[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56921-56924]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20095]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 385, 386, 390, and 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0078]
RIN 2126-AC50

Electronic Logging Device Revisions

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA solicits public comment on ways to improve the clarity
of current regulations on the use of electronic logging devices (ELD)
and address certain concerns about the technical specifications raised
by industry stakeholders. The Agency seeks comment in five specific
areas in which the Agency is considering changes: applicability to pre-
2000 engines; addressing ELD malfunctions; the process for removing ELD
products from FMCSA's list of certified devices; technical
specifications; and ELD certification.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before November
15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2022-0078 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2022-0078/document. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Dockets Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202) 366-
9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Andrew Christopher, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance,<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected].
Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., CT, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Dockets Operations, (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is organized as
follows:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy
II. Abbreviations
III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
IV. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
V. Background
VI. Request for Comments

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
ANPRM, indicate the specific section of this document to which your
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2022-0078/document, click on this ANPRM, click
``Comment,'' and type your comment into the text box on the following
screen.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure.
If your comments responsive to the ANPRM contain commercial or
financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you
actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the
ANPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that
constitutes CBI as ``PROPIN'' to indicate it contains proprietary
information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as

confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be
placed in the public docket of the ANPRM. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation
Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket,
go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2022-0078/document and
choose the document to review. To view comments, click this ANPRM, then
click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the internet,
you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy

    DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its
regulatory process, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c). DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL 14--Federal Docket Management System), which
can be reviewed at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-01-17/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

II. Abbreviations

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
DOT Department of Transportation
ECM Engine Control Module
ELD Electronic Logging Device
E.O. Executive Order
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
FR Federal Register
HMTAA Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994
HOS Hours of Service
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OMB The Office of Management and Budget
RODS Records of Duty Status
The Secretary Secretary of Transportation
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
U.S.C. United States Code

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    FMCSA's authority for this rulemaking is derived from several
statutes, which are discussed below.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31502(b) (originally enacted as part of the Motor
Carrier Act of 1935 (Pub. L. 74-255, 49 Stat. 543, Aug. 9, 1935),
``[t]he Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for--(1)
qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety
of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications
and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of
equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of
operation''. The rule requiring the use of electronic logging devices
(ELDs) increases compliance with the hours of service (HOS) regulations
and addresses the ``safety of operation'' of motor carriers subject to
this statute.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a) (originally enacted as part of the Motor
Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832,
Oct. 30, 1984)),) the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is
authorized to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment.
The statute requires the Secretary to prescribe minimum safety
standards for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) to ensure that--(1) CMVs
are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2)
responsibilities imposed on CMV drivers do not impair their ability to
operate the vehicles safely; (3) drivers' physical condition is
adequate to operate the vehicles safely; (4) the operation of CMVs does
not have a deleterious effect on drivers' physical condition; and (5)
CMV drivers are not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or
transportation intermediary to operate a CMV in violation of
regulations promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 31136 or under chapter 51 or
chapter 313 of 49 U.S.C.. Under 49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and (10), the
Secretary has broad power in carrying out motor carrier safety statutes
and regulations to ``prescribe recordkeeping and reporting
requirements'' and to ``perform other acts the Secretary considers
appropriate''. The HOS regulations, and the ELDs used to track
compliance with them, ensure that driving time--one of the principal
``responsibilities imposed on the operators of commercial motor
vehicles''--does ``not impair their ability to operate the vehicles
safely'' (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2)). Driver and motor carrier compliance
with the HOS rules, as tracked by ELDs, also helps to ensure that
drivers are provided time to obtain restorative rest and thus that
``the physical condition of [CMV drivers] is adequate to enable them to
operate the vehicles safely'' (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3)).
    FMCSA's regulations requiring the use of ELDs must ensure that ELDs
are not used to ``harass a vehicle operator'' (49 U.S.C. 31137(a)(2)).
This requirement to ensure that electronic driver-monitoring devices
are not used to harass drivers was enacted originally by section 9104
of the Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act (Pub. L. 100-690,
102 Stat. 4181, 4529, Nov. 18, 1988) and was reiterated and amended by
the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), This
provision is implemented by 49 CFR part 395, subpart B.
    Section 113 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization
Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 16776-1677, Aug. 26,
1994) requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations to improve
compliance by CMV drivers and motor carriers with HOS requirements and
the efficiency of Federal and State authorized safety officials
reviewing such compliance. Specifically, the Act addresses requirements
for supporting documents. These mandates are implemented by 49 CFR part
395, subpart B.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31137(a) (section 32301(b) of the Commercial Motor
Vehicle Safety Enhancement Act, originally enacted as part of MAP-21
(Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 786-788, July 6, 2012)), the Secretary
is mandated to adopt regulations requiring that CMVs involved in
interstate commerce, operated by drivers who are required to keep
records of duty status (RODS), be equipped with ELDs. This statute was
implemented by 49 CFR part 395, subpart B.

IV. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and E.O. 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this ANPRM is not a
significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as
supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order.
Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under these orders.
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to provide a
meaningful opportunity for public participation. Accordingly, the
Agency has asked commenters to answer a

variety of questions to elicit practical information about alternative
approaches, including the associated costs and benefits of those
approaches, and relevant scientific, technical, and economic data.

V. Background

Need for Additional Consideration

    The ELD final rule (80 FR 78291, Dec. 16, 2015), established
minimum performance and design standards for HOS ELDs; requirements for
the mandatory use of these devices by drivers who were currently
required to prepare HOS RODS; requirements concerning HOS supporting
documents; and measures to address concerns about harassment resulting
from the mandatory use of ELDs. The 2015 final rule is summarized
below.
    FMCSA believes that the lessons learned by Agency staff, State
enforcement personnel, ELD providers, and industry over the last few
years can be used to streamline and improve the clarity of the
regulatory text and ELD technical specifications and resolve questions
that have arisen. In addition, technical specifications could be
updated to address concerns raised by affected parties and improve the
functionality of ELDs.

Current HOS and ELD Regulations

    The current HOS regulations in 49 CFR part 395 limit the number of
hours a CMV driver may drive. The regulations also limit, during each
7- or 8-day period, the maximum on-duty time before driving is
prohibited. Such rules are needed to ensure drivers stay awake and
alert. Sufficient rest, including sleep and breaks, are necessary to
ensure that a driver is alert behind the wheel and able to respond
appropriately to changes in the driving environment. With certain
exceptions, motor carriers and drivers are required by Sec.  395.8 to
keep RODS to track driving, on-duty, and off-duty time. FMCSA and State
agencies use these records to review and ensure compliance with the HOS
rules. The current ELD regulations are found in subpart B of 49 CFR
part 395, including the ELD Technical Specifications in Appendix A to
subpart B of 49 CFR part 395.

ELD Rulemakings/Proposals

    In a March 28, 2014, supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM) which included a discussion of prior rulemakings regarding
recording devices, FMCSA proposed amendments to the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to establish minimum performance
and design standards for HOS ELDs, requirements for the mandatory use
of these devices by drivers currently required to prepare HOS RODS,
requirements concerning HOS supporting documents, and measures to
address concerns about harassment resulting from the mandatory use of
ELDs (79 FR 17656). The SNPRM also proposed new ELD technical
specifications and addressed the issue of ELDs being used by motor
carriers to harass drivers. The SNPRM proposed the following four
options: (1) mandate ELDs for all CMV operations subject to 49 CFR part
395; (2) mandate ELDs for all CMV operations where the driver is
required to complete RODS under Sec.  395.8; (3) mandate ELDs for all
CMV operations subject to 49 CFR part 395, with the ELD required to
include or be able to be connected to a printer and print RODS; and (4)
mandate ELDs for all CMV operations where the driver is required to
complete RODS under Sec.  395.8, with the ELD required to include or be
able to be connected to a printer and print RODS.
    The Agency published a final rule in the Federal Register (80 FR
78292) on December 16, 2015, which amended the FMCSRs in the following
ways: (1) it established one technical specification for all ELDs that
addressed statutory requirements; (2) it mandated ELDs for drivers
currently using RODS; (3) it clarified supporting document requirements
to allow motor carriers and drivers to comply efficiently with HOS
regulations; and (4) it adopted both procedural and technical
provisions aimed at ensuring that ELDs are not used to harass CMV
operators. The effective date of the final rule was February 16, 2016,
and the principal compliance date was December 18, 2017.
    The final rule included: (1) Supporting Documents Requirements--The
maximum number of supporting documents that must be retained was 8. In
addition, the timeframe in which a driver must submit RODS and
supporting documents to a motor carrier was 13 days; (2) Technical
Specifications for ELD--The rule required that electronic data transfer
must be made by either: (a) wireless web services and email or (b)
Bluetooth[supreg] and USB 2.0. Furthermore, to facilitate roadside
inspections, and ensure authorized safety officials are always able to
access this data, including cases of limited connectivity, an ELD must
provide either a display or printout; (3) Exceptions--Two optional ELD
exceptions were added: (a) Driveaway-towaway operations are not
required to use an ELD, provided the vehicle driven is part of the
shipment or is a motor home or a recreation vehicle trailer; and (b)
Drivers are not required to use ELDs when operating CMVs older than
model year 2000; and (4) ELD Certification--To ensure that ELD
providers are afforded due process in case of ELD compliance issues,
FMCSA created a procedure to remove ELD devices from the Agency's list
of certified products.
    The Agency clarified its supporting document requirements,
recognizing that ELD records serve as the most robust form of
documentation for on-duty driving periods. The rule also contained
provisions calculated to prevent the use of ELDs to harass drivers. The
compliance dates of the 2015 rule were either December 18, 2017, for
most motor carriers, or December 17, 2019, for carriers that had
voluntarily installed a recording device before the effective date of
the final rule (80 FR 78292).

VI. Request for Comments

    The Agency seeks comments and data from the public in response to
this ANPRM. We request that commenters specifically address the issues
listed below, and number their comments to correspond to each issue.
FMCSA anticipates that some of the information and data submitted may
include CBI. Those comments should be filed in accordance with the
requirements of Sec.  389.9,``Treatment of confidential business
information submitted under confidential class determinations,'' and
the instructions in the CBI subheading under ``Public Participation and
Request for Comments'' above.

1. Applicability to Pre-2000 Engines

    a. Many vehicles with pre-2000 engines and most vehicles with
rebuilt pre-2000 engines have engine control modules (ECMs) installed
that could accommodate an ELD. Should FMCSA re-evaluate or modify the
applicability of the current ELD regulation for re-built or re-
manufactured CMV engines or glider kits? \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 1037.801 defines Glider kit as either of the
following:
    (1) A new vehicle that is incomplete because it lacks an engine,
transmission, and/or axle(s).
    (2) Any other new equipment that is substantially similar to a
complete motor vehicle and is intended to become a complete motor
vehicle with a previously used engine (including a rebuilt or
remanufactured engine). For example, incomplete heavy-duty tractor
assemblies that are made available to secondary vehicle
manufacturers to complete assembly by installing used/remanufactured
engines, transmissions and axles are glider kits. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-U/part-1037#p-1037.801(Glider%20kit).

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

    b. Please provide data regarding the size of the glider kit
population utilizing pre-2000 engines.

2. Addressing ELD Malfunctions

    Currently, Sec.  395.34(a) requires a driver documenting his or her
RODS to switch to paper logs when an ELD malfunctions. Section
395.34(c) requires a driver to follow the motor carrier and ELD
provider recommendations when a data diagnostic event is logged.
Whenever an ELD fails to record a driver's hours, enforcement personnel
must be able to review the driver's paper logs. By contrast, when an
ELD malfunctions but continues to record the driver's hours accurately,
the driver should not switch to paper logs.
    Should FMCSA amend carrier and driver responsibilities in Sec.
395.34 to clarify when a driver must switch to paper logs?

3. Removal Process

    a. If an ELD provider goes out of business and fails to self-
revoke, should FMCSA be able to immediately remove the device from the
registered ELD list?
    b. The ELD rule requires ELD providers to keep their information
current. However, the rule does not include a time restriction. Should
FMCSA require ELD providers to update their listing within 30 calendar
days of any change to their registration information found in section
5.1.1? Additionally, should ELD providers be required to confirm their
information on an annual basis? Should an ELD provider's ELD be removed
from the FMCSA list if it fails to confirm or update its listing on an
annual basis?
    c. Under Section 5.4 Removal of Listed Certification, providers
must respond to the Agency's written notice of required corrective
action within 30 days to remain on the list. Additionally, the provider
is given 60 days after the Agency provides a written modification to
the notice of proposed removal or notice to affirm the proposed removal
under Section 5.4.4. Should FMCSA consider decreasing the 60-day period
to 30 days, in order to more timely remove an ELD listing found with
non-compliance issues that could adversely impact highway safety?
    d. Should FMCSA consider any other factors related to a carrier's
continued use of a device that has been removed from the FMCSA list due
to a provider's status (out of business or failure to file an annual
registration update)?

4. Technical Specifications

    a. Would ELD providers be able to include, in the output file and
registration, the version numbers of the individual components of the
ELD (e.g., the software version number running on the graphical user
interface/tablet, the firmware running on the gateway/black box, and
the software version number of the back-office software), if any of
these components were required to comply with the ELD regulations?
    b. FMCSA requests information on the impact of including the
following data elements to every event. FMCSA believes recording this
information would allow the technical specifications to be modified to
eliminate the requirements of providing power up and shut down events
from vehicles a driver has previously operated that are not associated
with the requested driver's data/RODS:

1. Actual odometer
2. Actual engine hours
3. Location description
4. Geo-location
5. VIN
6. Power unit
7. Shipping document number
8. Trailer number
9. Driver
10. Co-driver if there was one
11. Which driver was driving at the time, if there was a co-driver

    c. To more efficiently monitor a vehicle over the course of its
operation, should more frequent intermediate recordings (including the
same data elements listed in 4b.) be required on the quarter hour, half
hour, three-quarter hour, and hour? If not, what would be a reasonable
frequency to require intermediate recordings?
    d. FMCSA granted a temporary exception (82 FR 48883, Oct. 20, 2017)
that allowed all motor carriers to configure an ELD with a yard-move
mode that does not require a driver to re-input yard-move status every
time the tractor is powered off. Additionally, the ELD would switch to
a ``driving'' duty status under Sec.  395.24 if (1) the driver inputs
``driving,'' (2) the vehicle exceeds 20 mph, or (3) the vehicle exits
the geo-fenced yard. Should FMCSA consider adding this temporary
exception to the regulation? Are there other factors related to this
temporary exception that should be considered?
    e. In the preamble to the 2015 final rule, FMCSA stated that the
driver was expected to enter a new duty status before powering off the
ELD and turning the vehicle off. However, drivers often fail to enter a
new duty status prior to powering off the ELD, resulting in the driver
remaining in driving status. To eliminate the issue, should the ELD
automatically record an on-duty not-driving event following the
recording of an engine shutdown? Are there other options that should be
considered?
    f. The industry has reported that the current 5 second requirement
is not enough time for an ELD to obtain the information it has
requested from the ECM, as required by section <IP_ADDRESS> in the Appendix
to subpart B of part 395. What would be a reasonable amount of time? Is
this an issue only at power up?
    g. Should FMCSA consider allowing a driver, rather than the motor
carrier, to change his or her ELD configuration to an exempt status to
help reduce the administrative burden noted by the industry? Should
FMCSA consider expanding the list of special driving categories in
Sec.  395.28(a) to include driving performed under an exemption? If so,
what data should be recorded to specifically identify who made the
change, why the change was made, and where the change took place, to
achieve an equivalent level of safety to prevent falsification?
    h. Would the technical specification changes discussed in this
section necessitate a change in ELD hardware? Or could these changes be
pushed to existing ELD devices via a software update? If such updates
are feasible, what would the cost implications be?
    i. Should other technical specifications, not addressed in this
list, be considered for revision to improve ELD data recording, data
transfer, cross-border commerce or information security and compliance?
Please provide data to support your suggestion.
    j. What action(s) do you recommend FMCSA take to ensure that ELD
specifications remain current with advances in technology?

5. ELD Certification

    a. Should FMCSA establish a certification process for ELDs? If so,
what should a certification process consist of?
    b. Based on your answer to the above questions, what would be the
costs and benefits of that approach?
    c. If a certification process is established, how should existing
devices be treated?
    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.

Robin Hutcheson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-20095 Filed 9-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33796-33797]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15290]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0195; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-14]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Medford, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace designated as an
extension to a Class D or E surface area, Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removes Class E airspace
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Rogue Valley International-
Medford Airport, Medford, OR. This action is necessary due to the
decommissioning of the PUMIE locator outer marker and removal of the
Rogue Valley VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC)
from the airspace description as the FAA transitions from ground-based
navigation aids to satellite-based navigation. Also, this action
updates the airport's geographic coordinates for the Class D and E
airspace areas to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies Class E airspace at Rogue Valley International-Medford
Airport, Medford, OR, in support of the transition from ground-based
navigation aids to satellite-based navigation.

History

    On April 13, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR
17776) Docket FAA-2017-0195, a notice of proposed rulemaking to modify
Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface
area, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface, remove Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface at Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, Medford, OR,
and update the geographic coordinates of the airport. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Also, an editorial change is made to the Class D and Class E
surface area airspace legal descriptions replacing Airport/Facility
Directory with the term Chart Supplement.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated
August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016,

and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly
available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA
Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air
traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying Class E airspace designated as an extension to a
Class D or E surface area, modifying Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface, removing Class E airspace upward from
1,200 feet above the surface at Rogue Valley International-Medford
Airport, Medford, OR, and updating the geographic coordinates of the
airport. This action is necessary due to the proposed decommissioning
of the PUMIE locator outer marker and for the safety and management of
aircraft within the national airspace system as the FAA transitions
from ground-based navigation aids to satellite-based navigation.
    Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or E surface
area northeast of the airport is reduced to a 4-mile wide segment (from
5.5 miles wide) extending to 11 miles northwest (from 17.5 miles
northwest) of the airport, and the segment to the southeast is reduced
to a 5-mile wide segment (from 8 miles), extending to 9 miles (from
19.4 miles) southeast of the airport. This airspace redesign is due to
the removal of the Rogue Valley VORTAC navigation aid.
    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
is reduced northeast, southeast, and southwest of the airport to only
that area necessary to contain IFR departures within 1,500 feet of the
surface and IFR departures until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface.
Additionally, the Class E airspace area extending upward from 1,200
feet above the surface designated for Rogue Valley International-
Medford Airport is removed, as this airspace duplicates the Rogue
Valley Class E en route airspace area.
    Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to
match the FAA's current aeronautical database. Additionally, this
action replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the
term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D and E airspace legal
descriptions.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ANM OR D Medford, OR [Modified]

Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, OR
    (Lat. 42[deg]22'27'' N., long. 122[deg]52'25'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,800 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Rogue Valley
International-Medford Airport. This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ANM OR E2 Medford, OR [Modified]

Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, OR
    (Lat. 42[deg]22'27'' N., long. 122[deg]52'25'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.1-
mile radius of Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport. This
Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ANM OR E4 Medford, OR [Modified]

Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, OR
    (Lat. 42[deg]22'27'' N., long. 122[deg]52'25'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.5 miles
each side of the 159[deg] bearing from the Rogue Valley
International-Medford Airport, extending from the 4.1-mile radius of
the airport to 9 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles
each side of the 339[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 11 miles northwest of the
airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM OR E5 Medford, OR [Modified]

Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, OR
    (Lat. 42[deg]22'27'' N., long. 122[deg]52'25'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9-mile radius of Rogue Valley International-Medford
Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 159[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 9-mile radius to 18.5 miles southeast
of the airport, and within 9 miles west and 5.5 miles east of the
352[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 9-mile radius
of the airport to 26 miles northwest of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 11, 2017.
Sam S.L. Shrimpton,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-15290 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 10853-10855]
[DOCID:fr09mr10-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61628; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Related to Multi-Class Broad Based Index Option Spread
Orders

March 2, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 18, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its rule related to multi-class
broad-based index option spreads to include options on index-linked
securities (also known as exchange-traded notes (``ETNs'')) within the
definition of an eligible ``broad-based index option.'' The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://
www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at
the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Commission has approved CBOE's and other option exchanges'
proposals to enable the listing and trading of options on ETNs.\5\
Options trading has not commenced to date and is contingent upon the
Commission's approval of The Options Clearing Corporation's (``OCC'')
proposed supplement to the Options Disclosure Document (``ODD'') that
will provide disclosure regarding options on index-linked
securities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58204 (July
22, 2008), 73 FR 43807 (July 28, 2008) (approving SR-CBOE-2008-64);
58203 (July 22, 2008), 73 FR 43812 (July 28, 2008) (approving SR-
NYSEArca-2008-57); 58985 (November 10, 2008), 73 FR 72538 (November
28, 2008) (approving SR-ISE-2008-86).
    \6\ OCC previously received Commission approval to clear options
based on Index-Linked Securities. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 60872 (October 23, 2009), 74 FR 55878 (October 29, 2009)
(SR-OCC-2009-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the commencement of trading options on ETNs, the Exchange
is proposing to amend CBOE Rule 24.19, Multi-Class Broad-Based Index
Option Spread Orders, to include options on ETNs within the definition
of an eligible ``broad-based index option'' that may be subject to the
multi-class spread trading procedures outlined in Rule 24.19.\7\
Specifically, the definition of an eligible broad-based index option
for purposes of Rule 24.19 will be amended to include an option on an
ETN derived from a broad-based index that is determined by the Exchange
to create an appropriate hedge with any other broad-based index option
under Rule 24.19. This change to include ETNs is the same as an
existing provision in the rule that provides that options on Units
(also known as exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'')) that are derived from
broad-based indices that are determined by the Exchange to create an
appropriate hedge with any other broad-based index option may be
subject to the multi-class spread trading procedures.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rule 24.19 sets for a procedure for trading multi-class
spread orders for eligible broad-based index option classes. For
purposes of Rule 24.19 only, the term ``broad-based index option''
means ``(i) options on the Mini-NDX Index (MNX), Nasdaq-100 Index
(NDX), S&P 100 Index (OEX and XEO), iShares S&P 100 Index Fund
(OEF), Nasdaq-100 Tracking Stock (QQQ), and S&P 500 Index (SPX); and
(ii) any other broad-based index option or option on exchange-traded
fund shares derived from a broad-based index that is determined by
the Exchange to create an appropriate hedge with any other Broad-
Based Index Option under this Rule 24.19.'' See Rule 24.19(a)(1).
    \8\ The Exchange is also proposing a non-substantive change to
the text of Rule 24.19(a)(1) to include a cross-reference to Units
(another term for ETFs), which is defined under Interpretation and
Policy .06 to CBOE Rule 5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Without discounting the differences between ETFs and ETNs, the
Exchange seeks to extend the trading conventions applicable to options
on ETFs to options on ETNs. CBOE contends that the inclusion of options
on ETNs within the broad-based index option definition for purposes of
the multi-class broad-based index option spread trading procedures is
consistent with what is currently permitted for options on ETFs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5)\10\ that an exchange have rules that
are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposed rule
change seeks to extend the application of the multi-class broad-based
index option spread trading procedures under CBOE Rule 24.19 to ETNs in
a manner that is consistent with what is currently permitted for ETFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\12\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-019 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-019. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
CBOE-2010-019 and should be submitted on or before March 30, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-4910 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8596-8597]
[DOCID:fr25fe09-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59419; File No. SR-BX-2009-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate
the $3 Underlying Price Requirement for Continued Listing and Listing
of Additional Series on the Boston Options Exchange Facility

February 19, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 18, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IV, Section 4 (Withdrawal of
Approval of Underlying Securities) of the Rules of the Boston Options
Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') to eliminate the $3 market price per
share requirement from the requirements for continued approval of an
underlying security and the prohibition against listing additional
series of options on an underlying security at any time when the price
per share of such underlying security is less than $3. The text of the
proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/
NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to eliminate the $3
market price per share requirement from the requirements for continued
approval for an underlying security from Chapter IV, Section 4(b)(iv)
of the BOX Rules. This proposed rule change also amends Chapter IV,
Section 4(c) by eliminating the prohibition against listing additional
series or options on an underlying security at any time when the price
per share of such underlying security is less than $3. The Exchange
also proposes to make technical changes throughout Section 4 to
eliminate references to Section 4(b)(iv).
    The BOX rules require that the market price for a security be at
least $3 on the previous trading day for the continued listing of
options on that underlying security. If the price of an underlying
security falls below $3, BOX can continue to trade then-listed series
on that underlying security, but is unable to list new series of
options. The Exchange believes that the $3 market price per share
requirement is no longer necessary or appropriate, and that only those
underlying securities meeting the remaining continued listing criteria
set forth in Chapter IV, Section 4 will be eligible for continued
listing and the listing of additional options series. The Exchange
believes that the current $3 market price per share requirement could
have a negative effect on investors. For example, in the current
volatile market environment in which the market price for a large
number of securities has fallen below $3, BOX is currently unable to
list new series on underlying securities trading below $3. If there is
market demand for series below $3, BOX would be unable to accommodate
such requests and investors would be unable to hedge their positions
with options series with strikes below $3.
2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
In particular, the proposed rule change will permit BOX to make options
on underlying securities available even if the price of the underlying
security is less than $3,

thus providing investors additional opportunities to hedge their
positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \9\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission
notes that this proposed rule change is substantially identical to a
proposed rule change that was approved by the Commission after an
opportunity for public comment,\11\ and does not raise any new
substantive issues. The Exchange requests the waiver of the 30-day
operative delay so that the proposed rule change may become effective
and operative immediately and allow BOX to remain competitive with
other exchanges. For these reasons, the Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay \12\ is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ The Exchange's proposed rule change is substantially
identical to a proposed rule change by the Chicago Board Options
Exchange (``CBOE'') recently approved by the Commission. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59336 (February 2, 2009), 74 FR
6332 (February 6, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2008-127).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2009-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2009-011. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2009-011 and should be
submitted on or before March 18, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-3978 Filed 2-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 79)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21811-21813]
[DOCID:fr23ap08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0411; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-061-AD;
Amendment 39-15488; AD 2008-09-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes and Model
767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 757 airplanes and Model 767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F
series airplanes. This AD requires revising the Limitations section of
the airplane flight manual to advise the flight crew of procedures to
follow to ensure that a fuel filter impending bypass condition due to
gross fuel contamination is detected in a timely manner. This AD was
prompted by an error in the operating program software (OPS) of the
engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS). The error prevents
the display of an advisory message to the flight crew of a left engine
fuel filter contamination and imminent bypass condition, which may
indicate an imminent multiple engine thrust loss or engine malfunction
event due to fuel contamination. We are issuing this AD to prevent
malfunction and thrust loss on both engines, which could result in a
forced off-airport landing.

DATES: This AD is effective May 8, 2008.
    We must receive comments on this AD by June 23, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We have been advised that an operator discovered an error in the
Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) operating program
software (OPS) Version 6. This software error prevents the display of
the ``L ENG FUEL FILT'' advisory message to the flight crew. This
message was intended to be displayed if an impending clogging condition
of the left engine fuel filter exists. (The corresponding message for
the right engine functions normally.) Boeing has determined that this
software error is isolated to the EICAS OPS Version 6. This software is
currently approved for installation on all Boeing Model 757 airplanes,
and Model 767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F series airplanes. (Model 767-
400ER series airplanes use different software.) OPS Version 6 was
approved in mid-2007 for production and retrofit installation. Boeing's
records show that the majority of the affected airplanes currently have
Version 6 software installed. Absence of an engine fuel filter bypass
indication for each engine eliminates the only effective advance
warning the flight crew will receive of potential engine malfunction
due to a gross fuel contamination event on the airplane. Without such
advance warning, malfunction and thrust loss on both engines due to
fuel contamination could cause a forced off-airport landing.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the(se) same type
design(s). This AD requires revising the Limitations section of the
airplane flight manual (AFM) to advise the flight crew of procedures to
follow to ensure that a fuel filter impending bypass condition due to
gross fuel contamination is detected in a timely manner.
    The actions specified by paragraph (f) of this AD are not required
when all affected airplanes in an operator's fleet have been verified
by the operator to have an EICAS computer with a particular part number
and EICAS OPS versions other than Version 6 software. This exception is
currently available for Model 757 and 767 passenger airplanes and for
new production freighter airplanes, but will be available for non-
production-modified freighter airplanes only when OPS versions later
than Version 6 software become available. Non-production-modified
freighter airplanes include, but are not limited to, Model 757
airplanes modified in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) ST01920LA, and Model 767 series airplanes modified in accordance
with design approvals granted to Boeing for the Boeing Converted
Freighter (BCF) or Special Freighter (SF) configurations. Only OPS
Version 6 software or a later OPS version was approved by the FAA for
use on non-production-modified freighter airplanes; this is because
cargo door indications required for certification of those freighter
conversion modifications were introduced at Version 6.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Because of our requirement to promote safe flight of civil
aircraft, and thus the critical need to ensure that the flight crew has
procedures to follow to ensure that a fuel filter impending bypass
condition due to gross fuel contamination is detected in a timely
manner, and because of the short compliance time involved with this
action, this AD must be issued immediately.
    Because an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we find that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2008-0411; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-061-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2008-09-07 Boeing: Amendment 39-15488. Docket No. FAA-2008-0411;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-061-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 8, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB,
and -300 series airplanes, and Model 767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F
series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD was prompted by an error in the operating program
software (OPS) of the engine indication and crew alerting system
(EICAS). The error prevents the display of an advisory message to
the flight crew of a left engine fuel filter contamination and
imminent bypass condition, which may indicate an imminent multiple
engine thrust loss or engine malfunction event due to fuel
contamination. We are issuing this AD to prevent malfunction and
thrust loss on both engines, which could result in a forced off-
airport landing.

Compliance

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

Revision of Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

    (f) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Limitations section of the applicable AFM to include the
following. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the
AFM.

    ``If the STATUS cue shows while on the ground after engine start
or during flight, select the status page on the secondary EICAS
display, and verify the ``L ENG FUEL FILT'' message is not shown. If
the ``L ENG FUEL FILT'' message is not shown on the status page, the
secondary engine parameters may be reselected on the secondary EICAS
display, or the display may be blanked. If the ``L ENG FUEL FILT''
message is shown on the status display, accomplish the ENGINE FUEL
FILTER non-normal checklist as published in the Boeing Quick
Reference Handbook. If on the ground, check the Dispatch Deviations
Guide (DDG), or operator equivalent.
    In the event that the status level ``L ENG FUEL FILT'' and
advisory level ``R ENG FUEL FILT'' messages are simultaneously
shown, an impending fuel filter bypass condition exists on both
engines. With both messages shown, airplane fuel system
contamination may be present and may result in erratic engine
operation or flameout.
    Further flight crew action in response to either or both the ``L
ENG FUEL FILT'' status-level message and the ``R ENG FUEL FILT''
advisory level messages being shown are not established by Boeing or
the FAA. Any further flight crew action should be determined by
individual operator policy.
    Boeing policy on flight crew use of status-level messages has
not changed. After engine start, any condition having an adverse
effect on safe continuation of the flight appears as an EICAS alert
message (Warning, Caution, or Advisory). If other status-level
messages are shown as a consequence of complying with these
temporary operating instructions, the flight crew should respond in
accordance with the appropriate operator policy.
    Dispatch of the airplane with an inoperative EICAS display unit
is prohibited.

    (g) If all affected airplanes in an operator's fleet have been
verified by the operator to have EICAS computer part number
S242N701-1001 and only EICAS OPS versions other than Version 6
software that are FAA approved for that airplane, then
accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (f) of this AD
is not required.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-
140S, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 14, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-8653 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 124)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37632-37634]
[DOCID:fr28jn11-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 744

[Docket No. 110128065-1135-01]
RIN 0694-AF12

Addition of Certain Persons on the Entity List: Addition of
Persons Acting Contrary to the National Security or Foreign Policy
Interests of the United States

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)
by adding eight persons to the Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to part
744) on the basis of section 744.11 of the EAR. The persons who are
added to the Entity List have been determined by the U.S. Government to
be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests
of the United States. These eight persons will be listed under the
following three destinations on the Entity List: France, Iran and the
United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.).
    The Entity List provides notice to the public that certain exports,
reexports, and transfers (in-country) to parties identified on the
Entity List require a license from the Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS) and that availability of license exceptions in such transactions
is limited.

DATES: This rule is effective June 28, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Nies-Vogel, Chair, End-User
Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export
Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of
Commerce, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Entity List provides notice to the public that certain exports,
reexports, and transfers (in-country) to parties identified on the
Entity List require a license from BIS, and that availability of
license exceptions in such transactions is limited. Persons are placed
on the Entity List on the basis of criteria set forth in certain
sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) of
the EAR.
    The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of
the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where
appropriate, Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to,
removals from, or changes to the Entity List. The ERC makes all
decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote, and all
decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

ERC Entity List Decisions

    The ERC made a determination to add eight persons to the Entity
List on the basis of section 744.11 (License Requirements that Apply to
Entities Acting Contrary to the National Security or Foreign Policy
Interests of the United States) of the EAR. The eight entries added to
the Entity List consist of three new entries in France, three new
entries in Iran, and two new entries in the U.A.E.
    The ERC reviewed the criteria for revising the Entity List (section
744.11(b) of the EAR) in making the determination to add these persons
to the Entity List. These criteria establish how to add to the Entity
List those entities that, based on specific and articulable facts,
there is reasonable cause to believe have been involved, are involved,
or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities
that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests
of the United States, and those acting on behalf of such entities
(section 744.11 of the EAR). The persons being added to the Entity List
under this rule have been determined by the ERC to be involved in
activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign
policy interests of the United States. An illustrative list of such
activities can be found in paragraphs (b)(1)-(b)(5) of section 744.11
of the EAR.
    Pursuant to section 744.11, these eight persons are being added
based on evidence that they have engaged in actions that could enhance
the military capability of Iran, a country designated by the U.S.
Secretary of State as having repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism. These persons are also being added because
their overall conduct poses a risk of ongoing EAR violations.

Additions to the Entity List

    This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add eight persons
to the Entity List on the basis of section 744.11 of the EAR. For all
eight persons added to the Entity List, the ERC specified a license
requirement for all items subject to the EAR and established a license
application review policy of a presumption of denial. A BIS license is
required to export, reexport or transfer (in-country) any item subject
to the EAR to any of the persons described below, including any
transaction in which any of the listed persons will act as purchaser,
intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user of the items.
This listing of these persons also prohibits the use of license
exceptions (see part 740 of the EAR) for exports, reexports and
transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR involving such
persons.
    Specifically, this rule adds the following eight persons to the
Entity List:
France
    (1) Aerotechnic France SAS, 8 Rue de la Bruyere, 31120 Pinsaguel,
France;
    (2) Luc Teuly, 8 Rue de la Bruyere, 31120 Pinsaguel, France; and
    (3) Philippe Sanchez, 8 Rue de la Bruyere, 31120 Pinsaguel, France.
Iran
    (1) Hassan Seifi, Unit 23, Eighth Floor, No. 193 West
Sarve Boulevard Kaj Square, Saadat Abad, 19987-14434, Tehran, Iran;
    (2) Reza Seifi, Unit 23, Eighth Floor, No. 193 West Sarve
Boulevard Kaj Square, Saadat Abad, 19987-14434, Tehran, Iran; and
    (3) Sabanican Company, (a.k.a., Sabanican Pad Co.), Unit
23, Eighth Floor, No. 193 West Sarve Boulevard Kaj Square,
Saadat Abad, 19987-14434, Tehran, Iran.
United Arab Emirates
    (1) Aletra General Trading, (a.k.a., Erman & Sultan Trading Co.),
Sabkha Street, Shop No. 8, Dubai, U.A.E.; and
    (2) Syed Amir Ahmed Najfi, Sabkha Street, Shop No. 8, Dubai, U.A.E.

Savings Clause

    Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a license exception
or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this
regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden
aboard an exporting or reexporting carrier, or en route aboard a

carrier to a port of export or reexport, on June 28, 2011, pursuant to
actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may
proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a
license exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) so long
as they are exported or reexported before July 13, 2011. Any such items
not actually exported or reexported before midnight, on July 13, 2011,
require a license in accordance with this rule.
    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001,
the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR,
2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended 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, 50 U.S.C. 1701,
et seq.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to nor 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
a collection of information previously approved by the OMB under
control number 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 PRA and OMB
control number 0694-0088 are expected to increase slightly as a result
of this rule. However, this increase is not significant enough to
require an amendment to the previously approved information collection.
You may send comments regarding the collection of information
associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the
burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) 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. 553(a)(1)). BIS implements this rule
to prevent items from being exported, reexported or transferred (in
country) to the persons being added to the Entity List. If this rule
were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective
date, then entities being added to the Entity List by this action would
continue to be able to receive items without a license and to conduct
activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy
interests of the United States. In addition, because these parties may
receive notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place these
entities on the Entity List once a final rule was published it would
create an incentive for these persons to either accelerate receiving
items subject to the EAR to conduct activities that are contrary to the
national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and/
or to take steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses and
take other steps to try to limit the impact of the listing on the
Entity List once a final rule was published. Further, 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.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

PART 744--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR 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); Notice of January 13, 2011, 76 FR 3009 (January 18, 2011).

0
2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended:
0
(a) By adding, in alphabetical order, the destination of France under
the Country column and three French entities;
0
(b) By adding under Iran, in alphabetical order, three Iranian
entities; and
0
(c) By adding under the United Arab Emirates, in alphabetical order,
two U.A.E. entities.
    The additions read as follows:

                                    Supplement No. 4 to Part 744--Entity List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            License         License review     Federal Register
             Country                    Entity            requirement           policy             citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
France..........................  Aerotechnic France  For all items       Presumption of      76 FR [INSERT FR
                                   SAS, 8 Rue de la    subject to the      denial.             PAGE NUMBER]
                                   Bruyere, 31120      EAR. (See Sec.                         June 28, 2011.
                                   Pinsaguel, France.  744.11 of the
                                                       EAR).
                                  Luc Teuly, 8 Rue    For all items       Presumption of      76 FR [INSERT FR
                                   de la Bruyere,      subject to the      denial.             PAGE NUMBER]
                                   31120 Pinsaguel,    EAR. (See Sec.                         June 28, 2011.
                                   France.             744.11 of the
                                                       EAR).
                                  Philippe Sanchez,   For all items       Presumption of      76 FR [INSERT FR
                                   8 Rue de la         subject to the      denial.             PAGE NUMBER]
                                   Bruyere, 31120      EAR. (See Sec.                         June 28, 2011.
                                   Pinsaguel, France.  744.11 of the
                                                       EAR).

                                                  * * * * * * *
Iran

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                  Hassan Seifi, Unit  For all items       Presumption of      76 FR [INSERT FR
                                   23,        subject to the      denial.             PAGE NUMBER]
                                   Eighth Floor, No.   EAR. (See Sec.                         June 28, 2011.
                                   193 West Sarve      744.11 of the
                                   Boulevard Kaj       EAR).
                                   Square, Saadat
                                   Abad, 19987-
                                   14434, Tehran,
                                   Iran.

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                  Reza Seifi, Unit    For all items       Presumption of      76 FR [INSERT FR
                                   23,        subject to the      denial.             PAGE NUMBER]
                                   Eighth Floor, No.   EAR. (See Sec.                         June 28, 2011.
                                   193 West Sarve      744.11 of the
                                   Boulevard Kaj       EAR).
                                   Square, Saadat
                                   Abad, 19987-
                                   14434, Tehran,
                                   Iran.

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                  Sabanican Company   For all items       Presumption of      76 FR [INSERT FR
                                   (a.k.a.,            subject to the      denial.             PAGE NUMBER]
                                   Sabanican Pad       EAR. (See Sec.                         June 28, 2011.
                                   Co.), Unit 23, Eighth        EAR).
                                   Floor, No. 193
                                   West Sarve
                                   Boulevard Kaj
                                   Square, Saadat
                                   Abad, 19987-
                                   14434, Tehran,
                                   Iran.

                                                  * * * * * * *
United Arab Emirates

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                  Aletra General      For all items       Presumption of      76 FR [INSERT FR
                                   Trading (a.k.a.,    subject to the      denial.             PAGE NUMBER]
                                   Erman & Sultan      EAR. (See Sec.                         June 28 2011,
                                   Trading Co.),       744.11 of the
                                   Sabkha Street,      EAR).
                                   Shop No. 8,
                                   Dubai, U.A.E.

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                  Syed Amir Ahmed     For all items       Presumption of      76 FR [INSERT FR
                                   Najfi, Sabkha       subject to the      denial.             PAGE NUMBER]
                                   Street, Shop No.    EAR. (See Sec.                         June 28, 2011.
                                   8, Dubai, U.A.E.    744.11 of the
                                                       EAR).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: June 21, 2011.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-16165 Filed 6-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P