the percent control efficiency of the scenario being evaluated). For example, if the 24 hr percontrol emission rate is 100 lb/ hr of SO2, then the post control rate is 5 lb/ hr if the control efficiency is 95 percent. Calculate 24 hr values,

using the actual 24 hour emission rate, from the worst day of the meteorological period modeled ( for the pre control scenario), for each receptor as the change in deciviews compared against natural visibility conditions( the natural visibility background average of the 20 percent 105 best days). Post control emission rates are precontrol emission rates x ( 1  the percent control efficiency of the scenario being evaluated).

! Make the net visibility improvement determination Assess the visibility improvement based on the modeled change in visibility impact for the precontrol and post control emission scenarios. You have flexibility to assess visibility improvements due to BART controls by one or more methods. It is important to make the determination by considering the frequency, magnitude, and duration components of impairment. When making the visibility improvement determination, both " average" and " peak" tests are crucial in making the assessment.

Suggestions for making the determination are:

° use of a comparison threshold, as is done for determining if BART eligible sources should be subject to a BART determination. Comparison thresholds can be used in a number of ways in evaluating visibility improvement ( e. g.

the number of days or hours that the threshold was exceeded, a single 106 threshold for determining whether a change in impacts is significant, a threshold representing an x percent change in improvement, etc.).

° Examine distributions of the hourly or daily impacts, compare the hourly values to thresholds, determine if the time of year is important ( e. g. high impacts are occurring during tourist season).

° Compare the worst case days for the preand post control runs.

° Use combinations of the above to assess expected improvement.

Note that each of the modeling options may be supplemented with source apportionment data or source apportionment modeling that is acceptable to the State and the EPA regional office.

E. How do I select the " best" alternative, using the results of Steps 1 through 5?

1. Summary of the Impacts Analysis From the alternatives you rankedevaluated in Step 3, we recommend you should develop a chart ( or charts) displaying for each of the ranked alternatives:

( 1) expected emission rate ( tons per year, pounds per hour); 107 ( 2) emissions performance level ( e. g., percent pollutant removed, emissions per unit product,

lb/ MMbtu, ppm);

( 3) expected emissions reductions ( tons per year);

( 4) costs of compliance  total annualized costs ($),

cost effectiveness ($/ ton), and incremental cost effectiveness ($/ ton);

( 5) energy impacts ( indicate any significant energy benefits or disadvantages);

( 6) non air quality environmental impacts ( includes any significant or unusual other media impacts,

e. g., water or solid waste), both positive and negative; and ( 7) modeled visibility impacts.

2. Selecting a " best" alternative 1. You have discretion to determine the order in which you should evaluate control options for BART. You should evaluate several different options, if available, including a complete evaluation of the most stringent option or options. You should select the most stringent alternative in the ranking that does not impose unreasonable costs of compliance, taking into account both average and incremental costs, and considering visibility effects and any energy and non air quality environmental impacts. 108 2. If you select an alternative that is not the most stringent alternative, then you need to document the rationale for this finding for the public record, noting which of the CAA factors ( cost of compliance, visibility impacts, energy and/ or non air quality environmental impacts) rendered this choice unacceptable.

3. Whatever the order in which you choose to evaluate options, you should always ( 1) display and rank all of the options in order of control effectiveness and to the options evaluated; ( 2) identify the average and incremental costs of each option; ( 3) consider the energy and non air quality environmental impacts of each option; and ( 4) consider the remaining useful life; and ( 5) consider the modeled visibility impacts. You should provide a justification for adopting the technology that you select as the " best" level of control, including an explanation of the CAA factors that led you to reject any other more stringent control levels.

2. In the case where you are conducting a BART determination for two regulated pollutants on the same source, if the result is two different BART technologies that do not work well together, you could then substitute a different technology or combination of technologies,

provided that they achieve at least the same emissions reductions for each pollutant. 109 3. In selecting a " best" alternative, should I consider the affordability of controls?

1. Even if the control technology is cost effective, there may be cases where the installation of controls would affect the viability of continued plant operations.

2. As a general matter, for plants with significant visibility impacts that are essentially uncontrolled at present, and emit at much greater levels per unit of production than other plants in the category, we are unlikely to accept as BART any analysis that preserves a source's uncontrolled status on the basis that the installation of controls would result in a shutdown of the facility. While this result could appear to impose a hardship on such facilities, we believe that the flexibility provided in the regional haze rule for an alternative reduction approach, such as an emissions trading program,

will minimize the likelihood of forced shutdowns.

2. Nonetheless, we recognize tThere may be unusual circumstances that justify taking into consideration the conditions of the plant and the economic effects of requiring the use of a given control technology. These effects would include effects on product prices, the market share, and profitability of the source. We do not intend,

for example, that the most stringent alternative must always 110 be selected, if that level would cause a plant to shut down,

while a slightly lesser degree of control would not have this effect. Where there are such unusual circumstances that are judged to have a severe effect on plant operations,

you may take into consideration the conditions of the plant and the economic effects of requiring the use of a control technology. Where these effects are judged to have a severe impact on plant operations you may consider them in the selection process, so long as you provide an economic analysis that demonstrates, in sufficient detail for a meaningful public review, the specific economic effects,

parameters, and reasoning. ( We recognize that this review process must preserve the confidentiality of sensitive business information). Any analysis should consider whether other competing plants in the same industry may also be required to install BART controls.

4. Sulfur dioxide limits for utility boilers You must require 750 MW power plants to meet specific control levels for SO2 of either 95 percent control or .15 lbs/ MMBtu, for each EGU greater than 200 MW that is currently uncontrolled, unless you determine that an alternative control level is clearly justified based on a careful consideration of the statutory factors. Thus, for example, if the source convincingly demonstrates unique 111 circumstances affecting its ability to cost effectively reduce its emissions, you should take that into account in determining whether the presumptive levels of control are appropriate for that facility. For a currently uncontrolled EGU greater than 200 MW in size, but located at a power plant smaller than 750 MW in size, such controls are generally cost effective and should be carefully considered in your BART analysis. While these levels may represent current control capabilities, we expect that scrubber technology will continue to improve and control costs continue to decline. You should be sure to consider the level of control that is currently best achievable at the time that you are conducting your BART analysis.

For coal fired EGUs with existing post combustion SO2 controls achieving less than 50 percent removal efficiencies, we recommend that you evaluate constructing a new FGD system to meet the same emission limits as above ( 95 percent removal or 0.15 lb/ mmBtu), in addition to the evaluation of scrubber upgrades discussed below. For oilfired units, regardless of size, you should evaluate limiting the sulfur content of the fuel oil burned to be 1 percent or less by weight.

For those BART eligible EGUs with pre existing postcombustion SO2 controls achieving removal efficiencies of at 112 least 50 percent, your emission limit should be the result,

in part, of an evaluation of cost effective scrubber upgrades designed to improve the system's overall SO2 removal efficiency. There are numerous scrubber enhancements available to upgrade the average removal efficiencies of all types of existing scrubber systems. We recommend that as you evaluate the definition of " upgrade," you evaluate options that not only improve the design removal efficiency of the scrubber vessel itself, but also consider upgrades that can improve the overall SO2 removal efficiency of the scrubber system. Increasing a scrubber system's reliability, and conversely decreasing its downtime, by way of optimizing operation procedures, improving maintenance practices, adjusting scrubber chemistry, and increasing auxiliary equipment redundancy, are all ways to improve average SO2 removal efficiencies.

We recommend that as you evaluate the performance of existing wet scrubber systems, you consider some of the following upgrades, in no particular order, as potential scrubber upgrades that have been proven in the industry as cost effective means to increase overall SO2 removal of wet systems:

( a) Elimination of Bypass Reheat;

( b) Installation of Liquid Distribution Rings; 113 ( c) Installation of Perforated Trays;

( d) Use of Organic Acid Additives;

( e) Improve or Upgrade Scrubber Auxiliary System Equipment;

( f) Redesign Spray Header or Nozzle Configuration.

We recommend that as you evaluate upgrade options for dry scrubber systems, you should consider the following cost effective upgrades, in no particular order:

( a) Use of Performance Additives;

( b) Use of more Reactive Sorbent;

( c) Increase the Pulverization Level of Sorbent;

( d) Engineering redesign of atomizer or slurry injection system.

You should evaluate scrubber upgrade options based on the 5 step BART analysis process.

5. Nitrogen oxide limits for utility boilers You should establish specific numerical limits for NOx control for each BART determination. For power plants with a generating capacity in excess of 750 MW currently using selective catalytic reduction ( SCR) or selective non catalytic reduction ( SNCR) for part of the year, you should presume that use of those same controls year round is BART. For other sources currently using SCR or SNCR to reduce NOx emissions during part of the year,

you should carefully consider requiring the use of these controls year round as the additional costs of operating the equipment 20 No Cell burners, dry turbo fired units, nor wet bottom tangential fired units burning lignite were identified as BART eligible, thus no presumptive limit was determined. Similarly, no wet bottom tangential fired units burning subbituminous were identified as BART eligible.

114 throughout the year would be relatively modest.

For coal fired EGUs greater than 200 MW located at greater than 750 MW power plants and operating without postcombustion controls ( i. e. SCR or SNCR), we have providedestablished presumptive NOx limits that you should establish, differentiated by boiler design and type of coal burned, unless you determine that an alternative control level is appropriate based on a careful consideration of the statutory factors. For coal fired EGUs greater than 200 MW located at power plants 750 MW or less in size and operating without post combustion controls, you should likewise presume that these same levels are cost effective. You must require such utility boilers to meet the following NOx emission limits, unless you determine that an alternative control level is clearly justified based on a careful consideration of the statutory factors:

Table 1: Presumptive NOx emission limits for BART eligible coalfired units. 20 21 These limits reflect the design and technological assumptions discussed in the technical support document for NOx limits for these guidelines. See Technical Support Document for BART NOx Limits for Electric Generating Units and Technical Support Document for BART NOx Limits for Electric Generating Units Excel Spreadsheet, Memorandum to Docket OAR 2002 0076, April 15, 2005.

115 Unit type Coal type NOx presumptive limit ( lb/ mmbtu) 21 Dry bottom wallfired Bituminous 0.39 Sub bituminous 0.23 Lignite 0.29 Tangential fired Bituminous 0.28 Sub bituminous 0.15 Lignite 0.17 Cell Burners Bituminous 0.40 Sub bituminous 0.45 Dry turbo fired Bituminous 0.32 Sub bituminous 0.23 Wet bottom tangential fired Bituminous 0.62 Most EGUs can meet these presumptive NOx limits through the use of current combustion control technology, i. e. the careful control of combustion air and low NOx burners. For units that cannot meet these limits using such technologies,

you should consider whether advanced combustion control technologies such as rotating opposed fire air should be used to meet these limits.

Because of the relatively high NOx emission rates of 22 See Technical Support Document for BART NOx Limits for Electric Generating Units and Technical Support Document for BART NOx Limits for Electric Generating Units Excel Spreadsheet, Memorandum to Docket OAR 2002 0076, April 15, 2005.

116 cyclone units, SCR is more cost effective than the use of current combustion control technology for these units. The use of SCRs at cyclone units burning bituminous coal,

subbituminous coal, and lignite should enable the units to cost effectively meet NOx rates of 0.10 lbs/ mmbtu. As a result, we are establishing a presumptive NOx limit of O. 10 lbs/ mmbtu based on the use of SCR for coal fired cyclone units greater than 200 MW located at 750 MW power plants.

As with the other presumptive limits established in this guideline, you may determine that an alternative level of control is appropriate based on your consideration of the relevant statutory factors. For other cyclone units, you should review the use of SCR and carefully consider whether these post combustion controls should be required as BART.

For oil fired and gas fired EGUs, we recommend that you carefully consider requiring these units to install current combustion control technology to control NOx. Many such units can make significant reductions in NOx emissions which are highly cost effective through the application of current combustion control technology. 22 117 V. ENFORCEABLE LIMITS/ COMPLIANCE DATE To complete the BART process, you must establish enforceable emission limits and require compliance within a given period of time. In particular, you must establish an enforceable emission limit for each subject emission unit at the source and for each pollutant subject to review that is emitted from the source. In addition, you must require compliance with the BART emission limitations no later than 5 years after EPA approves your regional haze SIP. If technological or economic limitations in the application of a measurement methodology to a particular emission unit would make an emissions limit infeasible, you may prescribe a design, equipment, work practice, operation standard,

or combination of these types of standards. You should consider allowing sources to " average" emissions across any set of BARTeligible emission units within a fenceline, so long as the emission reductions from each pollutant being controlled for BART would be equal to greater than those reductions that would be obtained by simply controlling each of the BART eligible units that constitute BART eligible source.

You should ensure that any BART requirements are written in a way that clearly specifies the individual emission unit( s)

subject to BART review. Because the BART requirements are " applicable" requirements of the CAA, they must be included as title V permit conditions according to the procedures established 118 in 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71.

Section 302( k) of the CAA requires emissions limits such as BART to be met on a continuous basis. Although this provision does not necessarily require the use of continuous emissions monitoring ( CEMs), it is important that sources employ techniques that ensure compliance on a continuous basis. Monitoring requirements generally applicable to sources, including those that are subject to BART, are governed by other regulations.

See, e. g., 40 CFR part 64 ( compliance assurance monitoring); 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3) ( periodic monitoring); 40 CFR 70.6( c)( 1)

( sufficiency monitoring). Note also that while we do not believe that CEMs would necessarily be required for all BART sources, the vast majority of electric generating units potentially subject to BART already employ CEM technology for other programs, such as the acid rain program. In addition, emissions limits must be enforceable as a practical matter ( contain appropriate averaging times, compliance verification procedures and recordkeeping requirements). In light of the above, the permit must:

! be sufficient to show compliance or noncompliance ( i. e., through monitoring times of operation, fuel input, or other indices of operating conditions and practices); and ! specify a reasonable averaging time consistent with established reference methods, contain reference 23 70 FR 9705, February 28, 2005.

119 methods for determining compliance, and provide for adequate reporting and recordkeeping so that air quality agency personnel can determine the compliance status of the source; and ! for EGUS, specify an averaging time of a 30 day rolling average, and contain a definition of " boiler operating day" that is consistent with the definition in the proposed revisions to the NSPS for utility boilers in 40 CFR Part 60, subpart Da. 23 You should consider a boiler operating day to be any 24 hour period between 12: 00 midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time at the steam generating unit. This would allow 30 day rolling average emission rates to be calculated consistently across sources.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 17, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15079-15082]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05290]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0136; Project Identifier MCAI-2019-00114-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Austro Engine GmbH Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2018-18-02, which applies to certain Austro Engine GmbH model E4
engines and to all Austro Engine E4P engines. AD 2018-18-02 requires
replacement of the timing chain and amending certain airplane flight
manuals (AFMs) to limit the use of windmill restarts only as an
emergency procedure. Since the FAA issued AD 2018-18-02, Austro Engine
GmbH revised the applicable Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS)
including the limitation required by AD 2018-18-02 for the timing chain
subjected to a windmill restart. This proposed AD would require
amendment of certain existing AFMs to limit the use of windmill
restarts and remove the timing chain replacement requirement that
exists in AD 2018-18-02. The timing chain replacement requirement in
accordance with new life limits defined in the revised ALS will be
proposed in a new and separate AD. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 1,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12 140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Austro Engine GmbH service information identified in this NPRM,
contact Austro Engine GmbH, Rudolf-Diesel-Strasse 11, A-2700 Weiner
Neustadt, Austria; phone: +43 2622 23000; fax: +43 2622 23000-2711;
website: www.austroengine.at. For Diamond Aircraft Industries service
information identified in this NPRM, contact Diamond Aircraft
Industries, N. A., Otto-Stra[beta]e 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, A2700,
Austria; phone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; website:
www.diamondaircraft.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0136; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI),
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mehdi Lamnyi, Aerospace Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone: 781-
238-7743; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0136;
Project Identifier MCAI-2019-00114-E''

at the beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites
comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will consider all comments received by
the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the
following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to Mehdi Lamnyi, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch,
FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. Any commentary that
the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2018-18-02, Amendment 39-19381 (83 FR 53802,
October 25, 2018), (``AD 2018-18-02''), for certain Austro Engine GmbH
model E4 engines and for all Austro Engine E4P engines. AD 2018-18-02
requires replacement of the timing chain and amending certain AFMs to
limit the use of windmill restarts. AD 2018-18-02 resulted from reports
of considerable wear of the timing chain on these engines. The FAA
issued AD 2018-18-02 to prevent failure of the engine timing chain.

Actions Since AD 2018-18-02 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2018-18-02, the European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0103R1, dated
February 25, 2019 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to address
the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:

    Considerable wear of the timing chain has been detected on some
engines. This may have been caused by windmilling restarts, which
are known to cause high stress to the timing chain. This condition,
if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the timing
chain and consequent engine power loss, possibly resulting in
reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, AE included
instructions in the engine maintenance manual to periodically
inspect the condition of the timing chain and, depending on
findings, to replace the timing chain and the chain wheel. The
operation manual was updated to allow windmilling restart only as an
emergency procedure. AE also published Mandatory Service Bulletin
(MSB) MSB-E4-017/2, providing instructions to replace the timing
chain for engines with known windmilling restarts, and EASA issued
AD 2017-0103, requiring replacement of the timing chain for engines
with known windmilling restarts, and amendment of the applicable
Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM). Since that [EASA] AD was issued, AE
revised the applicable Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS)
including, among others, the limitation required by that AD.
Consequently, EASA published AD 2019-0041, requiring accomplishment
of the actions specified in the ALS.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD is revised
accordingly, removing the requirement of timing chain replacement.
This action remain required through EASA AD 2019-0041.

    This proposed AD, which supersedes AD 2018-18-02, retains the AFM
amendment requirements and removes the timing chain replacement
requirement. The timing chain replacement requirement in accordance
with new life limits defined in the revised ALS will be mandated by a
proposed new and separate AD.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0136.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Diamond Aircraft (DA) Temporary Revision (TR) TR-
M[Auml]M-42-973, dated August 12, 2016, for the Diamond Aircraft
Industries (DAI) model DA 42 NG Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) and DA TR
TR-M[Auml]M-62-240, dated August 12, 2016, for the DAI model DA 62 NG
AFM. These TRs define the removal of the normal operation procedure for
windmilling restart for the respective airplanes. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this AD because it evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2018-18-
02. This proposed AD would retain the requirement for amending certain
AFMs to limit the use of windmill restarts to emergency procedures and
would remove the requirement for replacing the timing chain.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 211 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend AFM...........................  1 work-hour x $85 per                $0              $85          $17,935
                                       hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2018-18-02, Amendment 39-19381 (83 FR 53802, October 25, 2018), and
adding the following new AD:

Austro Engine GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2020-0136; Project Identifier
MCAI-2019-00114-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by May 1, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2018-18-02, Amendment 39-19381 (83 FR 53802,
October 25, 2018).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Austro Engine GmbH model E4 engines with
serial numbers that have a ``-B'' or ``-C'' configuration and to
model E4P engines, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 8520, Reciprocating
Engine Power Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of considerable wear of the
timing chain on the affected engines. The FAA is issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the engine timing chain. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in failure of the engine timing chain,
loss of engine thrust control, and reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, under
the Emergency Procedures chapter, amend the applicable airplane
flight manual (AFM) by adding the information in Figure 1 to
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to limit the use of a windmilling
restart to only an emergency procedure.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17MR20.007

    (2) For affected Austro Engine GmbH model E4 engines installed
on Diamond Aircraft Industries (DAI) model Diamond Aircraft (DA) 42
NG and DA 42 M-NG airplanes, and for Austro Engine GmbH model E4P
engines installed on DAI model DA 62 airplanes, using AFM Temporary
Revision (TR) TR-M[Auml]M-42-973, and AFM TR TR-M[Auml]M-62-240,
both dated August 12, 2016, updating the applicable AFM is an
acceptable method to comply with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of
this AD if you amended the AFM for the affected engine before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with AD 2018-18-02.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Mehdi Lamnyi,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2017-0103R1, dated February 25, 2019, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2020-0136.
    (3) For Austro Engine GmbH service information identified in
this AD, contact Austro Engine GmbH, Rudolf-Diesel-Strasse 11, A-
2700 Weiner Neustadt, Austria; phone: +43 2622 23000; fax: +43 2622
23000-2711; website: www.austroengine.at. For Diamond Aircraft
Industries service information identified in this AD, contact
Diamond Aircraft Industries, N. A., Otto-Stra[beta]e 5, A-2700
Wiener Neustadt, A2700, Austria; phone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43
2622 26780; website: www.diamondaircraft.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller
Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7759.

    Issued on March 10, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-05290 Filed 3-16-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34784-34785]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0486; Amdt. No. 121-359]

Removal of Six Month Line Check Requirement for Pilots Over Age
60; Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The ``FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,'' enacted on
February 14, 2012, in Section 305 of the Act, removed the line check
performance evaluation requirements for pilots over 60 years of age
that applied to air carriers engaged in part 121 operations. This
technical amendment conforms to the FAA's regulations as a result of
the Act.

DATES: Effective June 12, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this rule contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, Air Transportation Division,
AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In 2007, Congress enacted the ``Fair Treatment for Experienced
Pilots Act'' which became effective December 13, 2007. This legislation
raised the upper age limit for pilots in part 121 from age 60 to age
65. It also required that air carriers engaged in part 121 operations
evaluate the performance of 60 years old pilots, through a line check,
every 6 months.
    On February 14, 2012, Congress enacted the ``FAA Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012'' (the ``Act''). Section 305 of the Act removed the
line check evaluation performance requirements contained in the Fair
Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act.
    Upon enactment of the Act, Sec.  121.440 (d) through (f) of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ceased to be effective. Section
121.440(d) requires that no certificate holder may use the services of
any person as a pilot unless the certificate holder evaluates every 6
months the performance, through a line check, of each pilot who has
attained 60 years of age.
    Section 121.440(e) requires that no pilot who has attained 60 years
of age may serve as a pilot in operations, under this part, unless the
certificate holder has evaluated the pilot's performance every 6
months, through a line check.
    Section 121.440(f) establishes limitations regarding the
requirements in (d) and (e) that apply to the line check requirements
for pilots over age 60.
    The requirement that the performance of each pilot of the air
carrier who has attained 60 years of age be evaluated, through a line
check, every 6 months, is more restrictive than line check requirements
that apply to other pilots in part 121 operations. These provisions
only require that pilots-in command be evaluated, through a line check,
every 12 months. With Section 305 of the Act, it was Congress'
objective to impact rules governing the age limitation requirements of
pilots over age 60 engaged in operations under part 121. This technical
amendment aligns FAA regulations to statutory requirements which will
establish the same line check requirements for all pilots in part 121
operations, regardless of age.

Discussion of Dates

    The Act was effective on February 14, 2012. Pending publication of
this rule, the FAA has not enforced the line check requirements for
pilots who have attained 60 years of age. This technical amendment
conforms to the FAA's regulations as a result of the Act and is
effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Technical Amendment

    A legislative mandate of this nature makes it unnecessary to
provide an opportunity for notice and comment. Further, we find that
good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the amendment
effective upon publication to minimize any possible confusion. If we do
not correct the language in the CFR, we are likely to receive numerous
petitions for exemption, because the published language is not
consistent with the statute. Since the FAA would not have safety or
policy reasons to deny the exemptions, we have included these
amendments in this final rule to remove the requirements that each
pilot of the air carrier who has attained 60 years of age be evaluated,
through a line check, every 6 months.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety,
Charter flights, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends Chapter I of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
as follows:

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-
44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-
44904, 44912, 45101-45105, 46105, 46301.

Sec.  121.440  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  121.440 by removing paragraphs (d) through (f).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-14280 Filed 6-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28892-28893]
[DOCID:fr18my06-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the
week of May 22, 2006: An Open Meeting will be held on Monday, May 22,
2006 at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium, Room LL-002 and Closed Meetings will
be held on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 11 a.m. and on Thursday, May 25,
2006 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meetings.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(ii), and (10) permit consideration of

the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Nazareth, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meetings in closed session, and determined that
no earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting scheduled for Monday, May
22, 2006 will be: The Commission will hear oral argument in an appeal
by Gateway International Holdings, Inc., and its president and chief
executive officer, Lawrence A. Consalvi, from an administrative law
judge's decision. The law judge found that Gateway failed to file with
the Commission a total of seven annual and quarterly reports due
between May 2003 and December 2004, and that, by doing so, Gateway
violated Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules
13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. The law judge also found that Consalvi
caused Gateway's violations. The law judge revoked the registration of
Gateway's common stock and ordered Consalvi to cease and desist from
committing or causing any violations or future violations of Exchange
Act Section 13(a) and Exchange Act Rules 13a-1 and 13a-3. Among the
issues likely to be argued is whether and to what extent sanctions
should be imposed on Respondents.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Monday, May
22, 2006 will be: Post-argument discussion.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
May 25, 2006 will be: Formal orders of investigation; Institution and
settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of
administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; Request for
information in an investigative file; Resolution of litigation claims;
and Litigation matters.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 16, 2006.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-4706 Filed 5-16-06; 3:52 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47459-47463]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18749]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70061; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-095]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Chapter V, Section 6, Obvious Errors, of the Rules of the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM'')

July 30, 2013.
    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 July 19, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter V, Section 6, Obvious
Errors, of the Rules of the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

NASDAQ Stock Market Rules

* * * * *

Options Rules

* * * * *

Chapter V Regulation of Trading on NOM

* * * * *
Sec. 6 Obvious and Catastrophic Errors
    (a)-(e) No change.
    (f) Catastrophic Errors
    (i)-(ii) No change.
    (iii) Adjust or Bust. A Nasdaq Official will determine whether
there was a Catastrophic Error as defined above. If it is determined
that a Catastrophic Error has occurred, whether or not each party to
the transaction is an Options Participant, MarketWatch shall adjust the
execution price of the transaction, unless both parties agree to adjust
the transaction to a different price, to the theoretical price (i) plus
the adjustment value provided below for erroneous buy transactions, and
(ii) minus the adjustment value provided for erroneous sell
transactions, pursuant to the following chart; provided that the
adjusted price would not exceed the limit price of a Public Customer's
limit order, in which case the Public Customer would have 20 minutes
from notification of the proposed adjusted price to accept it or else
the trade will be nullified:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Minimum
                      Theoretical price                          amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below $2.....................................................         $1
$2 to $5.....................................................          2
Above $5 to $10..............................................          3
Above $10 to $50.............................................          5
Above $50 to $100............................................          7
Above $100...................................................         10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon taking final action, MarketWatch shall promptly notify both
parties to the trade electronically or via telephone.
    (g) No change.
* * * * *
    (b) Not applicable.
    (c) Not applicable.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to help market participants better
manage their risk by addressing the situation where, under current
rules, a trade can be adjusted to a price outside of a Public
Customer's limit. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Chapter
V, Section 6(f) to enable a Public Customer who is the contra-side to a
trade that is deemed to be a catastrophic error to have the trade
nullified in instances where the adjusted price would violate the
Public Customer's limit price. Only if the Public Customer, or his
agent, affirms the customer's willingness to accept the adjusted price
through the customer's limit price within 20 minutes of notification of
the catastrophic error ruling would the trade be adjusted; otherwise it
would be nullified. Today, all catastrophic error trades are adjusted,
not nullified, on all of the options exchanges, except on NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC (``PHLX''), on whose provision this proposal is modeled.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See PHLX Rule 1092(f)(ii). Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 69304 (April 4, 2013), 78 FR 21482 (April 10, 2013) (SR-Phlx-
2013-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Currently, Chapter V, Section 6 governs obvious and catastrophic
errors. Obvious errors are calculated under the rule by determining a
theoretical price and determining, based on objective standards,
whether the trade should be nullified or adjusted. The rule also
contains a process for requesting an obvious error review. Certain more
substantial errors may fall under the category of a catastrophic error,
for which a longer time period is permitted to request a review and for
which trades can only be adjusted (not nullified).

Trades are adjusted pursuant to an adjustment table that, in effect,
assesses an adjustment penalty. By adjusting trades above or below the
theoretical price plus or minus a certain amount, the rule assesses a
``penalty'' in that the adjustment price is not as favorable as the
amount the party making the error would have received had it not made
the error.
Proposal
    At this time, the Exchange proposes to change the catastrophic
error process to permit certain trades to be nullified. The definition
and calculation of a catastrophic error would not change.\4\ Once a
catastrophic error is determined by a NASDAQ Official, then if both
parties to the trade are not a Public Customer,\5\ the trade would be
adjusted under the current rule. If one of the parties is a Public
Customer, then the adjusted price would be compared to the limit price
of the order. If the adjusted price would violate the limit price (in
other words, be higher than the limit price if it is a buy order and
lower than the limit price if it is a sell order), then the Public
Customer would be offered an opportunity to nullify the trade. If the
Public Customer (or the Public Customer's broker-dealer agent) does not
respond within 20 minutes, the trade would be nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Nor is the definition or process for obvious errors
changing. However, the Exchange proposes to add reference to
``catastrophic'' errors to the title of the provision to better
reflect its content and match that of other options exchanges.
    \5\ Chapter I, Section 1(a)(49) defines a Public Customer as
person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. Professional
Customers are Public Customers, for purposes of Chapter V, Section
6. See Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These changes should ensure that a Public Customer is not forced
into a situation where the original limit price is violated and thereby
the Public Customer is forced to spend additional dollars for a trade
at a price the Public Customer had no interest in trading and may not
be able to afford.

EXAMPLE 1--Resting Public Customer forced to adjust through his limit
price and would prefer nullification

Day 1

8:00:00 a.m. (pre-market)
    Public Customer A enters order on NOM to buy 10 GOOG May 750 puts
for $25 (cost of $25,000, Public Customer has $50,000 in his trading
account).
10:00:00 a.m.
    GOOG trading at $750
    May 750 puts $29.00-$31.00 (100x100) on all exchanges
10:04:00 a.m.
    GOOG drops to $690
    May 750 puts $25-$100 (10x10) NOM
    May 750 puts $20-$125 (10x10) CBOE
    May 750 puts $10-$200 (100x100) on all other exchanges
10:04:01 a.m.
    Public Customer B enters order to sell 10 May 750 puts for $25
(credit of $25,000)
10:04:01 a.m.
    10 May 750 puts execute at $25 ($35 under parity) \6\ with Public
Customer A buying and Public Customer B selling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Parity is the intrinsic value of an option when it is in-
the-money. With respect to puts, it is calculated by subtracting the
price of the underlying from the strike price of the put. With
respect to calls, it is calculated by subtracting the strike price
from the price of the underlying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10:04:02 a.m. (1 second later)
    GOOG trading $690
    May 750 puts $75-$78 (100x100) NOM
    May 750 puts $75-$80 (10x10) CBOE
    May 750 puts $70-$80 (100x100) All other exchanges

    No obvious error is filed within 20 minute notification time
required by rule. If this had been an obvious error review, the trade
would have been nullified in accordance with Chapter V, Section 6
because one of the parties to the trade was not an Options Participant.

4:00:00 p.m. (the close)
    GOOG trading $710
    May 750 puts $60-$63 (100x100) NOM
    May 750 puts $55-$70 (10x10) CBOE
    May 750 puts $50-$70 (100x100) All other exchanges

Day 2

8:00:00 a.m. (pre-market)
    Public Customer B, submits S10 GOOG May 750 puts at $25 under
Catastrophic Review.
    Trade meets the criteria of Catastrophic Error and is adjusted to
$68 ($75 (the 10:04:02 a.m. price) less $7 adjustment penalty).
9:30:00 a.m. (the opening)
    GOOG trading $725
    May 750 puts open $48.00-$51.00 (100x100) on all exchanges
    Under current rule:
    Without a choice, Public Customer A is forced to spend $68 (for a
total cost of $68,000, with only $25,000 in his account)
    Puts are now trading $48, so Public Customer A shows a loss of
$20,000 ($68 less $48x10 contracts x 100 multiplier)

    Under proposed rule:
    Public Customer A would be able to choose to have the B10 GOOG May
750 puts nullified avoiding both a loss, and an expenditure of capital
exceeding the amount in his account. Public Customer B would be
relieved of the obligation to sell the puts at 25 because the trade
would be nullified.

EXAMPLE 2--Resting Public Customer trades, sells out his position, and
chooses to keep the adjusted trade and avoid nullification

Day 1

8:00:00 a.m. (pre-market)
    Public Customer A enters order on NOM to Buy 10 BAC April 7.00
calls for $.01 (cost of $10 total). (Customer has $3,000 in his
account).
10:00:00 a.m.
    BAC trading $11
    April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (100x100) on all exchanges
10:04:00 a.m.
    BAC Trading $11
    April 7 calls $.01-$4.70 (10x10) NOM
    April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10x10) CBOE
    April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10x10)) All other exchanges
10:04:01 a.m.
    Public Customer B enters order to sell 10 April 7 calls at $.01 on
NOM with an ISO indicator (which allows trade through)
10:04:01 a.m.
    10 April 7 calls execute at $.01 on NOM Public Customer A buying
and Public Customer B selling.
10:04:02 a.m. (1 second later)
    BAC is $11
    April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10x10) NOM
    April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10x10) CBOE
    April 7 calls $4.50-$4.70 (10x10) All other exchanges

    No obvious error is filed within 20 minute notification time
required by rule. If this had been an obvious error review, the trade
would have qualified as an obvious error and been nullified or
adjusted.

11:00:00 a.m.
    BAC trading $9.60
    April 7 calls $3.00-$3.25 (10x10) NOM
    April 7 calls $.3.00-$3.25 (10x10) CBOE
    April 7 calls $3.00-$3.25 (10x10) All other exchanges
    Public Customer A sells 10 April 7 calls at $3.00 (a total credit
of $3,000 for a $2,990 profit)
3:00:00 p.m.
    BAC trading $12.80
    April 7 calls $5.80-$6.00 (10x10) NOM
    April 7 calls $5.80-$6.00 (10x10)

CBOE
    April 7 calls $5.80-$6.00 (10x10) All other exchanges
Public Customer A has now no position and would be at risk of a loss if
nullified.

3:20:00 p.m.
    Public Customer B submits S10 BAC April 7 calls at $.01 under
Catastrophic Error Review.
    Trade meets the criteria of Catastrophic Error and is adjusted to
$2.50 ($4.50 (the 10:04:02 a.m. price) less $2 adjustment penalty).

    Impact:
    Under current Rule: Public Customer A would be adjusted to $2.50
($4.50 (the 10:04:02 a.m. price) less $2 adjustment penalty).
    Under Proposed rule:
    Illustrating the need for a choice, Public Customer A chooses
within 20 minutes to accept an adjustment to $2.50 instead of a
nullification, locking in a gain of $500 instead of $2.990 (B 10 at
$2.50 vs. S10 at $3.00).
    If not given a choice, Public Customer A would be naked short 10
calls at $3.00 that are now offered at $6.00 (a $3,000 loss).
    These examples illustrate the need for Public Customer to have a
choice in order to manage his risk. By applying a notification time
limit of 20 minutes, it lessens the likelihood that the customer will
try to let the direction of the market for that option dictate his
decision for a long period of time, thus exposing the contra side to
more risk. This 20 minute time period is akin to the notification
period currently used in the rule respecting obvious errors (as opposed
to catastrophic errors).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Chapter V, Section 6(e)(i) [sic]. If a party believes
that it participated in a transaction that was the result of an
Obvious Error, it must notify MarketWatch via written or electronic
complaint within 20 minutes of the execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a market maker or a broker-dealer, the penalty that is part of
the price adjustment process is usually enough to offset the additional
dollars spent, and they can often trade out of the position with little
risk and a potential profit. For a customer who is not immersed in the
day-to-day trading of the markets, this risk may be unacceptable. A
customer is also less likely to be watching trading activity in a
particular option throughout the day and less likely to be closely
focused on the execution reports the customer receives after a trade is
executed. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is fair and
reasonable, and consistent with statutory standards, to change the
procedure for catastrophic errors for Public Customers and not for
other participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is a fair way to address
the issue of a customer's limit price, yet still balance the competing
interests of certainty that trades stand versus dealing with true
errors. Earlier this year, PHLX amended its Rule 1092(f) to adopt the
same catastrophic error process as proposed herein. In approving that
proposal, the Commission stated ``. . . the Exchange has weighed the
benefits of certainty to non-broker-dealer customers that their limit
price will not be violated against the costs of increased uncertainty
to market makers and broker-dealers that their trades may be nullified
instead of adjusted depending on whether the other party to the
transaction is or is not a customer. The proposed rule change strikes a
similar balance on this issue to the approach taken in the Exchange's
Obvious Error Rule, whereby transactions in which an Obvious Error
occurred with at least one party as a non-specialist are nullified
unless both parties agree to adjust the price of the transaction within
30 minutes of being notified of the Obvious Error.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Chapter V, Section 6 to
eliminate the risk associated with Public Customers receiving an
adjustment to a trade that is outside of the limit price of their
order, when there is a catastrophic error ruling respecting their
trade. The new provision would continue to entail specific and
objective procedures. Furthermore, the new provision more fairly
balances the potential windfall to one market participant against the
potential reconsideration of a trading decision under the guise of an
error.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by helping Exchange members better manage the risk associated
with potential erroneous trades. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that the proposal is consistent with these principles because it
provides a fair process for Public Customers to address catastrophic
errors involving a limit order. In particular, the proposal permits
nullification in certain situations. Further, it gives customers a
choice. For two reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposal is unfairly discriminatory, even though it offers some
participants (Public Customers) a choice as to whether a trade is
nullified or adjusted, while other participants will continue to have
all of their catastrophic errors adjusted. First, with respect to
obvious errors (as opposed to catastrophic errors), the rule currently
differentiates among Participants and whether a trade is adjusted or
busted depends on whether an Options Participant is involved.\11\
Second, options rules often treat customers in a special way,\12\
recognizing that customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-
day trading of the markets, less likely to be watching trading activity
in a particular option throughout the day and may have limited funds in
their trading accounts. Accordingly, differentiating among Participant
types by permitting customers to have a choice as to whether to nullify
a trade involving a catastrophic error is not unfairly discriminatory,
because it is reasonable and fair to provide non-professional customers
with additional options to protect themselves against the consequences
of obvious errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ See Chapter V, Section 6(e)(i).
    \12\ For example, many options exchange priority rules treat
customer orders differently and some options exchanges only accept
certain types of orders from customers. Most options exchanges
charge different fees for customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange acknowledges that the proposal contains some
uncertainty regarding whether a trade will be adjusted or nullified,
depending on whether one of the parties is a Public Customer, because a
person would not know, when entering into the trade, whether the other
party is or is not a Public Customer. The Exchange believes that the
proposal nevertheless promotes just and equitable principles of trade
and protects investors and the public interest, because it eliminates a
more serious uncertainty in the rule's operation today, which is price
uncertainty. Today, a customer's order can be adjusted to a
significantly different price, as the examples above illustrate, which
is more impactful than the possibility of nullification. Furthermore,
there is uncertainty in the current obvious error portion of Chapter V,
Section 6 (as well as the rules of other options exchanges), which
Participants have dealt with for a number of years. Specifically,
Chapter V, Section 6(e)(i) and (ii) provide: Where each party to the
transaction is an Options Participant, the execution

price of the transaction will be adjusted to the prices provided in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) below unless both parties agree to adjust the
transaction to a different price or agree to bust the trade within ten
(10) minutes of being notified by MarketWatch of the Obvious Error;
where at least one party to the Obvious Error is not an Options
Participant, the trade will be nullified unless both parties agree to
an adjustment price for the transaction within 30 minutes of being
notified by MarketWatch of the Obvious Error.
    Therefore, a Participant who prefers adjustments over nullification
cannot guarantee that outcome, because, if he trades with a non-
Participant, a resulting obvious error would only be adjusted if such
non-Participant agreed to an adjustment. This uncertainty has been
embedded in the rule and accepted by market participants. The Exchange
believes that this proposal, despite the uncertainty based on whether a
Public Customer is involved in a trade, is nevertheless consistent with
the Act, because the ability to nullify a Public Customer's trade
involving a catastrophic error should prevent the price uncertainty
that mandatory adjustment under the current rule creates, which should
promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors
and the public interest.
    The proposal sets forth an objective process based on specific and
objective criteria and subject to specific and objective procedures. In
addition, the Exchange has again weighed carefully the need to assure
that one market participant is not permitted to receive a windfall at
the expense of another market participant that made a catastrophic
error, against the need to assure that market participants are not
simply being given an opportunity to reconsider poor trading decisions.
Accordingly, the Exchange has determined that introducing a
nullification procedure for catastrophic errors is appropriate and
consistent with the Act.
    Consistent with Section 6(b)(8),\13\ the Exchange also believes
that the proposal does not impose a burden on competition not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as described
further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Currently, most options
exchanges have similar, although not identical, rules regarding
catastrophic errors. To the extent that this proposal would result in
NOM's rule being different, market participants may choose to route
orders to NOM, helping NOM compete against other options exchanges for
order flow based on its customer service by having a process more
responsive to current market needs. Of course, other options exchanges
may choose to adopt similar rules. The proposal does not impose a
burden on intra-market competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because, even though it treats
different market participants differently, the Obvious Errors rule has
always been structured that way and adding the ability for Public
Customers to choose whether a catastrophic error trade is nullified
does not materially alter the risks faced by other market participants
in managing the consequences of obvious errors. Overall, the proposal
is intended to help market participants better manage the risk
associated with potential erroneous options trades and does not impose
a burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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)(ii) of the Act\14\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-095 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-095. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-

NASDAQ-2013-095 and should be submitted on or before August 26, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18749 Filed 8-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 138 (Friday, July 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 43587]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1618]

Eli Lilly and Co.; Announcement of the Revocation of the
Biologics License for LARTRUVO

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the revocation of the biologics license application (BLA) for LARTRUVO
(olaratumab) injection. Eli Lilly and Co. requested withdrawal
(revocation) of the biologics license application and has waived its
opportunity for a hearing.

DATES: The BLA is revoked as of February 25, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Lehrfeld, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6226, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3137.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 19, 2016, FDA approved the BLA
for LARTRUVO (olaratumab) injection held by Eli Lilly and Co. (Eli
Lilly), Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, indicated, in
combination with doxorubicin, for the treatment of adult patients with
soft tissue sarcoma with a histologic subtype for which an
anthracycline-containing regimen is appropriate and which is not
amenable to curative treatment with radiotherapy or surgery, under the
Agency's accelerated approval regulations at 21 CFR part 601, subpart
E. On January 18, 2019, Eli Lilly reported in a press release that the
confirmatory study required as a condition of LARTRUO's accelerated
approval, entitled ``Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled,
Phase 3 Trial of Doxorubicin Plus Olaratumab Versus Doxorubicin Plus
Placebo in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma''
(ANNOUNCE trial), ``did not meet the primary endpoints of overall
survival in the full study population or in the leiomyosarcoma
subpopulation.'' On September 27, 2019, Eli Lilly requested withdrawal
(revocation), in writing, of the BLA for LARTRUVO (olaratumab)
injection (BLA 761038) under Sec.  601.5(a) (21 CFR 601.5(a)) because
the ANNOUNCE trial failed to demonstrate improvement in overall
survival for olaratumab in combination with doxorubicin compared to
doxorubicin alone. In that letter, Eli Lilly waived its opportunity for
a hearing. On February 25, 2020, the Agency issued a letter to Eli
Lilly revoking the approval to manufacture and market LARTRUVO
(olaratumab) injection (BLA 761038).
    Therefore, under Sec.  601.5(a), the Agency revoked the BLA for
LARTRUVO (olaratumab) injection (BLA 761038), applicable as of February
25, 2020.

    Dated: July 14, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-15516 Filed 7-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


April 26, 2005 Via Email Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC, 20460 0001 RE: Comments on Closed Mixing/ Loading Systems for Propanil The USA Rice Federation ( USA Rice), located at 4301 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 425, Arlington, VA 22203, is the national advocate for all segments of the rice industry. USA Rice members are active in all major rice producing states: Arkansas, California, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. The USA Rice Producers' Group, USA Rice Council and the USA Rice Millers' Association are charter members of the USA Rice Federation.

We are writing you today to express USA Rice's support for the continued use of propanil. Our following comments are intended to help continue the use of propanil and we appreciate the time that EPA has spent with our industry in meetings and teleconferences.

In past conversations with EPA, the agency has suggested a requirement for closed mixing/ loading systems for both liquid and dry formulations of propanil. USA Rice has serious concerns about how, when and if such a system could be emplaced and the resulting costs to the producer. These concerns are as follows:

Loading Speed Any system for propanil must be able to mix and load large volumes of products in a short amount of time. While the weather is appropriate, applicators must apply as much as possible during their windows of opportunity, therefore the system must be able to keep up with them.

Mixing Propanil is not normally applied alone but is mixed with other products such as Facet, Clincher, Grandstand, and others. This is part of our IPM and conservation practices   to scout pests in the fields and tailor the loads to those pests for the most efficient applications.

We believe that one unknown is what will happen when propanil requires a closed system, necessitating a redesigned and valved container, and the other mixed Propanil Closed System Comments USA Rice Page 2 of 3 products do not require a closed system with appropriately valved containers. We can foresee the closed system valves having to be taken off and the system refitted for an open system for non propanil products thus violating the " closed system" for propanil and increasing the potential for release. Any such requirements would lower the speed of applications.

Also, sometimes the " recipe" is changed from field to field on the same farm, meaning there could be several switches of valves or between systems just to complete a job on one farm. In a situation such as Clearfield rice, next to another rice, the systems must be triple rinsed as well as switched between loads.

In many instances the mixing of products requires the mixing of liquid formulations with dry formulations. If a liquid closed system is used for propanil we do not see how to maintain closure when we have to trickle in a different dry product or drop in water soluble bags.

Any system for drawing out liquid propanil from a container must allow for air entering the container, which is supplied by opening a vent bung. We assume this vent negates the closed system scenario.

Metering With the current induction system, metering is completed by placing the marked induction hose in the liquid propanil at the desired gallon mark on the hose. That metering system would end with a closed system and have to be replaced at the applicator's and producer's cost with a new system. The new metering system would also have to work for metering the other products that are mixed into propanil.

Logistics In some states aerial applicators use satellite airstrips located on individual farms. For example, in Texas applicators can fly 40 to 50 miles to apply propanil. They also have some chemical plants that they must fly around instead of over. The use of satellite strips is increasing along with the increasing cost of fuel. Not only would they have to use closed systems for their main strip, but they would have to purchase new, or upgrade old systems at each satellite strip, adding to the cost of compliance.

Rinsing The induction systems that are currently used to draw the propanil from the 33 gallon containers are also used to triple rinse the containers. In a closed system, there must be an open vent allowing air to escape so that the water can be added for the rinse system. We believe this will violate the closed system scenario. Also, a closed system utilizing a container valve system for induction, will also need modification to allow rinsate flowing back into the container and then out again. Propanil Closed System Comments USA Rice Page 3 of 3 Dry Formulations There is no closed system for dry formulations.

Water soluble bags are not considered viable by our producers. A large bag cannot be dropped into a mixing tank to dissolve the bag because the product will not mix but will harden as a lump in the bottom of the tank.

Using small bags, such as one pound, will add too much time to the mixing/ loading process as the applicator/ producer tries to add one bag at a time while letting each dissolve and will increase the time of contact and the opportunity for a spill.

For any size bags, the bags do not completely dissolve. Additional smaller bags would only exacerbate the problem. The undissolved portions flow into the spray system and clog various portions of it but especially the nozzles. Cleaning the nozzles only enhances contact with the product and increases the likelihood of contamination.

USA Rice believes that requiring water soluble bags for dry formulations of propanil will cause the loss of those formulations.

If you have any questions on these comments, please don't hesitate to give me a call at 703 236 1445.

Sincerely,

Steve Hensley Director, Regulatory Affairs


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

			Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 21, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-13450

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  El Al Israel Airlines						Date Filed: October 23, 2003

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. §41301 to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between Israel and Boston/San Francisco/Chicago, IL, on a code-share
basis only, via the intermediate point Toronto, Canada.  El Al proposes
to conduct these operations via Toronto pursuant to a code-share
arrangement with Air Canada.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  Notice of Action Taken
dated October 28, 2002, in this docket

Applicant representative:  John E. Gillick<PHONE_NUMBER>		DOT analyst:
Shelita Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved									Action date:  November 21, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  November 21, 2003 – November
21, 2004

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Bilateral
aviation agreement between the United States and Israel

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

_X_ Standard exemption conditions (attached)        _X_ Foreign air
carrier permit conditions (Order 86-3-58)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

We found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that  (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 We note that El Al sought renewal of this authority for a two-year
period.  However, as is our usual practice in conferring exemption
authority in the circumstances presented, we are limiting the term of
authority to one year.  El Al may, of course, seek renewal of this
authority in accordance with the Department’s rules.

08/2003