[Federal Register: April 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 23456]
[DOCID:fr30ap08-82]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Meeting, Notice of Vote, Explanation of Action Closing
Meeting and List of Persons to Attend

April 25, 2008.
    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section
3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5
U.S.C. 552b:

Agency Holding Meeting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Date and Time: May 2, 2008, 9:30 a.m.

Place: Room 2C, Commission Meeting Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered: Non-public investigations and inquiries,
enforcement related matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Chairman Kelliher and Commissioners Kelly, Spitzer, Moeller, and
Wellinghoff voted to hold a closed meeting on May 2, 2008. The
certification of the General Counsel explaining the action closing the
meeting is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public
Reference Room at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Chairman and the Commissioners, their assistants, the
Commission's Secretary, the General Counsel and members of her staff,
and a stenographer are expected to attend the meeting. Other staff
members from the Commission's program offices who will advise the
Commissioners in the matters discussed will also be present.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9437 Filed 4-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76148-76151]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26974]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0994; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00052-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.)
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that would have applied to certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model
Gulfstream 200 airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by adding Model
Galaxy airplanes to the applicability. The FAA is proposing this
airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these
products. Since these actions would impose an additional burden over
those in the NPRM, the FAA is requesting comments on this SNPRM.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by January 27, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0994; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains the NPRM, this SNPRM, the mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material that is proposed for incorporation by
reference in this SNPRM, contact Civil Aviation Authority of Israel
(CAAI), P.O. Box 1101, Golan Street, Airport City, 70100, Israel;
telephone 972-3-9774665; fax 972-3-9774592; email [email protected]. You
may find this material on the CAAI website at caa.gov.il. It is also
available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0994.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0994; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00052-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to

regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this SNPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this SNPRM contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this SNPRM, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream 200
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 17,
2022 (87 FR 50588). The NPRM was prompted by AD ISR I-57-2021-12-4,
dated January 1, 2022, issued by CAAI, which is the aviation authority
for Israel (referred to after this as the MCAI). There were reports
that wing flap fairing debonding and corrosion were discovered at the
lower skin of rib 3 and rib 11 on both wings. The MCAI states that the
reason for the AD is to prevent the possibility of flap fairing
debonding, moisture intrusion and wing lower skin corrosion at rib 3
and rib 11.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection for
corrosion in certain areas of the wing skin fairings, additional
inspections if necessary, resealing the fairings with new fillet seal,
and applicable corrective actions.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0994.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the FAA determined that Model Galaxy
airplanes must be added to the applicability. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address flap fairing debonding and moisture intrusion that might
lead to lower wing skin corrosion and cracking on both wings, and
reduced structural integrity of the wings.

Comments

    The FAA received comments from an anonymous commenter. The
following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response to each comment.

Request To Add Model Galaxy Airplanes to the Applicability

    The commenter requested that the FAA add Model Galaxy airplanes to
the applicability. The commenter stated that Model Galaxy airplane
serial numbers are included in the applicability of the NPRM, but the
model designation (Galaxy) is not mentioned. The commenter concluded
that owners/operators for Model Galaxy airplanes might not be aware of
the proposed AD and might not address the unsafe condition.
    The FAA agrees with the request. The FAA has revised this AD to add
Model Galaxy airplanes to the applicability.

Request To Change the Model Designation From Gulfstream G200 to
Gulfstream 200

    The commenter requested that the FAA change Model Gulfstream G200
airplanes to Model Gulfstream 200 airplanes in the applicability. The
commenter noted that in the FAA type certificate data sheet (TCDS)
A53NM, the model designation is Gulfstream 200. The commented stated
that the correction brings the intended model designation in line with
the FAA TCDS.
    The FAA agrees with the request. The FAA has revised this AD to
change the model designation from Gulfstream G200 to Gulfstream 200.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    CAAI AD ISR I-57-2021-12-4, dated January 1, 2022, describes
procedures for an inspection for corrosion in the area of the wing skin
(or doubler if installed) under the rib 3 and rib 11 fairings, a
penetration or eddy current inspection for cracks if corrosion was
found, a measurement of the thickness of remaining wing skin (or
doubler) if no cracks were found, resealing of rib 3 and rib 11
fairings with new fillet seal, and applicable corrective actions.
Corrective actions include cleaning and removing corrosion, crack
repair, and repair of fairing installation locations with a certain
thickness reduction.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
described above. The FAA is issuing this SNPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

Proposed AD Requirements in This SNPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in CAAI AD ISR I-57-2021-12-4, dated January 1, 2022, described
previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate CAAI AD ISR I-57-2021-12-4, dated January
1, 2022, by reference in the FAA final rule. This AD would, therefore,
require compliance with CAAI AD ISR I-57-2021-12-4, dated January 1,
2022, in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
Service information required by CAAI AD ISR I-57-2021-12-4, dated
January 1, 2022, for compliance will be available at regulations.gov
under Docket No. FAA-2022-0994 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 168 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                  Labor cost                               Parts cost                 product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 work-hours x $85 per hour = $2,465.........  Minimal.........................          $2,465        $414,120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost              Parts cost        Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 10 work-hours x $85 per                $0  Up to $850.
 hour = $850.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
  estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Type Certificate Previously Held by Israel
Aircraft Industries, Ltd.): Docket No. FAA-2022-0994; Project
Identifier MCAI-2022-00052-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by January 27, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Galaxy
airplanes and Model Gulfstream 200 airplanes, certificated in any
category, serial numbers 004 through 250 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that wing flap fairing debonding
and corrosion were discovered at lower skin of rib 3 and rib 11 on
both wings. The FAA is issuing this AD to address flap fairing
debonding and moisture intrusion that might lead to lower wing skin
corrosion and cracking on both wings, and reduced structural
integrity of the wings.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) AD ISR I-
57-2021-12-4, dated January 1, 2022 (CAAI AD ISR I-57-2021-12-4).

(h) Exceptions to CAAI AD ISR I-57-2021-12-4

    (1) Where CAAI AD ISR I-57-2021-12-4 refers to its effective
date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where the Compliance paragraph of CAAI AD ISR I-57-2021-12-4
requires compliance at a certain time, replace the text ``at the
next suitable planned maintenance inspection within the next 24
months from the effective date of this AD'' with ``within 24 months
after the effective date of this AD.''

    (3) Where the Action paragraph of CAAI AD ISR I-57-2021-12-4
refers to certain service information, replace the text ``Gulfstream
Service Bulletin No. 200-57-426, dated January 01, 2022, or later
approved revision,'' with ``Gulfstream Service Bulletin No. 200-57-
426, Revision 1, dated June 16, 2022, or later approved revision.''
    (4) Where the service information specified in CAAI AD ISR I-57-
2021-12-4 specifies to report to Gulfstream if ``cracks were
discovered'' and ``for any fairing installation location with one or
more grid squares with thickness reduction of greater than 10%,''
for this AD, cracks and fairing installation locations with one or
more grid squares with thickness reduction of greater than 10% must
be repaired before further flight using a method approved by the
Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or CAAI; or CAAI's
authorized Designee. If approved by the authorized Designee, the
approval must include the Designee's authorized signature.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in CAAI AD ISR I-57-
2021-12-4 specifies to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or CAAI; or CAAI's authorized Designee. If
approved by the CAAI Designee, the approval must include the
Designee's authorized signature.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) AD ISR I-57-2021-
12-4, dated January 1, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For CAAI AD ISR I-57-2021-12-4, contact Civil Aviation
Authority of Israel (CAAI), P.O. Box 1101, Golan Street, Airport
City, 70100, Israel; telephone 972-3-9774665; fax 972-3-9774592;
email [email protected]. You may find this CAAI AD on the CAAI website
at caa.gov.il.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 7, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-26974 Filed 12-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                    Draft deliberative Do Not Quote or Cite

                             RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements. (EPA ICR No. 1745.09, OMB Control No. 2050-0154)

                 United States Environmental Protection Agency
                 Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
                    Office of Land and Emergency Management
               Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division

                                October 3, 2018

                    Draft deliberative Do Not Quote or Cite

                             RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.

 General Comment
   Docket: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0317
   Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.
   Comment On: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0317-0001
   Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.
   Document: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0317-0002
   Anonymous public comment

   	Submitter Information
            General Comment- President Tiny Hands, Don Jr and the White House have had about eleven different explanations for the Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer:

"primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children." - Don Jr, July 8, 2017

"she had information that individuals connected to Russia were... supporting Mrs. Clinton" - Don Jr, July 9 2017

"The president didnt sign off on anything" - Jay Sekulow, July 12 2017 re Don Jr's misleading statement

"The president weighed in... based on the limited information that he had." - Sarah Sanders, August 1, 2017

"the President dictated a short but accurate response... on behalf of his son, Donald Trump, Jr" - Jay Sekulow, January 29, 2018

"I think he was uninformed at the time just like I was" - Rudy Giuliani, June 3 2018 re Sekulow's inaccurate statements

"This was a meeting to get information on an opponent" - President Tiny Hands, August 5, 2018

            Response- The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an Agency Information Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (EPA ICR No. 1745.09, OMB Control No. 2050-0154) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018.
            This comment was posted on EPA's Docket system (www.fdms.gov, Docket number EPA-HQOLEM-2018-0317)) on August 07, 2108 as an anonymous public comment. This comment does not relate to the substance of the issue and is out of scope.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48709-48716]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19421]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 275

[Release No. IA-3893; File No. S7-23-07]
RIN 3235-AL56

Temporary Rule Regarding Principal Trades With Certain Advisory
Clients

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is proposing to amend
rule 206(3)-3T under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, a temporary
rule that establishes an alternative means for investment advisers that
are registered with the Commission as broker-dealers to meet the
requirements of section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act when they
act in a principal capacity in transactions with certain of their
advisory clients. The amendment would extend the date on which rule
206(3)-3T will sunset from December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-23-07 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-23-07. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
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/proposed.shtml). Comments
are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; we do
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa S. Gainor, Senior Counsel,
Sarah A. Buescher, Branch Chief, or Daniel S. Kahl, Assistant Director,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Investment Adviser Regulation
Office, Division of Investment Management, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Securities and Exchange Commission is
proposing an amendment to temporary rule 206(3)-3T [17 CFR 275.206(3)-
3T] under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80b] that
would extend the date on which the rule will sunset from December 31,
2014 to December 31, 2016.

I. Background

    On September 24, 2007, we adopted, on an interim final basis, rule
206(3)-3T, a temporary rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(the ``Advisers Act'') that provides an alternative means for
investment advisers that are registered with us as broker-dealers to
meet the requirements of section 206(3) of the Advisers Act when they
act in a principal capacity in transactions with certain of their
advisory clients.\1\ The purpose of the rule was to permit broker-
dealers to sell to their advisory clients, in the wake of Financial
Planning Association v. SEC (the ``FPA Decision''),\2\ certain
securities held in the proprietary accounts of their firms that might
not be available on an agency basis--or might be available on an agency
basis only on less attractive terms \3\--while protecting clients from
conflicts of interest as a result of such transactions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rule 206(3)-3T [17 CFR 275.206(3)-3T]. All references to
rule 206(3)-3T and the various sections thereof in this release are
to 17 CFR 275.206(3)-3T and its corresponding sections. See also
Temporary Rule Regarding Principal Trades with Certain Advisory
Clients, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2653 (Sep. 24, 2007)
[72 FR 55022 (Sep. 28, 2007)] (``2007 Principal Trade Rule
Release'').
    \2\ 482 F.3d 481 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In the FPA Decision, handed
down on March 30, 2007, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
vacated (subject to a subsequent stay until October 1, 2007) rule
202(a)(11)-1 under the Advisers Act. Rule 202(a)(11)-1 provided,
among other things, that fee-based brokerage accounts were not
advisory accounts and were thus not subject to the Advisers Act. For
further discussion of fee-based brokerage accounts, see 2007
Principal Trade Rule Release, Section I.
    \3\ See 2007 Principal Trade Rule Release at nn.19-20 and
Section VI.C.
    \4\ As a consequence of the FPA Decision, broker-dealers
offering fee-based brokerage accounts with an advisory component
became subject to the Advisers Act with respect to those accounts,
and the client relationship became fully subject to the Advisers
Act. These broker-dealers--to the extent they wanted to continue to
offer fee-based accounts and met the requirements for registration--
had to: Register as investment advisers, if they had not done so
already; act as fiduciaries with respect to those clients; disclose
all material conflicts of interest; and otherwise fully comply with
the Advisers Act, including the restrictions on principal trading
contained in section 206(3) of the Act. See 2007 Principal Trade
Rule Release, Section I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As initially adopted on an interim final basis, rule 206(3)-3T was
set to sunset on December 31, 2009. In December 2009, however, we
adopted rule 206(3)-3T as a final rule in the same form in which it was
adopted on an interim final basis in 2007, except that we extended the
rule's sunset date by one year to December 31, 2010.\5\ We

deferred final action on rule 206(3)-3T in December 2009 because we
needed additional time to understand how, and in what situations, the
rule was being used.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Temporary Rule Regarding Principal Trades with Certain
Advisory Clients, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2965 (Dec. 23,
2009) [74 FR 69009 (Dec. 30, 2009)] (``2009 Extension Release'');
Temporary Rule Regarding Principal Trades with Certain Advisory
Clients, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2965A (Dec. 31, 2009)
[75 FR 742 (Jan. 6, 2010)] (making a technical correction to the
2009 Extension Release).
    \6\ See 2009 Extension Release, Section II.c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In both December 2010 and December 2012, we further extended the
rule's sunset date, in each case for an additional two-year period.\7\
We deferred final action on rule 206(3)-3T in 2010 in order to complete
a study required by section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'').\8\ In 2012, we
deferred final action on rule 206(3)-3T to further consider the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 913 Study and the
comments we had received from interested parties.\9\ In connection with
each extension, we noted that our consideration of the regulatory
requirements applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers was
ongoing and that an extension would allow the Commission to consider
more broadly the regulatory requirements applicable to broker-dealers
and investment advisers, including whether rule 206(3)-3T should be
substantively modified, supplanted, or permitted to sunset.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Temporary Rule Regarding Principal Trades with Certain
Advisory Clients, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3118 (Dec. 1,
2010) [75 FR 75650 (Dec. 6, 2010)] (proposing a two-year extension
of rule 206(3)-3T's sunset provision) (``2010 Extension Proposing
Release''); Temporary Rule Regarding Principal Trades with Certain
Advisory Clients, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3128 (Dec. 28,
2010) [75 FR 82236 (Dec. 30, 2010)] (extending rule 206(3)-3T's
sunset provision from December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2012)
(``2010 Extension Release''); Temporary Rule Regarding Principal
Trades with Certain Advisory Clients, Investment Advisers Act
Release No. 3483 (Oct. 9, 2012) [77 FR 62185 (Oct. 12, 2012)]
(proposing a two-year extension of rule 206(3)-3T's sunset
provision); Temporary Rule Regarding Principal Trades with Certain
Advisory Clients, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3522 (Dec. 20,
2012) [77 FR 76854 (Dec. 31, 2012)] (extending rule 206(3)-3T's
sunset provision from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2014)
(``2012 Extension Release'').
    \8\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). Under section 913
of the Dodd-Frank Act, we were required to conduct a study and
provide a report to Congress concerning the obligations of broker-
dealers and investment advisers, including standards of care
applicable to those intermediaries and their associated persons.
Section 913 also authorizes us to promulgate rules concerning the
legal or regulatory standards of care for broker-dealers, investment
advisers, and persons associated with these intermediaries for
providing personalized investment advice about securities to retail
customers, taking into account the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study.
    The study mandated by section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Act was
prepared by the staff and delivered to Congress on January 21, 2011.
See Study on Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers (``913 Study'')
(Jan. 21, 2011), available at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2011/913studyfinal.pdf. For a discussion regarding principal trading, see
section IV.C.1.(b) of the 913 Study. See also Commissioners Kathleen
L. Casey and Troy A. Paredes, Statement by SEC Commissioners:
Statement Regarding Study on Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers
(Jan. 21, 2011), available at http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2011/spch012211klctap.htm (opposing the release of the 913 Study to
Congress and stating that more rigorous analysis is required before
the Commission engages in any follow-on rulemaking).
    \9\ See 2012 Extension Release, Section II.
    \10\ See id.; 2010 Extension Release, Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have continued to consider the regulatory requirements
applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers. In 2013, we
issued a request for data and other information, including quantitative
data and economic analysis, relating to the benefits and costs that
could result from alternative approaches regarding the standards of
conduct and other obligations of broker-dealers and investment
advisers.\11\ The staff has received over 200 comment letters in
response to the Request, several of which discussed rule 206(3)-3T, and
Commissioners and the staff have held numerous meetings with interested
parties.\12\ None of the comment letters provided quantitative or
qualitative information regarding the effects of the temporary rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Duties of Brokers, Dealers, and Investment Advisers,
Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3558 (Mar. 1, 2013) [78 FR 14848
(Mar. 7, 2013)] (the ``Request'').
    \12\ See Comments on Study Regarding Obligations of Brokers,
Dealers, and Investment Advisers, File No. 4-606, available at
http://sec.gov/comments/4-606/4-606.shtml. See e.g., Comment Letter
of Consumer Federation of America (Jul. 5, 2013) (``[B]y considering
revisions to the principal trading rules as part of the fiduciary
rulemaking, the Commission could arrive at a workable approach that
is consistent for brokers and investment advisers and provides
improved protections for investors.''); Comment Letter of North
American Securities Administrators Association, Inc. (Jul. 5, 2013)
(``[T]he Commission should consider SEC Rule 206(3)-3T as part of
future fiduciary standard rulemaking.''); Comment Letter of
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA'')
(Jul. 5, 2013) (``SIFMA 2013 Letter'') (including survey results
regarding the dollar amount of principal transactions engaged in
with retail clients during 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 II. Discussion

    We are proposing to amend rule 206(3)-3T to extend the rule's
sunset date by two additional years.\13\ Absent further action by the
Commission, the rule will sunset on December 31, 2014. We are proposing
this extension because we continue to believe that the issues raised by
principal trading, including the restrictions in section 206(3) of the
Advisers Act and our experiences with, and observations regarding, the
operation of rule 206(3)-3T, should be considered as part of our
broader consideration of the regulatory requirements applicable to
broker-dealers and investment advisers in connection with the Dodd-
Frank Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The rule includes a reference to an ``investment grade debt
security,'' which is defined as ``a non-convertible debt security
that, at the time of sale, is rated in one of the four highest
rating categories of at least two nationally recognized statistical
rating organizations (as defined in section 3(a)(62) of the Exchange
Act).'' Rule 206(3)-3T(a)(2) and (c). Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank
Act requires that we ``review any regulation issued by [us] that
requires the use of an assessment of the credit-worthiness of a
security or money market instrument; and any references to or
requirements in such regulations regarding credit ratings.'' Once we
have completed that review, the statute provides that we modify any
regulations identified in our review to ``remove any reference to or
requirement of reliance on credit ratings and to substitute in such
regulations such standard of credit-worthiness'' as we determine to
be appropriate. We believe that the credit rating requirement in the
temporary rule would be better addressed after the Commission
completes its review of the regulatory standards of conduct that
apply to broker-dealers and investment advisers. Therefore, we are
not proposing any substantive amendments to the rule at this time.
See generally Report on Review of Reliance on Credit Ratings (July
21, 2011), available at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2011/939astudy.pdf (staff study reviewing the use of credit ratings in
Commission regulations).
    \14\ The 913 Study is one of several studies relevant to the
regulation of broker-dealers and investment advisers mandated by the
Dodd-Frank Act. See, e.g., Study on Enhancing Investment Adviser
Examinations (Jan. 19, 2011), available at http://sec.gov/news/studies/2011/914studyfinal.pdf (staff study required by section 914
of the Dodd-Frank Act, which directed the Commission to review and
analyze the need for enhanced examination and enforcement resources
for investment advisers); Commissioner Elisse B. Walter, Statement
on Study Enhancing Investment Adviser Examinations (Required by
Section 914 of Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act) (Jan. 19, 2011), available at http://sec.gov/news/speech/2011/spch011911ebw.pdf. See also Study and
Recommendations on Improved Investor Access to Registration
Information About Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers (Jan. 26,
2011), available at http://sec.gov/news/studies/2011/919bstudy.pdf
(staff study required by section 919B of the Dodd-Frank Act, that
directed the Commission to complete a study, including
recommendations (some of which have been implemented) of ways to
improve investor access to registration information about investment
advisers and broker dealers, and their associated persons); United
States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional
Committees on Private Fund Advisers (July 11, 2011), available at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11623.pdf (study required by section
416 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which directed the Comptroller General of
the United States to study the feasibility of forming an self-
regulatory organization to oversee private funds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes us to
promulgate rules concerning, among other things, the legal or
regulatory standards of conduct for broker-dealers, investment
advisers, and persons associated with these intermediaries when
providing personalized investment advice about securities to

retail customers. Since the completion of the 913 Study in 2011, we
have been considering the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the study and the comments we have received from interested
parties.\15\ The Commission and its staff have continued to focus on
evaluating options regarding regulatory requirements applicable to
broker-dealers and investment advisers, taking into account the 913
Study's recommendations, the views of investors and other interested
market participants, potential economic and market impacts, and the
information we received in response to the Request in 2013. Staff has
also been engaged in examinations of dual registrants and is assessing
the impact to investors of the different supervisory structures and
legal standards of conduct that govern the provision of brokerage and
investment advisory services, which may help inform our
considerations.\16\ At this time, our consideration of the regulatory
requirements applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers is
ongoing. We do not expect to complete our consideration of these issues
before December 31, 2014, the current sunset date for rule 206(3)-3T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section 913(f) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires us to
consider the 913 Study in any rulemaking authorized by that section
of the Dodd-Frank Act.
    \16\ See National Exam Program, Office of Compliance Inspections
and Examinations, Examination Priorities for 2014 (Jan. 9, 2014),
available at http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/national-examination-program-priorities-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If we permit rule 206(3)-3T to sunset on December 31, 2014, after
that date investment advisers registered with us as broker-dealers that
currently rely on rule 206(3)-3T would be required to comply with
section 206(3)'s transaction-by-transaction written disclosure and
consent requirements without the benefit of the alternative means of
complying with these requirements currently provided by rule 206(3)-3T.
This could limit the access of non-discretionary advisory clients of
advisory firms that are registered with us as broker-dealers to certain
securities.\17\ In addition, firms may be required to make substantial
changes to their disclosure documents, client agreements, procedures,
and systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For a discussion of the costs and benefits underlying rule
206(3)-3T, see 2007 Principal Trade Rule Release, Section VI.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that the requirements of rule 206(3)-3T, coupled with
regulatory oversight, will adequately protect advisory clients for an
additional limited period of time while we consider more broadly the
regulatory requirements applicable to broker-dealers and investment
advisers.\18\ Since its adoption and throughout the period of the
proposed extension, the staff has examined and would continue to
examine firms that engage in principal transactions and will take
appropriate action to help ensure that firms are complying with section
206(3) or rule 206(3)-3T (as applicable), including possible
enforcement action.\19\ Since the last extension, examination staff
also requested and received materials from a sample of dual registrants
in 2014 to observe the use of the rule by these firms.\20\ This
examination showed that a number of the firms that were contacted by
staff relied on the rule and that those firms had adopted written
policies and procedures under rule 206(4)-7 that are designed to comply
with the requirements of the temporary rule.\21\ Based on the review,
it appeared to the staff that the firms relying on the rule had
processes in place for the purpose of effecting principal transactions
in compliance with the requirements of the temporary rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In addition, rule 206(3)-3T(b) provides that the rule does
not relieve an investment adviser from acting in the best interests
of its clients, or from any obligation that may be imposed by
sections 206(1) or (2) of the Advisers Act or any other applicable
provisions of the federal securities laws.
    \19\ In the 2010 Extension Proposing Release, we discussed
certain compliance issues identified by the Office of Compliance,
Inspections and Examinations. See 2010 Extension Proposing Release,
Section II. One matter identified in the staff's review resulted in
a settlement of an enforcement proceeding and other matters continue
to be reviewed by the staff. See In the Matter of Feltl & Company,
Inc., Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3325 (Nov. 28, 2011)
(settled order finding, among other things, violations of section
206(3) of the Advisers Act for certain principal transactions and
section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and rule 206(4)-7 thereunder for
failure to adopt written policies and procedures reasonably designed
to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and its rules).
    \20\ Staff identified a representative sample set of dual
registrants based on Form ADV data, including firm disclosures on
Form ADV Part 2A, and requested materials from the firms that
included compliance policies and procedures, sample disclosures, and
data regarding the firm's principal transactions with advisory
accounts. See also infra note 27.
    \21\ 17 CFR 275.206(4)-7. See also 2007 Principal Trade Rule
Release (noting that an adviser relying on rule 206(3)-3T as an
alternative means of complying with section 206(3) must have adopted
and implemented written policies and procedures reasonably designed
to comply with the requirements of the rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these considerations, we believe that it is not
appropriate to require firms currently relying on the rule to
restructure their operations and client relationships before we
complete our consideration of the standards of conduct and regulatory
requirements applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers. To
the extent our consideration of these issues leads to new rules
concerning principal trading, these firms would be required to
restructure their operations and client relationships, potentially at
substantial expense.
    As part of our broader consideration of the regulatory requirements
applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers, we intend to
carefully consider principal trading by advisers, including whether
rule 206(3)-3T should be substantively modified, supplanted, or
permitted to sunset. In making these determinations, we will consider,
among other things: The 913 Study; relevant comments and information
received in connection with the 913 Study, the Request, and any
rulemaking that may follow; the results of our staff's evaluation of
the operation of rule 206(3)-3T; the information received in connection
with the review of dual registrants; and comments we receive on rule
206(3)-3T in connection with this proposed extension.

III. Request for Comment

    We request comment on our proposal to extend rule 206(3)-3T's
sunset date for two additional years.
     Should we allow the rule to sunset?
     If so, what costs would advisers that currently rely on
the rule incur? What would be the impact on their clients?
     If we allow the rule to sunset, should we consider
exemptive requests from investment advisers that are registered with us
as broker-dealers for exemptive orders providing an alternative means
of compliance with section 206(3)?
     Are there any developments since the last extension that
would make an extension not appropriate?
     If we extend the rule's sunset date, is two years an
appropriate period of time to extend the sunset date? Or should we
extend the rule's sunset date for a different period of time? If so,
for how long?
     Is it appropriate to extend rule 206(3)-3T's sunset date
for a limited period of time in its current form while we complete our
broader consideration of the regulatory requirements applicable to
broker-dealers and investment advisers?

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Rule 206(3)-3T contains ``collection of information'' requirements
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\22\ The
Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') last approved the collection
of information with an expiration date of July 31, 2017. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The title for
the collection of information is: ``Temporary rule for principal trades
with certain advisory clients, rule 206(3)-3T'' and the OMB control
number for the collection of information is 3235-0630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment to the rule we are proposing today--to extend rule
206(3)-3T's sunset date for two years--does not affect the current
annual aggregate estimated hour burden of 139,358 hours.\23\ Therefore,
we are not revising the Paperwork Reduction Act burden and cost
estimates submitted to OMB as a result of this proposed amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Proposed Collection; Comment Request, 78 FR 72932 (Dec.
4, 2013); Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, 79 FR 7481
(Feb. 7, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on whether the estimates continue to be
reasonable. Have circumstances changed such that these estimates (or
the underlying assumptions embedded in these estimates) should be
modified or revised? Persons submitting comments should direct the
comments to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk
Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should
send a copy to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File No. S7-
23-07.

V. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction

    The Commission is sensitive to the economic effects, including the
benefits and costs and the effects on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation, that would result from extending rule 206(3)-3T's
sunset date for two years.\24\ The economic effects considered in
proposing this extension are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-2(c). Section 202(c) of the Advisers Act
mandates that the Commission, when engaging in rulemaking that
requires it to consider or determine whether an action is necessary
or appropriate in the public interest, consider, in addition to the
protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 206(3)-3T provides an alternative means for investment
advisers that are registered with the Commission as broker-dealers to
meet the requirements of section 206(3) of the Advisers Act when they
act in a principal capacity in transactions with their non-
discretionary advisory clients. Other than proposing to extend rule
206(3)-3T's sunset date for two years, we are not otherwise proposing
to modify the rule from its current form. We are proposing to extend
rule 206(3)-3T in its current form to avoid disruption to firms and
clients that rely on the rule while the Commission continues its
ongoing consideration of the regulatory requirements applicable to
broker-dealers and investment advisers and the recommendations from the
913 Study. In particular, an extension of the current rule would permit
firms to continue to offer, and clients to have access to, certain
securities on a principal basis without being required to restructure
their operations and client relationships, adjust to a new set of
rules, or abandon the operational systems established to comply with
the current rule--potentially only to have to do so again when the rule
expires or is modified, and once more if the Commission adopts a new
approach to principal trading in connection with the broader
consideration of the regulatory requirements applicable to broker-
dealers and investment advisers. We previously considered and discussed
the economic effects of rule 206(3)-3T in its current form in the 2007
Principal Trade Rule Release, the 2009 Extension Release, the 2010
Extension Release, and the 2012 Extension Release.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 2007 Principal Trade Rule Release, Sections VI-VII;
2009 Extension Release, Sections V-VI; 2010 Extension Release,
Sections V-VI; 2012 Extension Release, Sections V-VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the outset, the Commission notes that, where possible, it has
sought to quantify the costs, benefits, and effects on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation expected to result from extending
rule 206(3)-3T and its reasonable alternatives. In many cases, however,
the Commission is unable to quantify the economic effects because it
lacks the information necessary to provide a reasonable estimate.\26\
The staff has also not found other information, including through
examinations and comment letters, which impacts the discussion of
economic effects in previous releases. We will continue to assess the
rule's operation and impacts along with intervening developments during
the period of the proposed extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In previous releases, the Commission has requested comment
on the economic effects of rule 206(3)-3T, the economic effects of
extending the rule, and the economic effects of alternatives. The
Commission has not received comments providing quantitative data
regarding the economic effects of extensions of rule 206(3)-3T, or
to alternatives of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The temporary rule currently in effect serves as the economic
baseline against which the costs and benefits, as well as the impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation, of the amendment are
discussed. The proposed amendment, which will extend rule 206(3)-3T's
sunset date by an additional two years, will affect investment advisers
that are registered with the Commission as broker-dealers and engage
in, or may consider engaging in, principal transactions with non-
discretionary advisory clients, as well as the non-discretionary
advisory clients of these firms that engage in, or may consider
engaging in, principal transactions.
    Although the extent to which firms currently rely on the rule is
unknown, based on IARD data as of June 1, 2014, there are 97 dual
registrants that may rely on the rule.\27\ Past comment letters also
have indicated that since its implementation in 2007, both large and
small advisers have relied upon the rule.\28\ Additionally, one comment
letter to the Request in 2013 provided survey results regarding the
dollar amount of principal transactions that a small number of firms
engaged in with retail clients in 2012.\29\ Because the economic
effects of extending the rule and its reasonable alternatives will
depend on the extent to which eligible firms rely on the rule to engage
in principal transactions with non-discretionary

advisory clients, the economic effects could vary significantly among
firms and their clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Based on IARD data as of June 2, 2014, there are 290 SEC-
registered advisers that are also registered as broker-dealers that
have non-discretionary accounts who could potentially rely on the
rule; however, only 97 of these dual registrants indicate they
currently engage in principal transactions on Form ADV. The actual
number of advisers that engage in principal transactions in reliance
on the temporary rule is likely smaller. The staff's recent outreach
to observe the use of the rule by firms found that some of the dual
registrants in the sample, which was derived based on Form ADV data,
did not rely on the rule.
    \28\ For example, SIFMA's 2012 comment letter included survey
results from seven dual-registrant firms that, in the aggregate,
manage over $325 billion of assets in over 1.1 million non-
discretionary advisory accounts. The firms indicated that 459,507
non-discretionary advisory accounts (with aggregate assets of over
$125 billion) were eligible to engage in principal trading in
reliance on the rule. These firms also indicated that, during 2010-
2012, the firms engaged in principal trades in reliance on Rule
206(3)-3T with respect to 106,682 accounts and executed an average
of 12,009 principal trades per month in reliance on the rule.
Comment letter of SIFMA (Nov. 13, 2012). See also Comment Letter of
Wells Fargo Advisors (Nov. 13, 2012) (noting that the firm managed
232,437 non-discretionary advisory accounts in which hundreds of
principal trades are made on a monthly basis for the benefit of
investors).
    \29\ See SIFMA 2013 Letter, supra note 12. Ten firms responded
to SIFMA's survey and reported that they relied on the temporary
rule for $8 billion in principal transactions across 163,000 retail
non-discretionary advisory accounts. In comparison, the ten firms
engaged in $36 billion in principal transaction with 498,000 retail
advisory accounts under section 206(3) of the Advisers Act and $809
billion in principal transactions with 2,480,000 retail brokerage
accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Analysis of the Proposed Extension and Alternatives

    As noted above, the temporary rule currently in effect serves as
the economic baseline against which the costs and benefits, as well as
the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, of the
amendment are discussed. Because the extension of the sunset date in
the temporary rule maintains the status quo, we do not expect
additional costs or benefits to result from the extension. For the same
reason, we also do not expect the extension to have additional effects
on efficiency, competition or capital formation. Extending the current
rule would provide the Commission with additional time to consider
principal trading as part of the broader consideration of the
regulatory requirements applicable to broker-dealers and investment
advisers.
    Two reasonable alternatives to extending the current rule include
allowing the rule to expire and adopting the rule on a permanent basis.
If the rule is allowed to expire, then an adviser that is registered as
a broker-dealer would no longer have a lower cost and more efficient
alternative to the requirements under section 206(3) of the Advisers
Act like that provided by the temporary rule,\30\ and consequently non-
discretionary advisory account clients could lose access to the
principal accounts of firms that rely on the rule. As noted in the 2012
Extension Release, greater access to a wider range of securities may
allow non-discretionary advisory clients to more efficiently allocate
capital and, in the long term, the more efficient allocation of capital
may lead to an increase in capital formation.\31\ If the rule expires,
the loss of access by non-discretionary advisory clients to a wider
range of securities would reduce the ability of these investors to
efficiently allocate capital and therefore could reduce any resulting
long-term gains to capital formation. Allowing the rule to expire also
would reduce the ability of investors to choose between brokerage
accounts and advisory accounts if the investor wishes to maintain
access to securities held in firm principal accounts, and may force
non-discretionary advisory account clients to bear the costs associated
with transferring accounts (or lose access to a firm's principal
accounts). Firms may also bear the potentially substantial costs
associated with restructuring their operations and client
relationships. On the other hand, if the rule is allowed to expire, and
firms engage in principal transactions with advisory account clients
pursuant to the requirements of section 206(3) of the Act, investors
will be able to more fully evaluate the conflicts of the principal
transactions prior to the trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Section 206(3) of the Advisers Act requires an investment
adviser to provide written conflict-of-interest disclosure
describing its role as principal when transacting securities from
its own account and obtain client consent prior to transaction
completion. Rule 206(3)-3T provides a dual registrant firm the
option of providing transaction-by-transaction disclosures verbally
instead of in writing when engaging in principal transactions with
non-discretionary advisory clients as long as the firm satisfies
additional requirements before and after the transactions.
Additional requirements of the temporary rule include the provision
of a written prospective disclosure to clients describing the
conflicts arising from principal transactions, acquisition of
written revocable client consent prospectively authorizing such
transactions, the provision of transaction-by-transaction
confirmations, and the provision of annual reports itemizing the
clients' principal transactions thereafter.
    \31\ 2012 Extension Release, Section V.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to believe that non-discretionary advisory client
access to a wider range of securities is beneficial.\32\ Many clients
wish to access securities held in firm inventory of a diversified
broker-dealer, and clients may wish to access these securities through
their non-discretionary advisory accounts.\33\ We believe that it is
appropriate to preserve investors' access to the securities available
through principal transactions made in reliance on rule 206(3)-3T while
consideration of the regulatory requirements applicable to broker-
dealers and investment advisers is ongoing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ But see Comment Letter of fi360, Inc. (Nov. 13, 2012)
(``fi360 Letter'') (questioning the importance of investor choice as
the principal benefit of Rule 206(3)-3T); Comment Letter of National
Association of Personal Financial Advisors (Dec. 20, 2010) (``NAPFA
Letter'') (questioning the benefits of the rule in: (1) Providing
protections of the sales practice rules of the Exchange Act and the
relevant self-regulatory organizations; (2) allowing non-
discretionary advisory clients of advisory firms that are also
registered as broker-dealers to have easier access to a wider range
of securities which, in turn, should continue to lead to increased
liquidity in the markets for these securities; (3) maintaining
investor choice; and (4) promoting capital formation).
    \33\ See 2007 Principal Trade Rule Release, Section I.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the 2010 extension of the rule, a commenter
argued that rule 206(3)-3T would impede, rather than promote, capital
formation because it would lead to ``more numerous and more severe
violations . . . of the trust placed by individual investors in their
trusted investment adviser'', but did not provide any specific data,
analysis, or other information in support of its comment.\34\ While we
understand the view that numerous and severe violations of trust could
impede capital formation, we have not seen any evidence that rule
206(3)-3T has caused this result. The staff has not identified
instances where an adviser has used the temporary rule to ``dump''
unmarketable securities or securities that the adviser believes may
decline in value into an advisory account, a harm that section 206(3)
and the conditions and limitations of rule 206(3)-3T are designed to
redress.\35\ In addition, non-discretionary advisory account clients
benefit from the protections of sales practice rules under the Exchange
Act and of relevant self-regulatory organizations, and the fiduciary
duty and other obligations imposed by the Advisers Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See NAPFA Letter.
    \35\ See 2010 Extension Proposing Release, Section II (noting
that the staff did not identify instances of ``dumping'' in
connection with OCIE's examinations regarding compliance with the
temporary rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also received comments on the 2007 Principal Trade Rule Release
from commenters who opposed the limitation of the temporary rule to
investment advisers that are registered with us as broker-dealers, as
well as to accounts that are subject to both the Advisers Act and
Exchange Act as providing a competitive advantage to investment
advisers that are registered with us as broker-dealers.\36\ Based on
our experience with the rule to date, and as we noted in previous
releases, we have no reason to believe that broker-dealers (or
affiliated but separate investment advisers and broker-dealers) are put
at a competitive disadvantage to advisers that are themselves also
registered as broker-dealers.\37\ We intend to continue to evaluate the
effects of the rule on efficiency, competition, and capital formation
in connection with our broader consideration of the regulatory
requirements applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Comment Letter of the Financial Planning Association
(Nov. 30, 2007); Comment Letter of the American Bar Association,
section of Business Law's Committee on Federal Regulation of
Securities (Apr. 18, 2008). See also 2009 Extension Release, Section
VI.
    \37\ See 2009 Extension Release, Section VI; 2010 Extension
Release, Section VI; 2012 Extension Release, Section V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Commission allowed the rule to expire, firms would no longer
incur the costs associated with rule 206(3)-3T, including the
operational costs associated with complying with the rule.\38\ In the
2007 Principal Trade Rule Release, we presented estimates of the costs
of each of the rule's disclosure

elements, including: Prospective disclosure and consent; transaction-
by-transaction disclosure and consent; transaction-by-transaction
confirmations; and the annual report of principal transactions. We also
provided estimates for the following related costs of compliance with
rule 206(3)-3T: (i) The initial distribution of prospective disclosure
and collection of consents; (ii) systems programming costs to ensure
that trade confirmations contain all of the information required by the
rule; and (iii) systems programming costs to aggregate already-
collected information to generate compliant principal transactions
reports. Although one commenter on the 2012 extension noted that the
Commission's cost analysis had remained unchanged since 2007, the
commenter did not provide any supporting information discrediting the
cost analysis we presented in the 2007 Principal Trade Rule
Release.\39\ We do not believe the extension we are proposing today
would affect the cost estimates associated with the rule.\40\
Furthermore, we believe that an eligible adviser that begins to rely on
Rule 206(3)-T today would bear the same upfront and ongoing cost
estimates set forth in the 2007 Principal Trade Rule Release.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See supra n. 25.
    \39\ See fi360 Letter. See also 2012 Extension Release, Section
V.B.
    \40\ In the 2007 Principal Trade Rule Release, we estimated the
total overall costs, including estimated costs for all eligible
advisers and eligible accounts, relating to compliance with rule
206(3)-3T to be $37,205,569. See 2007 Principal Trade Rule Release,
Section VI.D.
    \41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the rule is adopted on a permanent basis, then there may be
additional economic effects. We recognize that a temporary rule, by
nature, creates uncertainty, which in turn, may result in a reduced
ability of firms to coordinate and plan future business activities. The
uncertainty with respect to rule 206(3)-3T would be reduced if either
the rule was allowed to expire or the rule was adopted on a permanent
basis.\42\ Nonetheless, we believe that it would not be appropriate to
adopt the rule on a permanent basis (with any necessary substantive
amendments) while consideration of the regulatory requirements
applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers is ongoing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ We received several comments in connection with prior
extensions of the rule urging us to make the rule permanent to avoid
such uncertainty. See e.g., Comment Letter of Winslow, Evans &
Crocker (Dec. 8, 2009); Comment of Bank of America Corporation (Dec.
20, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another reasonable alternative would be to extend the rule for a
period other than two years. For example, extending the rule for
greater than two years would provide the Commission with additional
time to evaluate the impact of any potential rulemaking or other
process that may emerge from the broader consideration of fiduciary
obligations and other regulatory requirements applicable to broker-
dealers and investment advisers. Should our consideration of the
fiduciary obligations and other regulatory requirements applicable to
broker-dealers and investment advisers extend beyond the proposed
sunset date of the temporary rule, such a longer period may be
appropriate for the Commission to consider. On balance, however, we
believe that the proposed two-year extension of rule 206(3)-3T
appropriately addresses the concerns of firms and clients relying on
the rule while the Commission continues its ongoing consideration of
the standards applicable to investment advisers and broker-dealers.

C. Request for Comment

    We request comment on all aspects of the economic analysis,
including the accuracy of the potential costs and benefits identified
and assessed in this release and the prior releases and information on
any other costs or benefits that may result from the proposal and from
alternatives to the proposal, and whether the proposal, if adopted,
would promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
Commenters are requested to provide quantitative and qualitative data
and other information and economic analysis about the costs or benefits
to support their views.

VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Commission has prepared the following Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') regarding the proposed amendment to
rule 206(3)-3T in accordance with section 3(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Reasons for Proposed Action

    We are proposing to extend rule 206(3)-3T's sunset date for two
years because we believe that it would not be appropriate to require
firms relying on the rule to restructure their operations and client
relationships before we complete our broader consideration of the
regulatory requirements applicable to broker-dealers and investment
advisers.

B. Objectives and Legal Basis

    The objective of the proposed amendment to rule 206(3)-3T, as
discussed above, is to permit firms currently relying on rule 206(3)-3T
to limit the need to modify their operations and relationships on
multiple occasions, both before and potentially after we complete any
regulatory actions regarding the standards of conduct and other
obligations applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers.
    We are proposing to amend rule 206(3)-3T pursuant to sections 206A
and 211(a) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 80b-6a and 15 U.S.C. 80b-
11(a)].

C. Small Entities Subject to the Rule

    Rule 206(3)-3T is an alternative method of complying with Advisers
Act section 206(3) and is available to all investment advisers that:
(i) Are registered as broker-dealers under the Exchange Act; and (ii)
effect trades with clients directly or indirectly through a broker-
dealer controlling, controlled by or under common control with the
investment adviser, including small entities. Under Advisers Act rule
0-7, for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act an investment
adviser generally is a small entity if it: (i) Has assets under
management of less than $25 million; (ii) did not have total assets of
$5 million or more on the last day of its most recent fiscal year; and
(iii) does not control, is not controlled by, and is not under common
control with another investment adviser that has assets under
management of $25 million or more, or any person (other than a natural
person) that had total assets of $5 million or more on the last day of
its most recent fiscal year.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See 17 CFR 275.0-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that as of June 1, 2014, 464 SEC-registered investment
advisers were small entities.\45\ As discussed in the 2007 Principal
Trade Rule Release, we opted not to make the relief provided by rule
206(3)-3T available to all investment advisers, and instead have
restricted it to investment advisers that are registered as broker-
dealers under the Exchange Act.\46\ We therefore estimate for purposes
of this IRFA that 12 of these small entities (those that are both
investment advisers and registered broker-dealers) could rely on rule
206(3)-3T.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ IARD data as of June 1, 2014.
    \46\ See 2007 Principal Trade Rule Release, Section VIII.B.
    \47\ IARD data as of June 1, 2014.

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

D. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    The provisions of rule 206(3)-3T impose certain reporting or
recordkeeping requirements, and our proposal, if adopted, would extend
the imposition of these requirements for an additional two years. We do
not, however, expect that the proposed two-year extension of the rule's
sunset date would alter these requirements.
    Rule 206(3)-3T is designed to provide an alternative means of
compliance with the requirements of section 206(3) of the Advisers Act.
Investment advisers taking advantage of the rule with respect to non-
discretionary advisory accounts would be required to make certain
disclosures to clients on a prospective, transaction-by-transaction and
annual basis.
    Specifically, rule 206(3)-3T permits an adviser, with respect to a
non-discretionary advisory account, to comply with section 206(3) of
the Advisers Act by, among other things: (i) Making certain written
disclosures; (ii) obtaining written, revocable consent from the client
prospectively authorizing the adviser to enter into principal trades;
(iii) making oral or written disclosure and obtaining the client's
consent orally or in writing prior to the execution of each principal
transaction; (iv) sending to the client a confirmation statement for
each principal trade that discloses the capacity in which the adviser
has acted and indicating that the client consented to the transaction;
and (v) delivering to the client an annual report itemizing the
principal transactions. Advisers are already required to communicate
the content of many of the disclosures pursuant to their fiduciary
obligations to clients. Other disclosures are already required by rules
applicable to broker-dealers.
    Our proposed amendment, if adopted, only would extend the rule's
sunset date for two years. Advisers currently relying on the rule
already should be making the disclosures described above.

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    We believe that there are no rules that duplicate or conflict with
rule 206(3)-3T, which presents an alternative means of compliance with
the procedural requirements of section 206(3) of the Advisers Act that
relate to principal transactions.
    We note, however, that rule 10b-10 under the Exchange Act is a
separate confirmation rule that requires broker-dealers to provide
certain information to their customers regarding the transactions they
effect, including whether the broker or dealer is acting as an agent or
as a principal for its own account in a given transaction. Furthermore,
FINRA rule 2232 requires broker-dealers that are members of FINRA to
deliver a written notification in conformity with rule 10b-10 under the
Exchange Act containing certain information. Rule G-15 of the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board also contains a separate confirmation rule
that governs transactions in municipal securities, and requires
brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers to disclose, among
other things, the capacity in which the firm effected a transaction
(i.e., as an agent or principal). In addition, investment advisers that
are qualified custodians for purposes of rule 206(4)-2 under the
Advisers Act and that maintain custody of their advisory clients'
assets must send quarterly account statements to their clients pursuant
to rule 206(4)-2(a)(3) under the Advisers Act.
    These rules overlap with certain elements of rule 206(3)-3T, but we
designed the temporary rule to work efficiently together with existing
rules by permitting firms to incorporate the required disclosure into
one confirmation statement.

F. Significant Alternatives

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs us to consider significant
alternatives that would accomplish our stated objective, while
minimizing any significant adverse impact on small entities.\48\
Alternatives in this category would include: (i) Establishing different
compliance or reporting standards or timetables that take into account
the resources available to small entities; (ii) clarifying,
consolidating, or simplifying compliance requirements under the rule
for small entities; (iii) using performance rather than design
standards; and (iv) exempting small entities from coverage of the rule,
or any part of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that special compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables for small entities, or an exemption from coverage for small
entities, may create the risk that the investors who are advised by and
effect securities transactions through such small entities would not
receive adequate disclosure. Moreover, different disclosure
requirements could create investor confusion if it creates the
impression that small investment advisers have different conflicts of
interest with their advisory clients in connection with principal
trading than larger investment advisers. We believe, therefore, that it
is important for the disclosure protections required by the rule to be
provided to advisory clients by all advisers, not just those that are
not considered small entities. Further consolidation or simplification
of the proposals for investment advisers that are small entities would
be inconsistent with the Commission's goals of fostering investor
protection.
    We have endeavored through rule 206(3)-3T to minimize the
regulatory burden on all investment advisers eligible to rely on the
rule, including small entities, while meeting our regulatory
objectives. It was our goal to ensure that eligible small entities may
benefit from the Commission's approach to the rule to the same degree
as other eligible advisers. The condition that advisers seeking to rely
on the rule must also be registered with us as broker-dealers and that
each account with respect to which an adviser seeks to rely on the rule
must be a brokerage account subject to the Exchange Act, and the rules
thereunder, and the rules of the self-regulatory organization(s) of
which the broker-dealer is a member, reflect what we believe is an
important element of our balancing between easing regulatory burdens
(by affording advisers an alternative means of compliance with section
206(3) of the Act) and meeting our investor protection objectives.\49\
Finally, we do not consider using performance rather than design
standards to be consistent with our statutory mandate of investor
protection in the present context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See 2007 Principal Trade Rule Release, Section II.B.7
(noting commenters that objected to this condition as disadvantaging
small broker-dealers (or affiliated but separate investment advisers
and broker-dealers)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Solicitation of Comments

    We solicit written comments regarding our analysis. We request
comment on whether the rule will have any effects that we have not
discussed. We request that commenters describe the nature of any impact
on small entities and provide empirical data to support the extent of
the impact.
    Do small investment advisers believe an alternative means of
compliance with section 206(3) should be available to them?

VII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of

1996, or ``SBREFA,'' \50\ we must advise OMB whether a proposed
regulation constitutes a ``major'' rule. Under SBREFA, a rule is
considered ``major'' where, if adopted, it results in or is likely to
result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual
industries; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition,
investment or innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996)
(codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C. and as a note
to 5 U.S.C. 601).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on the potential impact of the proposed
amendment on the economy on an annual basis. Commenters are requested
to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to
the extent possible.

VIII. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is proposing to amend rule 206(3)-3T pursuant to
sections 206A and 211(a) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 80b-6a and 80b-
11(a)].

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 275

    Investment advisers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Text of Proposed Rule Amendment

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows.

PART 275--RULES AND REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

0
1. The authority citation for part 275 continues to read in part as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)(G), 80b-2(a)(11)(H), 80b-
2(a)(17), 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-4a, 80b-6(4), 80b-6a, and 80b-11, unless
otherwise noted.
* * * * *

Sec.  275.206(3)-3T  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  275.206(3)-3T, amend paragraph (d) by removing the words
``December 31, 2014'' and adding in their place ``December 31, 2016''.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: August 12, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19421 Filed 8-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 240)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66594-66595]
[DOCID:fr16de09-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0692; Airspace Docket No. 09-AAL-13]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Koyukuk, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Koyukuk,
AK. New Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
(SIAPs), and an Obstacle Departure Procedure (ODP) at Koyukuk Airport
have made this action necessary to enhance safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2009-0692/Airspace Docket
No. 09-AAL-13 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review
the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and
any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the
Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service
Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box
14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/
alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2009-0692/
Airspace Docket No. 09-AAL-13.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned

with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Communications must
identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the
FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, which describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Koyukuk Airport,
AK, to accommodate new RNAV SIAPs at Koyukuk Airport. This Class E
airspace would provide adequate controlled airspace upward from 700 and
1,200 feet above the surface, for the safety and management of IFR
operations at Koyukuk Airport.
    The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
would be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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. Because this is a routine matter that
will only affect 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.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, 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 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it proposes to establish Class E airspace at Koyukuk Airport, Koyukuk,
AK, and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and
efficiently use the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is to be amended as follows:
* * * * *

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

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Koyukuk, AK [New]

Koyukuk Airport, AK
    (Lat. 64[deg]52'33'' N., long. 157[deg]43'50'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Koyukuk Airport, AK; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
73-mile radius of the Koyukuk Airport, AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on December 3, 2009.
Michael A. Tarr,
Acting Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. E9-29843 Filed 12-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 123 (Monday, June 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 37360]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16026]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1975-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Arkansas; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-1975-DR), dated May 2, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 16, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Arkansas is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of May 2, 2011.

    Arkansas, Monroe, Phillips, and Poinsett Counties for Public
Assistance, including direct Federal assistance (already designated
for Individual Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-16026 Filed 6-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P