assistant Secretary to issue a
temporary denial order on an ex parte basis to prevent an imminent
violation, as defined in this section, of the ECRA, the EAR, or any
order, license or authorization issued thereunder. * * *
    (b) * * * (1) The Assistant Secretary may issue an order
temporarily denying to a person any or all of the export privileges
described in part 764 of the EAR upon a showing by BIS that the order
is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of
ECRA, the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued
thereunder.
* * * * *
    (d) * * * (1) If, no later than 20 days before the expiration date
of a temporary denial order, BIS believes that renewal of the denial
order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent
violation, BIS may file a written request setting forth the basis for
its belief, including any additional or changed circumstances, asking
that the Assistant Secretary renew the temporary denial order, with
modifications, if any are appropriate, for an additional period not
exceeding 180 days. In cases demonstrating a pattern of repeated,
ongoing and/or continuous apparent violations, BIS may request the
renewal of a temporary denial order for an additional period not
exceeding one year. BIS's request shall be delivered to the respondent,
or any agent designated for this purpose, in accordance with Sec.
766.5(b) of this part unless exceptional circumstances exist, which
will constitute notice of the renewal application.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) * * * The issuance or renewal of the temporary denial order
shall be affirmed only if there is reason to believe that the temporary
denial order is required in the public interest to prevent an imminent
violation of ECRA, the EAR, or any order, license or other
authorization issued under ECRA.
* * * * *

Thea D. Rozman Kendler,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-18772 Filed 8-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77470-77471]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12721-006-MA]

Pepperell Hydro Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original license
for the Pepperell Hydroelectric Project, located on the Nashua River,
in the towns of Pepperell and Groton, Middlesex County, Massachusetts,
and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA).
    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental
effects of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of
new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects.
For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    Comments on the EA should be filed within 30 days from the date of
this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic filing, please send
a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-12721-006.
    For further information, contact Brandon Cherry at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29708 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3736-3737]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01066]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-053]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed January 9, 2023 10 a.m. EST Through January 13, 2023 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20230005, Draft, BLM, ND, North Dakota Resource Management Plan
Revision, Comment Period Ends: 04/20/2023, Contact: Kristine Braun 701-
227-7725.
EIS No. 20230006, Draft, BLM, ID, Lava Ridge Wind Project, Comment
Period Ends: 03/21/2023, Contact: Kasey Prestwich<PHONE_NUMBER>.

EIS No. 20230007, Draft, TxDOT, TX, US 380 McKinney, Comment Period
Ends: 03/21/2023, Contact: Doug Booher<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20230008, Final, FERC, IL, Three Rivers Interconnection
Project, Review Period Ends: 02/21/2023, Contact: Office of External
Affairs<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notice

EIS No. 20220183, Draft, USACE, CA, Delta Conveyance Project, Comment
Period Ends: 03/16/2023, Contact: Zachary Simmons<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Revision to FR Notice Published 12/16/2022; Extending the Comment
Period from 02/14/2023 to 03/16/2023.

    Dated: January 13, 2023.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2023-01066 Filed 1-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31457-31459]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0231; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-003-AD;
Amendment 39-16706; AD 2011-11-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model
DA 42 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    Cracks have been reportedly found on DA 42 Main Landing Gear
(MLG) Damper-to-Trailing Arm joints during standard maintenance.
Depending on environmental-, operating- and runway conditions, the
affected MLG joint, Part Number (P/N) D60-3217-23-5x (4 different
lengths are available), which is made of aluminum, is susceptible to
cracking.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to
failure of the joint and subsequent damage or malfunction of the
MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane during landing
and injury to occupants.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 6, 2011.
    On July 6, 2011, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700 Wiener
Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.diamond-air.at. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2011 (76
FR 14346). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Cracks have been reportedly found on DA 42 Main Landing Gear
(MLG) Damper-to-Trailing Arm joints during standard maintenance.
Depending on environmental-, operating- and runway conditions, the
affected MLG joint, Part Number (P/N) D60-3217-23-5x (4 different
lengths are available), which is made of aluminum, is susceptible to
cracking.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to
failure of the joint and subsequent damage or malfunction of the
MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane during landing
and injury to occupants.
    To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2010-0155 to
require repetitive inspections of the MLG joint and, depending on
findings, replacement with a serviceable part. Since that AD was
issued, DAI developed an improved design MLG joint, P/N D64-3217-23-
0x (also 4 different lengths available), which is made of steel and
less susceptible to cracking.
    For the reasons described above, this new AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2010-0155R1, which is superseded, and adds
the terminating action requirement to modify the aeroplane by
installing the improved steel part. This new AD also prohibits re-
installation of the aluminum part.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Any such differences are highlighted in a note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 162 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $729 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $131,868, or $814 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (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) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2011-11-07 Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Amendment 39-16706;
Docket No. FAA-2011-0231; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-003-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 6,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA
42 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Cracks have been reportedly found on DA 42 Main Landing Gear
(MLG) Damper-to-Trailing Arm joints during standard maintenance.
Depending on environmental-, operating- and runway conditions, the
affected MLG joint, Part Number (P/N) D60-3217-23-5x (4 different
lengths are available), which is made of aluminum, is susceptible to
cracking.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to
failure of the joint and subsequent damage or malfunction of the
MLG, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane during landing
and injury to occupants.
    To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2010-0155 to
require repetitive inspections of the MLG joint and, depending on
findings, replacement with a serviceable part. Since that AD was
issued, DAI developed an improved design MLG joint, P/N D64-3217-23-
0x (also 4 different lengths available), which is made of steel and
less susceptible to cracking.
    For the reasons described above, this new AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2010-0155R1, which is superseded, and adds
the terminating action requirement to modify the aeroplane by
installing the improved steel part. This new AD also prohibits re-
installation of the aluminum part.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions following
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB
42-088/2, dated February 3, 2011; and Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-
088, dated February 3, 2011:
    (1) For airplanes installed with main landing gear (MLG) joint
P/N D60-3217-23-5x: Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD, replace each MLG joint P/N D60-3217-23-5x
with a MLG joint P/N D64-3217-23-0x.
    (2) For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, do
not install MLG joint P/N D60-3217-23-5x.

FAA AD Differences

    Note:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: EASA originally established an initial and repetitive
inspection of the MLG joint part. We are not establishing an initial
or repetitive inspection, and instead we are just requiring a
mandatory one-time replacement of the part within 100 hours TIS
after the effective date of this AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor

shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2011-0020, dated February 7,
2011; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin
No. MSB 42-088/2, dated February 3, 2011; and Work Instruction WI-
MSB 42-088, dated February 3, 2011, for related information. For
service information related to this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt,
Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.diamond-air.at. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory
Service Bulletin No. MSB 42-088/2, dated February 3, 2011; and Work
Instruction WI-MSB 42-088, dated February 3, 2011, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700
Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622
26780; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.diamond-air.at.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 18, 2011.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-12898 Filed 5-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 54862-54864]
[DOCID:fr19se06-74]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54427; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Definition of Crowd and To Clarify the Requirements of
Exchange Rule 70.20(f)

September 12, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 1, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposed rule change as a ``non-controversial'' rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 70.30, which sets
forth the definition of Crowd, and to clarify the requirements of
Exchange Rule 70.20(f). The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the NYSE's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the NYSE's

Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange's Hybrid Market\SM\ integrates the auction market with
automated trading. Essential to the auction market is the interaction
among members on the Floor and between Floor brokers and orders in the
Display Book[supreg] System, that creates opportunities for price
improvement, provides information about changing market conditions, and
serves as a catalyst to trading.\5\ Exchange Rule 70.30 defines a Crowd
as ``* * * five contiguous panels at any one post where securities are
traded.'' \6\ Exchange Rule 70.30 further requires that Floor brokers
be in the Crowd in order to represent orders that the Floor broker has
in his

or her agency interest files (i.e., in order to ``e-Quote''). Pursuant
to Exchange Rule 70.30, a Floor broker may only have agency interest
files or e-Quote in one Crowd at a time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22,
2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006).
    \6\ Telephone conversation between Deanna Logan, Director,
Office of the General Counsel, NYSE, and Cyndi Rodriguez, Special
Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on September 7,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Exchange continues its implementation of the Hybrid
Market\SM\ it has gained experience operating in the Hybrid Market\SM\
environment. Based on this experience, the Exchange seeks to amend the
definition of Crowd in order to better facilitate the critical
interaction among members on the Floor.
    In practice, the five contiguous panel definition has proven too
rigid a concept. The Exchange Floor is made up of five trading rooms.
Trading rooms have large, in some instances rounded, posts that each
contain distinct panels at which designated securities are traded. The
post configuration on the Floor is such that, in certain instances,
individuals standing at two separate posts are closer to each other
than individuals standing at the first and fifth contiguous panels of
the same post. For example, a Floor broker standing in the Crowd at
Post 1 Panel B is easily able to see and hear the members located at
Post 2 Panel L because they are located directly across from each
other. In contrast, a Floor broker at Post 1 Panel B cannot easily see
or hear the members located at Post 1 Panel G, which is exactly five
contiguous panels away. Specifically, Panel B is on the opposite side
of Post 1 from Panel G and thus the Floor broker must walk partly
around Post 1 in order to effectively interact with the members at Post
1 Panel G. Nevertheless, under the current rule, the Floor broker
standing at Post 1 Panel B is considered part of the Crowd that
includes Post 1 Panel G. Further, pursuant to the current rule, in
order for the Floor broker at Post 1 Panel B to represent an order in a
security traded at Post 2 Panel L, the Floor broker would first have to
withdraw his or her agency interest or e-Quote from the Post 1 Panels
B-G Crowd.
    In this filing, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of
the Crowd in order to reflect more accurately the areas which most
efficiently facilitate the beneficial interaction among the members on
the Floor. The Exchange believes that the best way to facilitate this
interaction is to re-define the concept of Crowd from strictly
contiguous panels to encompass an area that enables members to more
efficiently conduct business. Essentially, this is the area in which
members can see and hear the business conducted at a group of panels.
These panels may be at one or more posts. To accomplish this, the
Exchange proposes to divide each trading room of the Floor into
specific areas, which will be identified on the Floor in a recognizable
way. Each area will serve to delineate the boundaries of the Crowd. The
Crowds will be created in such a way that when a Floor broker is
standing in a Crowd, the Floor broker generally will be able to see and
hear the business conducted at each post/panel within that Crowd.
Similarly, the specialists in panels included in a Crowd will be able
to see and hear the Floor brokers who are representing agency interests
or e-Quotes in that Crowd. In addition to physically identifying each
Crowd on the Floor in a unique manner, the Exchange will disseminate to
its members a notice identifying the specific post(s) and panels
comprising each Crowd.
    As is the case today, once in a Crowd, a Floor broker is able to e-
Quote in all securities located in that Crowd. If the Floor broker
leaves one Crowd in order to work in another, the Floor broker is
required to withdraw his or her agency interest from the Crowd he or
she is leaving. However, a Floor broker may obtain ``market looks'' in
a securities located in other Crowds without canceling his or her e-
Quotes. In this filing, the Exchange further seeks to amend Rule
70.20(f) to reflect this concept.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act in general,\7\ and furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in particular,\8\ in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\11\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange provided the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change. In addition, the Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay to allow the Exchange to
implement the proposed rule change and avoid any undue confusion. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change merely seeks to reflect
more accurately the areas which most efficiently facilitate the
beneficial interaction among the trading professionals on the Floor of
the Exchange. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because it would allow the Exchange to immediately implement
the revised definition of Crowd without undue delay and clarify in
Exchange Rule 70.20(f) a Floor broker's ability to obtain ``market
look'' information while in a Crowd. For this reason, the Commission
designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with
the Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such proposed rule change
if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-NYSE-2006-58 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-58. 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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the NYSE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2006-58 and should be submitted on or before
October 10, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15499 Filed 9-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:                  7/29/15

FROM:                Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO:                      Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:            Presentation on the Proposed Clean Power Plan at ABA SEER Conference in Atlanta on March 3, 2015

SUMMARY:         REGION 4 PROVIDED INFORMATION ON THE CLEAN POWER PLAN TO PARTICIPANTS AT THE ABA SEER Conference in Atlanta, GA, on March 3, 2015.  The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.   ATTENDEES:

EPA Keri Powell/R4 Approximately 30 additional Region 4 staff

External Stakeholders Approximately 70 attendees, including representatives from regulated companies, private law firms, state and local governments, universities, and nongovernmental organizations.

ATTACHMENT