insufficient to execute against the ECO while respecting the spread
ratio. The Exchange believes that requiring Complex Only Orders to
improve at least a portion of the displayed Customer interest on the
leg markets when all legs of a complex strategy contain displayed
Customer interest would provide market participants with additional
trading opportunities while still protecting displayed Customer
interest on the Exchange. To the extent that this proposed handling of
ECOs on the Exchange during Core Trading Hours results in greater
liquidity (because of increased opportunity for order execution) this
increased liquidity should, in turn, enhance execution quality.
Execution of ECOs During a COA
    The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 980NYP(f), setting forth
the execution of ECOs during a COA, would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and promote just and equitable principles of trade because the
proposed functionality would both incorporate existing functionality to
provide that COA Orders would trade solely with other ECOs (and not the
leg markets) during the auction. The Exchange believes that relying on
the proposed DBBO (and binding such DBBO by the maximum allowable Away
Market Deviation when the Exchange BBO is used to calculate the DBBO
for a leg) would benefit market participants as the proposed operation
of the DBBO would provide additional price protection in ECO trading,
including during a COA, and would add clarity and transparency to the
rules. The Exchange also believes that the proposed text would make
clear that the COA Order would trade with the best-priced RFR Responses
received in the COA, beginning with Customer interest at a price
followed by same-priced non-Customer interest. In addition, the
proposed text would also include the additional detail that non-
Customer RFR Responses are capped at the remaining size of the COA
Order for purposes of pro rata allocation, which is consistent with
current functionality as relates to non-Customer RFR Responses.
However, on Pillar, Customer RFR Responses would trade in time and
would not be subject to a pro rata allocation, which proposed handling
is consistent with the Exchange's Customer priority model, which change
would add clarity, transparency and internal consistency to Exchange
rules.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See, e.g., Rules 964NY(b)(2)(A) (regarding priority of
displayed Customer interest based on time) and (b)(2)(D) (providing
that non-Customer interest is subjected to pro rata allocation); see
also proposed Rule 964NYP(h)(3) (regarding non-Customers in ``size
pro rata pool'') and (j) (regarding allocation of Customer and non-
Customer interest) as described in the American Pillar Priority
Filing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to add
reference to quotes (in addition to orders) to Rule 980NYP(f)(5)
(Prohibited Conduct) regarding the COA Process, would benefit market
participants as it would broaden the scope of such the prohibition.
Overall, the Exchange believes the proposed rule, which is
substantively identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(f) except for the
difference to account for the Exchange Customer priority/pro rata
allocation model, would add clarity and transparency to ATP Holders
utilizing the COA process.
    In addition, the Exchange further believes that the proposed
changes to the COA process on Pillar that either differ from current
functionality or that would be new would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system because:

     Requiring that a COA Order initiate a COA on arrival, or
else be treated as a standard ECO, is new under Pillar as, per the
current Rule, a COA Order may sit on the Consolidated Book until market
conditions change such that it may initiate a COA. The Exchange
believes the proposed change would provide ATP Holders with a higher
level of transparency and determinism of when a COA Order could
initiate a COA and would also encourage market participants to submit
aggressively-priced orders in order to qualify for initiation of a COA,
which better-priced interest benefits all investors and improves market
quality.
     Making explicit that COA Orders may only execute with ECOs
(and not the leg markets) until after the COA ends is consistent with
current functionality, per Rule 980NY(e)(2), but is designed to make
clear that ECOs have priority during a COA.
     Streamlining the rule text that would describe the market
events that, under Pillar, would cause an early end to a COA would
simplify the COA process and would provide ATP Holders with a higher
level of transparency and determinism regarding the handling of COA
Orders.
     Allowing a COA to end early based on the DBBO, which may
be calculated using ABBO leg prices, would benefit market participants
and promote internal consistency because, as proposed, such early
termination would prevent COA Orders from executing at prices too far
away from the prevailing market for that complex strategy. In addition,
the DBBO is used to determine the execution of ECOs on the Exchange,
including whether such ECO may initiate a COA as a COA Order. As such,
the Exchange believes it is appropriate and to the benefit of market
participants that the early termination of a COA likewise be based on
the DBBO--regardless of whether the prices used to calculate such DBBO
include (or consist entirely of) ABBO prices.
     Requiring that a COA Order end early upon receipt of a
Complex CUBE Order would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because it would allow the Exchange to simplify technology on Pillar
and would allow the Exchange to determine the viability of a CUBE Order
(i.e., whether the price of such order meets the pricing requirements
to initiate a Complex CUBE Auction per Rule 971.2NY). A COA Order that
is subject to the early end of a COA because of the arrival of a
Complex CUBE Order would still have the opportunity to trade with the
Complex CUBE Order if such COA Order is on the opposite side of the
market or with other interest once it is resting on the Consolidated
Book.
ECO Risk Checks
    The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 980NYP(g), setting forth
ECO Risk Checks, which are identical to those set forth per Arca
Options Rule 6.91P-O(g), would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and
promote just and equitable principles of trade because the proposed
functionality would incorporate existing risk controls, without any
substantive differences. The Exchange further believes that the
proposed changes to ECO Risk Checks on Pillar that either differ from
current functionality or would be new would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system because:
     The Exchange believes that the new Complex Strategy Limit
(which is conceptually similar to the Complex Order Table Cap under the
current Rule) would help maintain a fair and orderly market because it
would operate as a system protection tool that enables the Exchange to
prevent any single MPID from creating more than a limited number of
complex strategies during the trading day. The proposed limits are not
novel and are based on limits imposed in Arca Options Rule 6.91P-
O(g)(1) as well as by other options exchanges on new complex order
strategies.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See supra note 61 [sic] (citing Cboe Rule 5.33(a) and MIAX
Rule 518(a)(6) regarding each exchange's ability to limit the number
of new complex strategies in their systems at any particular time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed ECO Price Protection on Pillar would work
similarly to how the current ECO price protection mechanism functions
on the Exchange because an ECO would be rejected if it is priced a
specified percentage away from the contra-side Complex NBB or NBO.\76\
The Exchange believes that the proposed differences on Pillar, to use
new thresholds and reference prices, would not only simplify the
existing price check, but it would also align the proposed
functionality with Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O, thus adding uniformity
across the Exchange's options platforms. Although the mechanics of the
ECO Price Protection would vary slightly from the existing Price
Protection Filter, the goal of this feature would remain the same:
prevent the execution of ECOs that are priced too far away from the
prevailing market for the same strategy and therefore potentially
erroneous to be benefit of market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ As noted above, the Exchange proposes to define the Complex
NBBO as the derived national best bid and derived national best
offer for a complex strategy calculated using the NBB and NBO for
each component leg of a complex strategy. See proposed Rule
980NYP(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed Pillar Complex Strategy Protections would
function similarly to the current Debit/Credit Reasonability Checks
because erroneously priced incoming ECOs would be rejected. Consistent
with current functionality, the proposed Complex Strategy Protections
are designed to prevent the execution of ECOs at prices that are
inconsistent with/not aligned with their strategies to the benefit of
market participants. The Exchange believes that the non-substantive
differences to focus on the expectation of the ECO sender and what
would result if the ECO were not rejected rather than refer to
specified debit or credit amounts as a way to determine whether a given
strategy is erroneously priced would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market system because it would promote
clarity and transparency in Exchange rules.
Rule 935NY
    The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive change to
Rule 935NY to update references to ``COA'' (versus COA Process) and
``the Exchange,'' to delete reference to ``System,'' and add the
reference to Rule 980NYP would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest because the
proposed conforming changes would add clarity, transparency and
consistency to the Exchange's rules. The Exchange believes that market
participants would benefit from the increased clarity, thereby reducing
potential confusion. Similarly, the Exchange believes that adding a
cross-reference to proposed Rule 980NYP(f) and extending the exemption
from the one-second order exposure requirement of Rule 935NY would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system because it would promote clarity
and transparency of which Pillar rules would be eligible for the
exception specified in that Rule.
    As previously stated, the Exchange believes that the proposed
Response Time Interval for a COA (i.e., no less than 100 milliseconds)
is of sufficient length so as to permit ATP Holders time to respond to
a COA. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would
provide the order sender with a timely execution of its COA

Order, while ensuring that there is an adequate exposure of such order.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 935NY(iii) to extend
the exemption from the one-second order exposure requirement to COA
Orders under Pillar, which exemption is consistent with the treatment
of similar orders on other options exchanges.\77\ Consistent with Rule
935NY, Commentary .01, ATP Holders would only utilize the COA where
there is a genuine intention to execute a bona fide transaction.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See supra note 68 [sic] (regarding Arca Options Rule 6.47A-
O (iii)).
    \78\ See supra note 69 [sic] (regarding Rule 935NY, Commentary
.01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    For the reasons set forth above, the Exchange believes proposed
Rule 980NYP, regarding ECO trading, including the priority and
execution of such ECOs vis a vis the leg markets, is consistent with
the goals of the Act to remove impediments to and to perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
to protect investors and the public interest.

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. The Exchange operates in a
competitive market and regularly competes with other options exchanges
for order flow. The Exchange believes that the transition to Pillar for
trading of ECOs on its options trading platform would promote
competition among options exchanges by offering a low-latency platform
that offers more deterministic outcomes for trading interest, which, in
turn, facilities ECO trading on a continuous and real-time basis on the
Exchange.
    The proposed rule changes would support that inter-market
competition by allowing the Exchange to offer additional functionality
to its ATP Holders, thereby potentially attracting additional order
flow to the Exchange. Otherwise, the proposed changes are not designed
to address any competitive issues, but rather to amend the Exchange's
rules relating to trading of ECOs to support the transition to Pillar.
As discussed in detail above, with this rule filing, the Exchange is
not proposing to change its core functionality regarding the treatment
of ECOs. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes
would promote consistent use of terminology to support options trading
on the Exchange (and to promote uniformity with its affiliated exchange
Arca Options), making the Exchange's rules easier to navigate. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes would raise
any intra-market competition as the proposed rule changes would be
applicable to all ATP Holders, and reflects the Exchange's existing
treatment of ECOs, without proposing any material substantive changes.
As noted herein, proposed Rule 980NYP is substantively the same as Arca
Options Rule 6.91P-O except as noted herein (including to account for
the Exchange's Customer priority/pro rata allocation model).

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-17.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-17. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-17, and should be
submitted on or before April 7, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-05444 Filed 3-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4228-4231]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 738, 740, 742, and 744

[Docket No. 101222617-0617-01]
RIN 0694-AF10

U.S.-India Bilateral Understanding: Revisions to U.S. Export and
Reexport Controls Under the Export Administration Regulations

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement several
components of the bilateral understanding between the United States and
India announced by President Obama and India's Prime Minister Singh on
November 8, 2010. This is the first in a series of rules implementing
the President's and Prime Minister's commitment to work together to
strengthen the global nonproliferation and export control framework and
further transform our bilateral export control cooperation to realize
the full potential of the strategic partnership between the two
countries. The two leaders outlined mutual steps to implement an export
control reform program. On the part of the United States, these steps
include removing India's defense and space-related entities from the
Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to part 744 of the EAR) and realigning
U.S. export licensing policy toward India by removing India from three
country groups in the EAR and adding it to one country group. This rule
also makes conforming changes to the EAR consistent with these steps.
These reforms reflect India's nonproliferation record and commitment to
abide by multilateral export control standards.

DATES: This rule is effective January 25, 2011. Although there is no
formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome
on a continuing basis.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0694-AF10, by any
of the following methods:

    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include ``RIN 0694-AF10'' in the
subject line of the message.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please alert the Regulatory Policy Division,
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, if you are faxing comments.
    Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Sheila Quarterman, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy
Division, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705,
Washington, DC 20230, Attn: RIN 0694-AF10.
    Send comments regarding the collection of information associated
with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to
Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments
on this collection of information should be submitted separately from
comments on the final rule (i.e., RIN 0694-AF10)--- all comments on the
latter should be submitted by one of the three methods outlined above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding foreign policy
and nonproliferation controls contact Alex Lopes, Director, Office of
Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Export Administration, Bureau
of Industry and Security, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For questions regarding the Entity List contact Karen Nies-Vogel,
Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary,
Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

U.S.-India Bilateral Understanding: Revisions to U.S. Export and
Reexport Controls Under the Export Administration Regulations

    On November 8, 2010, President Obama and Prime Minister Singh of
India issued a Joint Statement announcing that they had resolved to
expand and strengthen the India-U.S. global strategic partnership.
(U.S.-India Joint Statement, November 8, 2010). The Joint Statement
covers a range of issues, activities, and programs that reflect the
vision of the President and of India's Prime Minister. In the Joint
Statement, the leaders reaffirmed that the U.S.-India strategic
partnership is indispensable for global stability and prosperity and
reaffirmed existing assurances regarding procurement and use by India
of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). In the
Joint Statement, recognizing that India and the United States should
play a leadership role in promoting global nonproliferation objectives
and their desire to expand high technology cooperation and trade, the
two leaders committed to work together to strengthen the global export
control framework and further transform bilateral export control
regulations and policies, and decided to take mutual steps to expand
U.S.-India cooperation in civil space, defense and other high-
technology sectors. These steps include removal of Indian defense and
space-related entities from the Entity List, and realignment of India
in U.S. export control regulations. Additionally, the Joint Statement
announced that the United States ``intends to support India's full
membership in the four multilateral export control regimes (Nuclear
Suppliers Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group,
and Wassenaar Arrangement) in a phased manner, and to consult with
regime members to encourage the evolution of regime membership
criteria,'' while maintaining these regimes' core principles, ``as the
Government of India takes steps towards the full adoption of the
regimes' export control requirements to reflect its prospective
membership, with both processes moving forward together.''
    In this rule, BIS begins implementation of those reforms by
revising certain export and reexport controls for India, including the
removal of nine Indian entities from the Entity List. In addition, BIS
amends the EAR to remove India from Country Groups D:2, D:3, and D:4
and to add India to Country Group A:2. In this rule, BIS also makes
conforming changes in the EAR as part of these initial steps to
implement the export control reform program outlined in the November 8,
2010 U.S.-India bilateral understanding. These changes are in the
national interest of the United States.

Specific Amendments to the EAR Implementing U.S.-India Bilateral
Understanding

Part 744
    In this rule, BIS amends the EAR to remove the following entities
from Supplement No. 4 to part 744 of the EAR, i.e., the Entity List:
     Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL).
     All subordinates of India's Defense Research and
Development Organization (DRDO) identified on the Entity List
immediately prior to the effective date of this rule, namely:

--Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE);
--Defense Research and Development Lab (DRDL);
--Missile Research and Development Complex; and
--Solid State Physics Laboratory.
     All Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) subordinate
entities identified on the Entity List immediately prior to the
effective date of this rule, namely:
--Liquid Propulsion Systems Center;
--Solid Propellant Space Booster Plant (SPROB);
--Sriharikota Space Center (SHAR); and
--Vikram Sarabhai Space Center (VSSC).

The removal of these nine Indian entities from the Entity List
eliminates the existing license requirements in the Entity List,
Supplement No. 4 to part 744, for exports, reexports, and transfers
(in-country), to these entities. The removal of these entities from the
Entity List does not, however, relieve persons of other obligations in
part 744 of the EAR or under other applicable parts of the EAR. For
example, neither the removal of a person from the Entity List nor the
removal of Entity List-based license requirements relieves persons of
their obligation to adhere to General Prohibition 5 in section
736.2(b)(5) of the EAR, which provides that ``you may not, without a
license, knowingly export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to an
end-user or end-use that is prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.''
Persons must also refrain from undertaking transfers (in-country) to an
end-user or end-use that is prohibited by any provision of part 744.
Additionally, such removals do not relieve persons of their obligation
to apply for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) licenses
required by other provisions of the EAR. BIS strongly urges persons to
review and abide by Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR, ``BIS's
`Know Your Customer' Guidance and Red Flags,'' when involved in
transactions that are subject to the EAR.
Parts 738 and 740
    In this rule, BIS also removes India from Country Groups D:2, D:3,
and D:4 to Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR. These Country
Groups list countries with certain restrictions on end-uses for nuclear
nonproliferation (D:2), chemical & biological (D:3), and missile
technology (D:4) reasons under the EAR. This rule also adds India to
Country Group A:2 to Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR, makes
License Exception (BAG) (section 740.14(d) of the EAR) available for
exports and

reexports of unaccompanied baggage to India, and makes India an
eligible destination for reexports under License Exception Additional
Permissive Reexports (APR) (section 740.16(a) of the EAR).
    Country Group D:2: India's removal from Country Group D:2 will not
change licensing policy toward India for items controlled for nuclear
nonproliferation (NP column 1(NP1), Supplement No. 1 to part 738
(Commerce Country Chart) of the EAR) reasons; a license will still be
required for the export of NP1 items to all destinations in India.
U.S.-origin items controlled unilaterally for nuclear nonproliferation
reasons (NP2) do not require a license for most destinations in India.
Prior to publication of this rule, paragraph (a)(2) of section 742.3 of
the EAR expressly exempted India from the license requirement for
Country Group D:2 countries. India's removal from Country Group D:2
through this rule, however, makes this express exemption unnecessary,
and it is therefore being removed. The removal of India from Country
Group D:2 also eliminates a license requirement for India under section
744.6 of the EAR for certain U.S. person activities that involve any
D:2 country. India, however, remains subject to the ``catch-all''
controls in section 744.2 of the EAR (Restrictions on Certain Nuclear
End-uses). Under section 744.2, a person may not export, reexport, or
transfer (in-country) an item subject to the EAR to India without a
license if, at the time of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country),
the person knows that the item will be used, directly or indirectly, in
activities described in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of
section 744.2, i.e., certain nuclear explosive activities,
unsafeguarded nuclear activities, or certain safeguarded and
unsafeguarded nuclear activities.
    Country Group D:3: The removal of India from Country Group D:3
means that paragraph (a)(3) of section 742.2 (Proliferation of Chemical
and Biological Weapons) of the EAR will not impose a license
requirement for exports or reexports to India of medical products,
identified in Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 1C991.d,.
Removal of India from Country Group D:3 also means that end users in
India are eligible to receive certain items controlled for chemical and
biological weapons reasons under special comprehensive licenses (SCLs)
described in part 752 of the EAR. Items controlled for chemical and
biological weapons reasons are ineligible for export or reexport under
a SCL to D:3 destinations.
    Furthermore, consistent with the removal of India from Country
Group D:3, this rule removes licensing requirements for certain items
controlled for chemical and biological weapons proliferation reasons
for export or reexport to India, by removing the ``X'' in ``CB Column
3'' for ``India'' in Supplement No. 1 to part 738 (Commerce Country
Chart) of the EAR.
    Country Group D:4: Removal of India from Country Group D:4
eliminates the requirement for export, reexport, and transfers (in-
country) licenses for India under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) of
section 744.3 (Restrictions on Certain Rocket Systems and Unmanned Air
Vehicles End-Uses). Pursuant to section 744.3(a)(2), a license will
still be required for any item if, at the time of the export, reexport,
or transfer (in-country), the person knows that the item will be used
in India in the design, development, production, or use of rocket
systems or unmanned air vehicles, regardless of range capabilities, for
the delivery of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The removal
of India from Country Group D:4 also eliminates a license requirement
for India under section 744.6 of the EAR for certain U.S. person
activities that involve a D:4 country.
    Removal of India from Country Groups D:2, D:3, and D:4 and the
Availability of License Exceptions: Removal of India from Country
Groups D:2, D:3, and D:4 expands the License Exceptions available for
exports and reexports to India. This rule makes available exports and
reexports to India of unaccompanied baggage under License Exception
Baggage (BAG) section 740.14(d) of the EAR. Such removal also makes
India an eligible destination for reexports under License Exception
Additional Permissive Reexports (APR) set forth in section 740.16(a) of
the EAR.
    Country Group A:2: This rule also adds India to Country Group A:2,
grouping India, as an adherent to the Missile Technology Control Regime
(MTCR), with countries that are members of that regime. Under section
742.5 of the EAR, a license is still required for export and reexport
of items controlled for missile technology (MT) reasons to all
destinations except Canada.
Conforming Amendments
    As noted in the discussion of Country Group D:2 above, this rule
removes a now unnecessary reference to India from section 742.3(a)(2)
of the EAR. This rule also makes a conforming change in section
742.5(d) (Missile Technology Control Regime) of the EAR regarding India
acknowledging that India is being included in Country Group A:2 as an
MTCR adherent.
    Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended (Act) has been in lapse and the President, through Executive
Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), as
extended most recently by the Notice of August 12, 2010 (75 FR 50681
(August 16, 2010)), has continued the EAR in effect under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out
the provisions of the Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted
by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222.

Rulemaking

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. This rule has been determined to be 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
collections previously approved by the OMB under control numbers 0694-
0088, ``Multi-Purpose Application,'' which carries a burden hour
estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748.
Miscellaneous and recordkeeping activities account for 12 minutes per
submission. Total burden hours associated with the Paperwork Reduction
Act and Office and Management and Budget control number 0694-0088 are
not expected to increase as a result of this rule.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act requiring notice of proposed rulemaking,
the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective
date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or
foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 53(a)(1)).
This final rule implements aspects of the understanding between the
United States and India reflected in the November 8, 2010 U.S.-India
Joint Statement and is not discretionary. No other law requires that a
notice of

proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for
this rule. 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. Notwithstanding these considerations, BIS welcomes
public comments and will review them on a continuing basis.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 738

    Exports.

15 CFR Part 740

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

15 CFR Part 742

    Exports and Terrorism.

15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, parts 738, 740, 742 and 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts
730-774) are amended as follows:

PART 738 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 738 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et
seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42
U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR,
1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p.
783; Notice of August 12, 2010, 75 FR 50681 (August 16, 2010).

Supplement No. 1 To Part 738--[Amended]

0
2. Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 is amended by removing the ``X'' in
``CB Column 3'' for ``India''.

PART 740--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 740 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp.,
p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice
of August 12, 2010, 75 FR 50681 (August 16, 2010).

Supplement No. 1 To Part 740--[Amended]

0
4. Supplement No. 1 to part 740 is amended:
0
a. By adding ``India'' to the Country Group A table in alphabetical
order and adding and ``X'' for ``India'' in Country Group A:2; and
0
b. By removing the entry ``India'' from the Country Group D table.

PART 742--[AMENDED]

0
5. The authority citation for part 742 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22
U.S.C. 7210; Sec 1503, Pub. L. 108-11, 117 Stat. 559; E.O. 12058, 43
FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR,
1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p.
950; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222,
66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Presidential Determination
2003-23 of May 7, 2003, 68 FR 26459, May 16, 2003; Notice of August
12, 2010, 75 FR 50681 (August 16, 2010); Notice of November 4, 2010,
75 FR 68673 (November 8, 2010).

Sec.  742.3--[Amended]

0
6. Paragraph (a)(2) of Sec.  742.3 is amended by removing the phrase
``except India''.

0
7. Paragraph (d) of Sec.  742.5 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  742.5  Missile technology.

* * * * *
    (d) Missile Technology Control Regime. Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) members, and India as an MTCR adherent, are listed in
Country Group A:2 (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR).
Controls on items identified in paragraph (a) of this section are
consistent with the list agreed to in the MTCR and included in the MTCR
Annex.

PART 744--[AMENDED]

0
8. The authority citation for part 744 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22
U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179;
E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59
FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR,
1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p.
228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222,
66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3
CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 12, 2010, 75 FR 50681
(August 16, 2010); Notice of November 4, 2010, 75 FR 68673 (November
8, 2010).

Supplement No. 4 To Part 744--[Amended]

0
9. The entry for ``India'' in Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended
by removing the following entities:
    ``Bharat Dynamics Limited'';
    ``The following subordinates of Defense Research and Development
Organization (DRDO): Armament Research and Development Establishment
(ARDE); Defense Research and Development Lab (DRDL), Hyderabad; Missile
Research and Development Complex; Solid State Physics Laboratory''; and
    ``The following Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO)
subordinate entities:
    Liquid Propulsion Systems Center; Solid Propellant Space Booster
Plant (SPROB); Sriharikota Space Center (SHAR); and Vikram Sarabhai
Space Center (VSSC), Thiruvananthapuram.''.

    Dated: January 20, 2011.
Eric L. Hirschhorn,
Under Secretary for Industry and Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-1471 Filed 1-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52043-52044]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER02-2001-019, ER13-392-000, ER11-4531-000, ER12-2514-000]

Electric Quarterly Reports: M&R Energy Resources Corp., Reliable
Power, LLC, Susterra Energy, LLC; Order on Intent To Revoke Market-
Based Rate Authority

Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller,
Cheryl A. LaFleur, Tony Clark, and Colette D. Honorable.

    1. Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824d
(2012), and 18 CFR part 35 (2015), require, among other things, that
all rates, terms, and conditions of jurisdictional services be filed
with the Commission. In Order No. 2001, the Commission revised its
public utility filing requirements and established a requirement for
public utilities, including power marketers, to file Electric Quarterly
Reports summarizing the contractual terms and conditions in their
agreements for all jurisdictional services (including market-based
power sales, cost-based power sales, and transmission service) and
providing transaction information (including rates) for short-term and
long-term power sales during the most recent calendar quarter.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-A, 100
FERC ] 61,074, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-B, 100 FERC ] 61,342,
order directing filing, Order No. 2001-C, 101 FERC ] 61,314 (2002),
order directing filing, Order No. 2001-D, 102 FERC ] 61,334, order
refining filing requirements, Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ] 61,352
(2003), order on clarification, Order No. 2001-F, 106 FERC ] 61,060
(2004), order revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-G, 120
FERC ] 61,270, order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 2001-H,
121 FERC ] 61,289 (2007), order revising filing requirements, Order
No. 2001-I, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,282 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission requires sellers with market-based rate
authorization to file Electric Quarterly Reports.\2\ Commission staff's
review of the Electric Quarterly Report submittals indicates that the
following three public utilities with market-based rate authorization
have failed to file their Electric Quarterly Reports: M&R Energy
Resources Corp.; Reliable Power, LLC; and Susterra Energy, LLC. This
order notifies these public utilities that their market-based rate
authorizations will be revoked unless they comply with the Commission's
requirements within 15 days of the date of issuance of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of
Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public
Utilities, Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252, at P 3,
clarified, 121 FERC ] 61,260 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-
A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,268, clarified, 124 FERC ] 61,055, order
on reh'g, Order No. 697-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,285 (2008),
order on reh'g, Order No. 697-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,291
(2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-D, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,305 (2010), aff'd sub nom. Mont. Consumer Counsel v. FERC, 659
F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 26 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Order No. 2001, the Commission stated that,

[i]f a public utility fails to file a[n] Electric Quarterly Report
(without an appropriate request for extension), or fails to report
an agreement in a report, that public utility may forfeit its
market-based rate authority and may be required to file a new
application for market-based rate authority if it wishes to resume
making sales at market-based rates.\[3]\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127 at P 222.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    4. The Commission further stated that,

[o]nce this rule becomes effective, the requirement to comply with
this rule will supersede the conditions in public utilities' market-
based rate authorizations, and failure to comply with the
requirements of this rule will subject public utilities to the same
consequences they would face for not satisfying the conditions in
their rate authorizations, including possible revocation

of their authority to make wholesale power sales at market-based
rates.\[4]\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. P 223.

    5. Pursuant to these requirements, the Commission has revoked the
market-based rate tariffs of market-based rate sellers that failed to
submit their Electric Quarterly Reports.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Electric Quarterly Reports, 75 FR 63468 (Oct. 15,
2010); Electric Quarterly Reports, 75 FR 45111 (Aug. 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Sellers must file Electric Quarterly Reports consistent with the
procedures set forth in Order Nos. 768 \6\ and 770.\7\ The exact filing
dates for Electric Quarterly Reports are prescribed in 18 CFR 35.10b
(2015). As noted above, Commission staff's review of the Electric
Quarterly Report submittals for the period up to the second quarter of
2015 identified three public utilities with market-based rate
authorization that failed to file Electric Quarterly Reports.
Commission staff contacted or attempted to contact these entities to
remind them of their regulatory obligations. Despite these reminders,
the public utilities listed in the caption of this order have not met
these obligations. Accordingly, this order notifies these public
utilities that their market-based rate authorizations will be revoked
unless they comply with the Commission's requirements within 15 days of
the issuance of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of
the Federal Power Act, Order No. 768, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,336
(2012), order on reh'g, Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ] 61,054 (2013).
    \7\ Revisions to Electric Quarterly Report Filing Process, Order
No. 770, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,338 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. In the event that any of the above-captioned market-based rate
sellers has already filed its Electric Quarterly Reports in compliance
with the Commission's requirements, its inclusion herein is
inadvertent. Such market-based rate seller is directed, within 15 days
of the date of issuance of this order, to make a filing with the
Commission identifying itself and providing details about its prior
filings that establish that it complied with the Commission's Electric
Quarterly Report filing requirements.
    8. If any of the above-captioned market-based rate sellers does not
wish to continue having market-based rate authority, it may file a
notice of cancellation with the Commission pursuant to section 205 of
the FPA to cancel its market-based rate tariff.
    The Commission orders:
    (A) Within 15 days of the date of issuance of this order, each
public utility listed in the caption of this order shall file with the
Commission all delinquent Electric Quarterly Reports. If a public
utility subject to this order fails to make the filings required in
this order, the Commission will revoke that public utility's market-
based rate authorization and will terminate its electric market-based
rate tariff. The Secretary is hereby directed, upon expiration of the
filing deadline in this order, to promptly issue a notice, effective on
the date of issuance, listing the public utilities whose tariffs have
been revoked for failure to comply with the requirements of this order
and the Commission's Electric Quarterly Report filing requirements.
    (B) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish this order in the
Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: August 21, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21201 Filed 8-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24399-24401]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08852]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0022; Project Identifier AD-2020-01264-A;
Amendment 39-22033; AD 2022-09-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Model PA-34-200 airplanes. This AD
was prompted by the determination that the life limit for alternate
bolts that attach the drag link to the nose gear were not listed as
airworthiness limitations. This AD requires establishing a life limit
for these bolts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; website: https://www.piper.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817)
222-5110.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0022; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Caplan, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered
Piper Model PA-34-200 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on February 3, 2022 (87 FR 6089; corrected February 16, 2022,
87 FR 8752). The NPRM was prompted by a notification from Piper that
prior revisions of the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) for
certain Piper Model PA-34-200 airplanes did not contain a life limit
for bolt part number (P/N) 693-215 (standard P/N NAS6207-50D). Bolt P/N
693-215 (NAS6207-50D) is an alternate part for P/N 400-274 (standard P/
N AN7-35). These bolts attach the drag link to the nose gear trunnion
on Piper Model PA-34-200 airplanes. Piper did not include an ALS
revision for the P/N 693-215 (standard P/N NAS6207-50D) bolt to
establish the same life limit as the P/N 400-274 (AN7-35). If bolt P/N
693-215 (standard P/N NAS6207-

50D) that attaches the drag link to the nose gear trunnion remains in
service beyond its fatigue life, failure of the nose landing gear could
occur, which could result in loss of airplane control during take-off,
landing, or taxi operations.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require establishing a 500-hour
life limit for bolt P/N 693-215 and P/N NAS6207-50D. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from two individual commenters. The
following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response.
    One individual supported the NPRM without change.
    Another individual requested the FAA revise the proposed AD by
requiring different assembly procedures and hardware as terminating
action. The commenter stated that failure of the bolt results from the
bolts not being tightened properly or loosening up in service. The
commenter noted that this can be corrected with improved maintenance
instructions to achieve the proper torque and hardware (thinner
washers, a longer bushing, or a slightly longer bolt, for example) to
provide sufficient lateral clearance on the bushing to avoid binding.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion. This AD is not
addressing potential failure of the bolt through maintenance practices
but instead addresses the life limit for the subject bolt, which is
part of the aircraft's type design. The life limit was inadvertently
omitted from the ALS, and this AD simply corrects that omission. To the
extent the commenter requested a terminating action, this request is
unnecessary as this AD only requires a one-time change to the aircraft
maintenance records.
    The FAA did not change this AD based on this comment.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Piper Seneca Service Manual, Airworthiness
Limitations, 753-817, page 1-1, dated November 30, 2019. This service
information specifies the life limits of the P/N 693-215 (standard P/N
NAS6207-50D) bolt that attaches the drag link to the nose gear
trunnion.

ADs Mandating Airworthiness Limitations

    The FAA has previously mandated airworthiness limitations by
issuing ADs that require revising the ALS of the existing maintenance
manual or instructions for continued airworthiness to incorporate new
or revised inspections and life limits. This AD, however, requires
incorporating new or revised inspections and life limits into the
maintenance records required by 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2)
for your airplane. The FAA does not intend this as a substantive
change. Requiring incorporation of the new ALS requirements into the
maintenance records, rather than requiring individual repetitive
inspections and replacements, allows operators to record AD compliance
once after updating the maintenance records, rather than recording
compliance after every inspection and part replacement.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 187 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost          airplane        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise the Airworthiness            1 work-hour x $85 per  Not Applicable.......             $85         $15,895
 Limitations.                        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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2022-09-13 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-22033; Docket No.

FAA-2022-0022; Project Identifier AD-2020-01264-A.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 31, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA-34-200
airplanes, serial numbers 34-7250001 through 34-7450220,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 3220, Nose/Tail
Landing Gear.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the determination that the life limit
for alternate bolts that attach the drag link to the nose gear were
not included as airworthiness limitations. The FAA is issuing this
AD to establish a life limit on bolt part numbers 693-215 and
NAS6207-50D that attach the drag link to the nose gear trunnion. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the
nose landing gear and lead to loss of airplane control during take-
off, landing, or taxi operations.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Actions

    (1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate into the maintenance records required by 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2) for your airplane a life limit of 500
hours for bolt part numbers 693-215 and NAS6207-50D.
    Note to paragraph (g)(1): Piper Seneca Service Manual,
Airworthiness Limitations, 753-817, page 1-1, dated November 30,
2019, contains the life limit in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (h)(1) of this
AD, no alternative replacement times may be approved for these
bolts.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Fred Caplan,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper
Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; website: https://www.piper.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on April 21, 2022.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-08852 Filed 4-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM
TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790
FROM:	Mary Johnson, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD
DATE:	November 2012
SUBJECT:	Record of Contact with National Renderers Association
            Area Source Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers

On November 28, 2012, Mr. Doug Irvin contacted Dr. Robert Wayland of the EPA, on behalf of the National Renderers Association (NRA), to inquire whether EPA received the NRA's February 21, 2012 docket submission of their comments regarding the December 23, 2011 proposed reconsideration of the final Area Source Boiler Rule. Specifically, Mr. Irvin referenced the NRA's request for consideration of a processed fats fuel subcategory that would be exempt from the Area Source Boiler Rule. On November 28, 2012, Dr. Wayland replied, on behalf of EPA, that we received the submission and are in the process of evaluating the comments and requests of the NRA's submission along with submissions from others in the course of EPA's reconsideration proceeding, and that EPA plans on addressing the issues raised when we take final action on our reconsideration.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 40508]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17540]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-343-008; ER16-701-001; ER13-342-012; ER16-700-
001.
    Applicants: CPV Maryland, LLC, CPV Valley, LLC, CPV Shore, LLC, CPV
Towantic, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to July 23, 2017 Amendment to Market Power
Update of CPV Maryland, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/7/18.
    Accession Number: 20180807-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1743-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: NYISO response to deficiency letter
on Alternate LCR to be effective 10/9/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180809-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1872-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 1636R21 Kansas Electric Power
Cooperative, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 9/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/8/18.
    Accession Number: 20180808-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2188-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original Cost Responsibility
Agreement, Service Agreement No. 5157, NQ162 to be effective 7/10/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180809-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2189-000.
    Applicants: Sanford Energy Associates, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authority to be effective 8/10/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180809-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2190-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 274--
Notice of Succession of Black Hills Colorado Electric to be effective
7/10/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180809-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2191-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits eight ECSAs,
Service Agreement Nos. 4892, 4967, 4979, 4980, et al to be effective
10/9/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180809-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2192-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 4592, Non-queue No. NQ144 to be effective 7/12/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180809-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2193-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 20180809_Joint Dispatch
Service Agreement Notice of Succession of Black Hills to be effective
7/10/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180809-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 9, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17540 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12052-12054]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04008]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0091, FRL-9784-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Ambient Air Quality Surveillance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the EPA is planning
to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This ICR will also incorporate the following ICRs which were approved
under separate rulemaking actions:
    ICR 2358 (OMB 2060-0638) Nitrogen Oxides Ambient
Monitoring

    ICR 2370 (OMB 2060-0642) Sulfur Dioxides Ambient
Monitoring
    ICR 0940 (OMB 2060-0084) PM2.5 Ambient
Monitoring
    This over-arching ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2014.
Before submitting the ICR to the OMB for review and approval, the EPA
is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number OAR-
2002-0091, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0091. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Trinca, Air Quality Assessment
Division, Environmental Protection Agency; telephone number (919) 541-
0520; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    The EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket
ID No. EPA-OAR-2002-0091, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the Air and Radiation Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What information is the EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, the EPA is requesting comments
from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples
of specific additional efforts that the EPA could make to reduce the
paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What should I consider when I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the
docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the
first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Federal Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
those state, local air pollution control agencies, and tribal entities
which collect and report ambient air quality data for the criteria
pollutants to the EPA as well as other supporting measurements.
    Title: Ambient Air Quality Surveillance.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0940-27 OMB Control No. 2060-0084.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on December
31, 2014. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the
Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are
displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other
appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or
form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR includes ambient air monitoring data and other

supporting measurements reporting and recordkeeping activities
associated with the 40 CFR 58 Ambient Air Quality Surveillance rule.
These data and information are collected by various state and local air
quality management agencies and reported to the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards within the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.
EPA.
    This ICR reflects revisions of the previous ICR update of 2011, and
it covers the period of 2013-2015. The number of monitoring stations,
sampling parameters, and frequency of data collection and submittal is
expected to remain relatively stable for 2013-2015, with minor
increases and decreases expected for several ambient air monitoring
networks as air monitoring agencies review their monitoring networks.
    The data collected through this information collection consist of
ambient air concentration measurements for the seven air pollutants
with national ambient air quality standards (i.e., ozone, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, carbon monoxide, PM2.5 and
PM10), ozone precursors, meteorological variables at a
select number of sites, and other supporting measurements. Accompanying
the pollutant concentration data are quality assurance/quality control
data and air monitoring network design information.
    The EPA and others (e.g., state and local air quality management
agencies, tribal entities, environmental groups, academic institutions,
industrial groups) use the ambient air quality data for many purposes.
Some of the more prominent uses include informing the public and other
interested parties of an area's air quality, judging an area's (e.g.,
county, city, neighborhood) air quality in comparison with the
established health or welfare standards (including both national and
local standards), evaluating an air quality management agency's
progress in achieving or maintaining air pollutant levels below the
national and local standards, developing and revising State
Implementation Plans in accordance with 40 CFR 51, evaluating air
pollutant control strategies, developing or revising national control
policies, providing data for air quality model development and
validation, supporting enforcement actions, documenting episodes and
initiating episode controls, air quality trends assessment, and air
pollution research.
    The state and local agencies and tribal entities with
responsibility for reporting ambient air quality data and information
as requested in this ICR submit these data electronically to the EPA's
Air Quality System (AQS) database. Quality assurance/quality control
records and monitoring network documentation are also maintained by
each state and local agency in AQS electronic format where possible.
    Although the state and local air pollution control agencies and
tribal entities are responsible for the operation of the air monitoring
networks, the EPA funds a portion of the total costs through federal
grants. These grants generally require an appropriate level of
contribution, or ``match,'' from the state/local agencies or tribal
entities. The costs shown in this renewal are the total costs incurred
for the monitoring program regardless of the source of the funding.
This practice of using the total cost is consistent with prior ICR
submittals and renewals.
    This Information Collection is estimated to involve 168 respondents
for a total cost of approximately $194,490,047 (total capital, and
labor and non-labor operation and maintenance) plus a total burden of
1,790,021 hours. The labor costs associated with the hours is
$126,733,274. Included in the total are other costs of non-labor
operations and maintenance of $13,090,237 and equipment and contract
costs of $54,666,536. In addition to the costs at the state and local
air pollution control agencies and tribal entities, there is a burden
to the EPA of 192,769 hours and $11,014,728.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6,742
hours per respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 168
    Frequency of response: Data submissions are required quarterly, but
may occur more frequently.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 1,790,021 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $194,490,047. This includes an
estimated labor burden cost of $126,733,274 and an estimated cost of
$54,666,536 for equipment and contract costs.

Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    Yes. There is a decrease of 289,469 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease reflects the EPA's consolidation of
monitors into fewer sites, termination of unnecessary monitors, and
more efficient procedures for measuring and reporting data.

What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to the OMB
for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, the
EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to the OMB and
the opportunity to submit additional comments to the OMB. If you have
any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact
the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: February 14, 2013.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Air Quality Assessment Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-04008 Filed 2-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 6623-6624]
[DOCID:fr12fe07-120]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55220]

Order Cancelling Registrations of Certain Transfer Agents

February 1, 2007.
    On October 26, 2006, notice was published in the Federal Register
that the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') intended
to issue an order, pursuant to Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Securities
Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ cancelling the registrations of the transfer
agents whose names appeared in the attached Appendix.\2\ For the
reasons discussed below, the Commission is cancelling the registration
of the transfer agents identified in the attached Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(c)(4)(B).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54633 (October 20,
2006), 71 FR 62631.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry W. Carpenter, Assistant
Director, or Catherine Moore, Special Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Division of Market Regulation, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100
F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-6628.

Background

    Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that if the Commission
finds that any transfer agent registered with the Commission is no
longer in existence or has ceased to do business as a transfer agent,
the Commission shall by order cancel that transfer agent's
registration. On October 26, 2006, the Commission published notice of
its intention to cancel the registration of certain transfer agents
whom it believed were no longer in existence or had ceased to do
business as transfer agents.
    In the notice the Commission identified 45 such transfer agents and
stated that at any time after November 27, 2006, which was 30 days
after the notice was published in the Federal Register, the Commission
intended to issue an order canceling the registrations of any or all of
the identified transfer agents. One of the identified transfer agents
contacted the Commission to object to the cancellation of its
registration because it states that it has not ceased to do business as
a transfer agent. The Commission has decided not to cancel the
registration of this transfer agent at this time in order to conduct
further inquiry. One other transfer agent contacted the Commission
regarding the cancellation of its registration but did not object after
it was informed that it had more than one registration number and that
the Commission intended to cancel only its inactive registration
number. None of the remaining 43 identified transfer agents contacted
the Commission to object to the cancellation of their registrations.
    Accordingly, the Commission is cancelling the registration of each
of the 44 transfer agents identified in the Appendix attached to this
Order.

Order

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that each of
the transfer agents whose name appears in the attached Appendix either
is no longer in existence or has ceased doing business as a transfer
agent.
    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Act
that the registration as a transfer agent of each of the transfer
agents whose name appears in the attached Appendix be and hereby is
cancelled.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation pursuant
to delegated authority.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.

                                                                        Appendix
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Registration number                                                                 Name
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
84-0019...............................  LG & E Energy Corp.
84-0548...............................  American Bancservices Inc.
84-0711...............................  Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
84-0904...............................  Pfizer Inc.
84-1257...............................  BNY Clearing Services LLC.
84-1663...............................  Merrill Lynch Investment Partners Inc.
84-1735...............................  Alpha Tech Stock Transfer Trust.
84-1737...............................  Declaration Service Company.
84-1828...............................  Consumers Financial Corp.
84-1923...............................  WOC Stock Transfer Company, Inc.
84-5494...............................  Metropolitan Martage and Securities Co., Inc.
84-5550...............................  Cinergy Service, Inc.
84-5606...............................  Sunstates Corporation.
84-5647...............................  Penn Street Advisors, Inc.
84-5694...............................  Khan Funds.
84-5720...............................  Bulto Transfer Agency, Limited Liability Company.
84-5727...............................  Impact Administrative Service, Inc.
84-5754...............................  Alpine Fiduciary Services, Inc.

84-5755...............................  River Oaks Partnership Services, Inc.
84-5756...............................  IDM Corporation.
84-5773...............................  RVM Industries, Inc.
84-5812...............................  Stock Transfer of America, Inc.
84-5816...............................  Wasatch Stock Transfer, Inc.
84-5826...............................  Lewis, Corey L.
84-5847...............................  Financial Strategies, LLC.
84-5872...............................  D-Lanz Development Group, Inc.
84-5873...............................  CBIZ Retirement Services, Inc.
84-5885...............................  Sovereign Depository Corporation.
84-5897...............................  Newport Stock Transfer Agency, Inc.
84-5899...............................  U.S. Corporate Support Services, Inc.
84-5912...............................  Femis Kerger & Company Transfer Agent & Registrar.
84-6019...............................  Touch America.
84-6032...............................  Merge Media, Inc.
84-6034...............................  Chapman Capital Management, Inc.
84-6039...............................  First Financial Escrow & Transfer, Inc.
84-6045...............................  Pharmacy Buying Association, Inc.
84-6059...............................  Street Transfer & Registrar Agency.
84-6077...............................  Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.
84-6092...............................  Brookhill Stock Transfer Business Trust.
84-6097...............................  Certified Water Systems, Inc.
84-6101...............................  Lauries Happy Thoughts, Inc.
84-6126...............................  Fidelity Custodian Services, Inc.
84-6131...............................  Carolyn Plant.
84-6157...............................  Encompass Corporate Services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-2245 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29779-29781]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10438]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0047; Notice 1]

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper Tire), has determined
that certain Cooper CS5 Grant Touring and Cooper Evolution Tour
replacement passenger car tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for
Light Vehicles. Cooper Tire filed a noncompliance report dated April
28, 2021, and subsequently, Cooper Tire petitioned NHTSA on May 12,
2021, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces receipt of
Cooper Tire's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before June 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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 comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Cooper Tire has determined that certain Cooper CS5 Grand Touring
and Cooper Evolution Tour replacement passenger car tires do not fully
comply with the requirements of paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139,
New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139). Cooper
Tire filed a noncompliance report dated April 28, 2021, pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
Cooper Tire subsequently petitioned NHTSA on May 12, 2021, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Cooper Tire's petition is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 294 Cooper CS5 Grand Touring, size 225/50R18, and
Cooper Evolution Tour, size 225/60R16, replacement passenger car tires,
manufactured between February 14, 2021, and March 27, 2021, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Cooper Tire explains that the noncompliance is that the subject
tires were molded with an upside down and backwards serial week and
year on the outboard sidewall as required by paragraph S5.5.1(b) of
FMVSS No. 139.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition.
     Each tire must be labeled with the tire identification
number required by 49 CFR part 574, which includes the date code, on
the intended outboard sidewall of the tire.

V. Summary of Cooper Tire's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Cooper Tire's Petition,'' are the views and arguments
provided by Cooper Tire. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and
do not reflect the views of the Agency. Cooper Tire describes the
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Cooper Tire submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. The tires subject to this petition, on their outboard side only,
were molded with an upside down and backwards DOT serial week and year.
The serial number stampings should read: DOT U9 X3 1 LP 0721 and UP 78
1CW 1221. The outboard side, which includes the date code, was molded
with the date code information oriented incorrectly upside down and
backwards, which resulted in the characters being out of proper
sequence.
    2. Cooper contends that the 294 tires subject to this petition meet
and/or exceed all performance requirements and all other labeling
markings as required by FMVSS No. 139.
    3. Furthermore, Cooper Tire says that is not aware of any crashes,
injuries, customer complaints, or field reports associated with the
subject tires involved in this petition.
    4. Cooper Tire believes that the upside down and backward date code
will not cause confusion for the consumer or dealer that is selecting
and mounting the tire, as the error is quite obvious, and there is no
logical reading or interpretation of the date code in its upside down
and backward position. Cooper Tire also believes that consumers and
dealers will easily be able to see the issue and correctly identify the
date code.
    5. Cooper believes the following NHTSA statements, taken from
another petition, apply to its petition: ``The purpose of the date code
is to identify a tire so that, if necessary, the appropriate action can
be taken in the interest of public safety--such as a safety recall
notice.'' See Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 64 FR 29080 (May 28, 1999);
see also Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, 68 FR 16115 (April 2, 2003).
Furthermore, Cooper feels the following NHTSA statement applies to its
petition, ``[t]he agency believes that the true measure of
inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety in this case is the effect
of the noncompliance on the ability of the tire manufacturer to
identify the tires in the event of recall.'' See Bridgestone/Firestone,
Inc., 66 FR 45076 (Aug. 27, 2001).
    6. Cooper also stated that NHTSA has granted petitions and found
that TIN noncompliance is inconsequential to safety in cases where the
TIN is out of sequence or mislabeled. See, Bridgestone/Firestone North
America Tire, LLC, 71 FR 4396 (Jan. 26, 2006) (granting petition where
date code was missing because manufacturer could still identify and
recall the tires); Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, 68 FR 16115 (April 2,
2003) (granting petition where

tires were labeled with wrong plant code, because ``the tires have a
unique DOT identification''); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 66 FR 45076
(Aug. 27, 2001) (granting petition where the date code was labeled
incorrectly, because ``the information included on the tire
identification label and the manufacturer's tire production records is
sufficient to ensure that these tires can be identified in the event of
a recall''); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 64 FR 29080 (May 28, 1999)
(granting petition where the wrong year was marked in date code on the
tires); Cooper Tire & Rubber Company; 63 FR 29059 (May 27, 1998)
(granting petition where date code was missing where tires had a unique
TIN for recall purposes); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 60 FR 57617
(Nov. 16, 1995) (granting petition where date code was out of
sequence); Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company, 59 FR 64232 (Dec. 13, 1994)
(granting petition where week and year were mislabeled on tires).
    Cooper Tire concludes that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject tires that Cooper Tire no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after
Cooper Tire notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-10438 Filed 5-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P