15930 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Notices 

12See Commentary .01(a)(3) to NYSE Arca 

Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). 

13See Commentary .01(a)(4) to NYSE Arca 

Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). 

14See Commentary .01(a)(1) and (2) to NYSE Arca 

Rule 5.2(j)(3). 

15See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55544 

(March 27, 2007). The New York Stock Exchange 

LLC has also proposed a parallel rule change, which 

the Commission is approving concurrently with this 

one. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55545 

(March 27, 2007). 

16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

18 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

on indexes with nontraditional 

weighting techniques to the market, 

encourage innovation in index 

construction, reduce costs to issuers and 

other market participants, and promote 

competition. 

The Commission believes that these 

goals may be furthered without 

compromising investor protection. The 

Commission notes that the numerical 

criteria in Commentary .01 to NYSE 

Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) addressing 

concentration, diversity, and liquidity of 

an underlying index’s components 

would continue to apply. For example, 

the generic listing standards for 

domestic indexes will continue to 

require, without limitation, that the 

most heavily weighted component stock 

of an index not exceed 30% of the 

weight of the index, and the five most 

heavily weighted component stocks of 

an index not exceed 65% of the weight 

of the index,12 and that an index 

include a minimum of 13 component 

stocks.13 In addition, component stocks 

that in the aggregate account for at least 

90% of the weight of the index must 

have a market value of at least $75 

million and minimum monthly trading 

volume of at least 250,000 shares for 

each of the last six months.14 Therefore, 

the Commission believes that indexes 

underlying ICUs will continue to be 

sufficiently broad-based in scope to 

minimize potential manipulation. 

Additionally, ICUs and their underlying 

indexes would continue to be subject to 

all other requirements of NYSE Arca 

Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). 

The Commission believes that 

accelerating approval of the proposed 

rule change would enable the Exchange 

and issuers to immediately benefit from 

the expected efficiencies resultant from 

this proposed rule change without delay 

while at the same time still ensuring 

adequate protection for investors and 

the public in general. The Commission 

notes that NYSE Arca’s proposal 

substantively tracks a recently approved 

rule change by the American Stock 

Exchange LLC15 and raises no new 

regulatory issues. Thus, the Commission 

finds good cause, consistent with 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,16 to grant 

accelerated approval of the proposed 

rule change, as amended, prior to the 

thirtieth day after the notice is 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register. 

IV. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,17 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–NYSEArca–

2007–14) be, and is hereby approved on 

an accelerated basis. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.18

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–6085 Filed 4–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 5739] 

Additional Designation of Entity 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13382 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Designation of the Defense 

Industries Organization Under 

Executive Order 13382. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authority in 

section 1(ii) of Executive Order 13382, 

‘‘Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass 

Destruction Proliferators and Their 

Supporters’’, the Assistant Secretary of 

State, acting under the authorities 

delegated to him by the Secretary of 

State, in consultation with the Secretary 

of the Treasury and the Attorney 

General, has determined that an Iranian 

entity, the Defense Industries 

Organization (‘‘DIO’’), has engaged, or 

attempted to engage, in activities or 

transactions that have materially 

contributed to, or pose a risk of 

materially contributing to, the 

proliferation of weapons of mass 

destruction or their means of delivery. 

DATES: The designation by the Secretary 

of State of the entity identified in this 

notice pursuant to Executive Order 

13382 is effective on March 30, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Director, Office of Counterproliferation 

Initiatives, Bureau of International 

Security and Nonproliferation, 

Department of State, Washington, DC 

20520, tel.: 202/647–7895. 

Background 

On June 28, 2005, the President, 

invoking the authority, inter alia, of the 

International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) 

(‘‘IEEPA’’), issued Executive Order 

13382 (70 FR 38567, July 1, 2005) (the 

‘‘Order’’), effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern 

daylight time on June 29, 2005. In the 

Order the President took additional 

steps with respect to the national 

emergency described and declared in 

Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 

1994, regarding the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction and the 

means of delivering them. 

Section 1 of the Order blocks, with 

certain exceptions, all property and 

interests in property that are in the 

United States, or that hereafter come 

within the United States or that are or 

hereafter come within the possession or 

control of United States persons, of: (1) 

The persons listed in the Annex to the 

Order; (2) any foreign person 

determined by the Secretary of State, in 

consultation with the Secretary of the 

Treasury, the Attorney General, and 

other relevant agencies, to have 

engaged, or attempted to engage, in 

activities or transactions that have 

materially contributed to, or pose a risk 

of materially contributing to, the 

proliferation of weapons of mass 

destruction or their means of delivery 

(including missiles capable of delivering 

such weapons), including any efforts to 

manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, 

transport, transfer or use such items, by 

any person or foreign country of 

proliferation concern; (3) any person 

determined by the Secretary of the 

Treasury, in consultation with the 

Secretary of State, the Attorney General, 

and other relevant agencies, to have 

provided, or attempted to provide, 

financial, material, technological or 

other support for, or goods or services 

in support of, any activity or transaction 

described in clause (2) above or any 

person whose property and interests in 

property are blocked pursuant to the 

Order; and (4) any person determined 

by the Secretary of the Treasury, in 

consultation with the Secretary of State, 

the Attorney General, and other relevant 

agencies, to be owned or controlled by, 

or acting or purporting to act for or on 

behalf of, directly or indirectly, and 

person whose property and interests in 

property are blocked pursuant to the 

Order. 

On March 28, 2007, the Secretary of 

State, in consultation with the Secretary 

of the Treasury, the Attorney General, 

and other relevant agencies, designated 

a person whose property and interests 

in property are blocked pursuant to 

Executive Order 13382. 

Information on the additional 

designee is as follows: 

1. Defense Industries Organization 

(a.k.a. Defence Industries Organisation; 

a.k.a. DIO; a.k.a. Saseman Sanaje Defa; 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Notices 15931 

1See e.g., Administrator v. Boger, N.T.S.B. Order 

No. EA–4525 (Feb. 14, 1997); Administrator v. 

Groszer, NTSB Order No. EA–3770 (Jan. 5, 1993); 

Administrator v. Bowen, 2 N.T.S.B. 940, 943 (1974). 

a.k.a. Sazemane Sanaye Defa; a.k.a. 

‘‘Sasadja’’), P.O. Box 19585–777, 

Pasdaran Street, Entrance of Babaie 

Highway, Permanent Expo of Defence 

Industries Organization, Tehran, Iran 

[NPWMD]. 

Dated: March 28, 2007. 

John C. Rood, 

Assistant Secretary, International Security 

and Nonproliferation, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E7–6152 Filed 4–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–27–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27758] 

Known Icing Conditions 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of draft letter of 

interpretation. 

SUMMARY: This draft letter of 

interpretation addresses a request by the 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(AOPA) that the FAA rescind a letter of 

interpretation dated June 6, 2006 

regarding ‘‘known icing conditions’’. 

Because of the controversy surrounding 

this issue, the FAA is publishing a draft 

of its response to seek public comment. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before May 3, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by docket number, using any 

of the following methods: 

1. DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

2. Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Room PL–401, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

3. Facsimile: (202) 493–2251. 

4. Hand delivery: Docket Management 

Facility; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Room PL–401, Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bruce Glendening, Regulations Division, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave., Washington, DC 

20591; telephone (202) 267–3073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 17, 2006, Luis Gutierrez, 

Director of Regulatory and Certification 

Policy for AOPA, requested the FAA’s 

Office of the Chief Counsel rescind a 

letter of interpretation issued by the 

FAA’s Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Eastern Region, regarding flight in 

known icing conditions. The letter of 

interpretation, dated June 6, 2006, 

responded to a request by Robert Miller 

that the FAA clarify when ‘‘known ice’’

exists for purposes of enforcement 

action. 

The FAA recognizes that the term 

‘‘known icing condition’’, the term 

addressed in the June 2006 letter of 

interpretation, could be misconstrued. 

Based on one’s interpretation of the 

term, the FAA’s prohibitions against 

flying into known icing conditions 

under certain circumstances could 

either have the effect of placing severe 

constraints on when individuals in 

aircraft without deicing equipment 

could fly or allowing these individuals 

to fly in conditions where there is a real 

risk of ice accretion with no means of 

removing the ice. Because the FAA has 

been asked to rescind the June 6, 2006 

letter of interpretation, we have decided 

to publish a draft of our response in the 

Federal Register and seek comment on 

it. Based upon comments received in 

the docket, the FAA may decide to 

reevaluate its position on known icing 

conditions. The text of the draft 

response is as follows: 

Luis M. Gutierrez, Director, Regulatory 

and Certification Policy, Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association, 421 

Aviation Way, Frederick, MD 21701–

4798. 

Re: Legal Interpretation of Known Icing 

Conditions 

Dear Mr. Gutierrez: 

In a letter dated November 21, 2006, 

to the FAA Chief Counsel’s Office, you 

requested the rescission of a letter of 

interpretation regarding flight in known 

icing conditions, issued by this office on 

June 6, 2006. The Chief Counsel’s Office 

has referred your letter to us for 

response. After considering the points 

you and other stakeholders have raised, 

we are replacing our June 6 letter 

through the issuance of this revision. 

Our letter of June 6, 2006, responded 

to a request by Robert J. Miller for a 

legal interpretation of ‘‘known ice’’ as it 

relates to flight operations. We 

construed the request as seeking 

clarification of the meaning of ‘‘known 

icing conditions’’ as that term appears 

in the Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM) 

or Pilot Operating Handbooks for many 

general aviation aircraft. That is also the 

term addressed in legal proceedings 

involving violations of FAA safety 

regulations that relate to in-flight icing. 

The NTSB has held that known icing 

conditions exist when a pilot knows or 

reasonably should know of weather 

reports in which icing conditions are 

reported or forecast.1

While various FAA regulations 

contain limitations on flight in known 

icing conditions, the regulatory 

provision that most commonly affects 

general aviation operators in this respect 

applies the term only indirectly. 14 CFR 

91.9 precludes pilots from operating 

contrary to the operating limitations in 

their aircraft’s approved AFM. The 

operating limitations identify whether 

the aircraft is equipped to operate in 

known icing conditions and may 

prohibit or restrict such flights for many 

general aviation aircraft. 14 CFR 91.103 

requires pilots to become familiar with 

all available information concerning 

their flights before undertaking them. 

Permutations on the type, 

combination, and strength of 

meteorological elements that signify or 

negate the presence of known icing 

conditions are too numerous to describe 

exhaustively in this letter. Any 

assessment of known icing conditions is 

necessarily fact-specific. However, the 

NTSB’s decisionmaking reflects the 

common understanding that the 

formation of structural ice requires two 

elements: visible moisture and an 

aircraft surface temperature at or below 

zero degrees Celsius. Even in the 

presence of these elements, there are 

many variables that influence whether 

ice will actually form on and adhere to 

an aircraft. The size of the water 

droplets, the shape of the airfoil, or the 

speed of the aircraft, among other 

factors, can make a critical difference in 

the initiation and growth of structural 

ice. 

Whether a pilot has operated into 

known icing conditions contrary to any 

limitation will depend upon the 

information available to the pilot, and 

his or her proper analysis of that 

information in connection with the 

particular operation (e.g., route of flight, 

altitude, time of flight, airspeed, and 

aircraft performance characteristics), in 

evaluating the risk of encountering 

known icing conditions. The FAA, your 

own association, and other aviation- or 

weather-oriented organizations offer 

considerable information on the 

phenomenon of aircraft icing. Pilots are 

encouraged to use this information for a 

greater appreciation of the risks that 

flying in potential icing conditions can 

present. Likewise, a variety of sources 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES