[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22279-22281]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08777]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0190]

Shipyard Employment Standards; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
contained in the Shipyard Employment Standards. The purpose of the
collection of information (paperwork) provisions of the Standards is to
reduce workers' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that
equipment has been tested and is in safe operating condition.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
June 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0190) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). OSHA will place comments and requests to speak,
including personal information, in the public docket, which may be
available online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
birthdates. For further information on submitting comments, see the
``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice titled
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of a continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection

requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information
is in the desired format, the reporting burden (time and costs) is
minimal, the collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act, or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires OSHA to obtain such information with a minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining said information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The following sections describe who uses the information collected
under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of
these requirements is to reduce employees' risk of death or serious
injury by ensuring that equipment has been tested and is in safe
operating condition.
    Manila rope and manila-rope slings (paragraph 1915.112(a)(1))--The
employer must ensure that manila rope and manila-rope slings have
permanently affixed and legible identification markings as prescribed
by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe working load for
the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the angle upon which it is based, and
the number of legs if more than one.
    Wire rope and wire-rope slings (paragraph 1915.112(b)(1)(i))--The
employer must ensure that wire rope and wire-rope slings have
permanently affixed and legible identification markings as prescribed
by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe working load for
the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the angle upon which it is based, and
the number of legs if more than one.
    Chain and chain slings (paragraph 1915.112(c)(1)(i))--The employer
must ensure that chain and chain slings have permanently affixed and
legible identification markings as prescribed by the manufacturer that
indicate the recommended safe working load for the type(s) of hitch(es)
used, the angle upon which it is based, and the number of legs if more
than one.
    Chain and chain slings (paragraph 1915.112(c)(2))--The employer
shall visually inspect all sling chains, including end fastenings,
before being used on the job, as well as every three months. The
inspection shall include inspection for wear, defective welds,
deformation and increase in length or stretch. Each chain shall bear an
indication of the month in which it was thoroughly inspected.
    Shackles (paragraph 1915.113(a)(1))--The employer must ensure that
shackles have permanently affixed and legible identification markings
as prescribed by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe
working load.
    Test Records for Hooks (paragraph 1915.113(b)(1))--This paragraph
requires that the manufacturer's recommendations be followed in
determining the safe working loads of the various sizes and types of
hooks. If the manufacturer's recommendations are not available, the
hook must be tested to twice the intended safe working load before it
is initially put into use. The employer must maintain and keep readily
available a certification record which includes the date of such test,
the signature of the person who performed the test, and an identifier
for the hook which was tested.
    The records are used to assure that equipment has been properly
tested. The records also provide the most efficient means for the
compliance officers to determine that an employer is complying with the
Standard.
    Mobile Crawler or Truck Cranes Used on a Vessel (paragraph
1915.115(c))--This paragraph requires that the maximum manufacturer's
rated safe working loads for the various working radii of the boom and
the maximum and minimum radii at which the boom may be safely used with
and without outriggers shall be conspicuously posted near the controls
and shall be visible to the operator.
    Examination and Test Records for Unfired Pressure Vessels
(paragraphs 1915.172(b) and (d))--Paragraph (b) requires that portable,
unfired pressure vessels not built to the requirements of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
Section VIII, Rules for Construction of Unfired Pressure Vessels, 1963
be examined quarterly by a competent person and subjected to a yearly
hydrostatic pressure test. A certification record of such examinations
and tests shall be maintained as specified by paragraph (d).

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting an adjustment decrease in the existing burden
hour estimates for the collection of information requirements specified
by the Standards from 11,813 hours to 10,610 hours, a total difference
of 1,203 hours. This decrease is due to a change in the number of
establishments. In this ICR, the scope of the maritime standards in 29
CFR 1915 for slings, shackles, and hooks are based on the Final
Economic Analysis for the Final Rule revising subpart F of 29 CFR part
1915 prepared by OSHA's Office of Regulatory Analysis. As a result of
the Final Rule, the revision of the standard applies to all shipyard
employment which is defined in Sec.  1915.4(i) as ship repairing,
shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and related employment. Also, upon further
analysis, the agency identified two new collections of information
contained in the Standard under paragraphs Sec. Sec.  1915.112(c)(2)
and 1915.115(c)(1). The agency will summarize any comments submitted in
response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to
OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Shipyard Employment Standards (29 CFR part 1915).
    OMB Number: 1218-0220.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Not-for-profit
organizations; Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 4,726.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 10,522.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:

(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. Please
note: While OSHA's Docket Office is continuing to accept and process
submissions by regular mail, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Docket
Office is closed to the public and not able to receive submissions to
the docket by hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0190). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number, so the agency can attach
them to your comments.
    Due to security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information, such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>)
for information about materials not available from the website, and for
assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 19, 2021.
James S. Frederick,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-08777 Filed 4-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 61230]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21263]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4277-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 2 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 Louisiana (FEMA-4277-DR), dated August 14, 2016, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 16, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, 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 Louisiana is hereby amended to include permanent work
under the Public Assistance program for those areas determined to have
been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the
President in his declaration of August 14, 2016.

    Acadia, Ascension, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Iberia,
Lafayette, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, St. Helena, St. Landry,
Tangipahoa, and Vermilion Parishes for Public Assistance [Categories
C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance
for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A
and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program).

    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. 2016-21263 Filed 9-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32498-32502]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14411]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86269 File No. PCAOB-2019-005]

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Order Granting
Approval of Auditing Standard 2501, Auditing Accounting Estimates,
Including Fair Value Measurements, and Related Amendments to PCAOB
Auditing Standards

July 1, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On March 20, 2019, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(the ``Board'' or the ``PCAOB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 107(b) \1\ of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the ``Sarbanes-Oxley Act'') and Section
19(b) \2\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act''), a proposal to adopt Auditing Standard 2501, Auditing Accounting
Estimates, Including Fair Value Measurements and related amendments to
PCAOB auditing standards (collectively, the ``Proposed Rules'').\3\ The
Proposed Rules were published for comment in the Federal Register on
April 4, 2019.\4\ At the time the notice was issued, the Commission
extended to July 3, 2019 the date by which the Commission should take
action on the Proposed Rules.\5\ We received four comment letters in
response to the notice.\6\ This order approves the Proposed Rules,
which we find to be consistent with the requirements of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act and the securities laws and necessary or appropriate in the
public interest or for the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 7217(b).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \3\ The PCAOB staff originally issued a staff consultation paper
on this matter in 2014. See Auditing Accounting Estimates and Fair
Value Measurements (Aug. 19, 2014), available at https://pcaobus.org/Standards/Documents/SCP_Auditing_Accounting_Estimates_Fair_Value_Measurements.pdf. In
2017, the Board issued a proposed rule. See Proposed Auditing
Standard--Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value
Measurements and Proposed Amendments to PCAOB Auditing Standards,
PCAOB Release No. 2017-002 (June 1, 2017) (``PCAOB Proposal''),
available at https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket043/2017-002-auditing-accounting-estimates-proposed-rule.pdf.
    \4\ See Release No. 34-85434 Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rules on Auditing Accounting
Estimates, Including Fair Value Measurements, and Amendments to
PCAOB Auditing Standards (Mar. 28, 2019), 84 FR 13396 (Apr. 4, 2019)
available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/pcaob/2019/34-85434.pdf.
    \5\ See id.
    \6\ We received comment letters from Deloitte & Touche LLP,
April 10, 2019 (``Deloitte Letter''); the Council of Institutional
Investors, April 18, 2019 (``CII Letter''); PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, April 25, 2019 (``PwC Letter''); and the Center for Capital
Markets Competitiveness, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, April 25, 2019
(``CCMC Letter''). Copies of the comment letters received on the
Commission order noticing the Proposed Rules are available on the
Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/pcaob-2019-02/pcaob201902.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rules

    On December 20, 2018, the Board adopted AS 2501, Auditing
Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Measurements and related
amendments to PCAOB auditing standards.\7\ The Proposed Rules are
intended to strengthen and enhance the requirements for auditing
accounting estimates, including fair value measurements, by replacing
the existing three standards \8\ with a single standard that sets forth
a uniform, risk-based approach. The requirements contained within the
Proposed Rules are discussed further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value
Measurements and Amendments to PCAOB Auditing Standards, PCAOB
Release No. 2018-005 (Dec. 20, 2018) (``PCAOB Adopting Release''),
available at https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket043/2018-005-estimates-final-rule.pdf.
    \8\ See Auditing Standard (``AS'') 2501, Auditing Accounting
Estimates (originally issued in April 1988), which applies to
auditing accounting estimates in general (``accounting estimates
standard''); AS 2502, Auditing Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures (originally issued January 2003), which applies to
auditing the measurement and disclosure of assets, liabilities, and
specific components of equity presented or disclosed at fair value
in financial statements (``fair value standard''); and AS 2503,
Auditing Derivative Instruments, Hedging Activities, and Investments
in Securities (originally issued in September 2000), which applies
to auditing financial statement assertions for derivative
instruments, hedging activities, and investments in securities
(``derivatives standard'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Changes to PCAOB Standards

    The Proposed Rules include a single standard that replaces the
accounting estimates standard, the fair value standard, and the
derivatives standard.\9\ The Proposed Rules also include a special
topics appendix that addresses certain matters relevant to auditing the
fair value of financial instruments. In addition, the Proposed Rules
include amendments to several other PCAOB auditing standards to align
them with the new standard on auditing accounting estimates. The
Proposed Rules will make the following changes to existing
requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Provide direction to prompt auditors to devote greater
attention to addressing potential management bias in accounting
estimates, as part of applying professional skepticism. In this regard,
the Proposed Rules:
    [cir] Amend AS 2110, Identifying and Assessing Risks of Material
Misstatement to require a discussion among the key engagement team
members of how the financial statements could be manipulated through
management bias in accounting estimates in significant accounts and
disclosures;
    [cir] Emphasize certain key requirements to focus auditors on their
obligations, when evaluating audit results, to exercise professional
skepticism, including evaluating whether management bias exists;
    [cir] Remind auditors that audit evidence includes both information
that supports and corroborates the company's assertions regarding the
financial statements and information that contradicts such assertions;
    [cir] Require the auditor to identify significant assumptions used
by the company and describe matters the auditor should take into
account when identifying those assumptions;
    [cir] Provide examples of significant assumptions (important to the
recognition or measurement of the accounting estimate), such as
assumptions that are susceptible to manipulation or bias;
    [cir] Emphasize requirements for the auditor to evaluate whether
the company has a reasonable basis for the significant assumptions used
and, when applicable, for its selection of assumptions from a range of
potential assumptions;
    [cir] Explicitly require the auditor, when developing an
independent expectation of an accounting estimate, to have a reasonable
basis for the assumptions and method he or she uses;
    [cir] Require that the auditor obtain an understanding of
management's analysis of critical accounting estimates and take that
understanding into account when evaluating the reasonableness of
significant assumptions and potential management bias;
    [cir] Recast certain existing requirements using terminology that
encourages maintaining a skeptical mindset, such as ``evaluate'' and
``compare'' instead of ``corroborate;''
    [cir] Strengthen requirements for evaluating whether data was
appropriately used by a company that build on requirements in the fair
value standard, and include a new requirement for evaluating whether a
company's change in the source of data is appropriate;
    [cir] Clarify the auditor's responsibilities for evaluating data
that build on the

existing requirements in AS 1105, Audit Evidence; and
    [cir] Amend AS 2401, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial
Statement Audit, to clarify the auditor's responsibilities when
performing a retrospective review of accounting estimates and align
them with the requirements in the new standard.
     Extend certain key requirements in the fair value standard
to other accounting estimates in significant accounts and disclosures
to reflect a more uniform approach to substantive testing. For
estimates not currently subject to the fair value standard, this will:
    [cir] Refine the three substantive approaches common to the
accounting estimates standard to include more specificity, similar to
the fair value standard;
    [cir] Describe the auditor's responsibilities for testing the
individual elements of the company's process used to develop the
estimate (i.e., methods, data, and significant assumptions);
    [cir] Set forth express requirements for the auditor to evaluate
the company's methods for developing the estimate, including whether
the methods are:
    [ssquf] In conformity with the requirements of the applicable
financial reporting framework; and
    [ssquf] Appropriate for the nature of the related account or
disclosure, taking into account the auditor's understanding of the
company and its environment; and
    [cir] Require the auditor to take into account certain factors in
determining whether significant assumptions that are based on the
company's intent and ability to carry out a particular course of action
are reasonable.
     Further integrate requirements with the Board's risk
assessment standards \10\ to focus auditors on estimates with greater
risk of material misstatement. The Proposed Rules incorporate specific
requirements relating to accounting estimates in AS 2110 and AS 2301 to
inform the necessary procedures for auditing accounting estimates.
Specifically, the Proposed Rules will:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Board's ``risk assessment standards'' include AS 1101,
Audit Risk; AS 1105; AS 1201, Supervision of the Audit Engagement;
AS 2101, Audit Planning; AS 2105, Consideration of Materiality in
Planning and Performing an Audit; AS 2110; AS 2301, The Auditor's
Responses to the Risks of Material Misstatement; and AS 2810,
Evaluating Audit Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Amend AS 2110 to include risk factors specific to identifying
significant accounts and disclosures involving accounting estimates;
    [cir] Align the scope of the Proposed Rules with AS 2110 to apply
to accounting estimates in significant accounts and disclosures;
    [cir] Amend AS 2110 to set forth requirements for obtaining an
understanding of the company's process for determining accounting
estimates;
    [cir] Require auditors to respond to significantly differing risks
of material misstatement in the components of accounting estimates,
consistent with AS 2110;
    [cir] Remind auditors of their responsibility to evaluate
conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework,
reasonableness, and potential management bias and its effect on the
financial statements when responding to the risks of material
misstatement in accounting estimates in significant accounts and
disclosures;
    [cir] Require the auditor, when identifying significant
assumptions, to take into account the nature of the accounting
estimate, including related risk factors, the applicable financial
reporting framework, and the auditor's understanding of the company's
process for developing the estimate;
    [cir] Include matters relevant to identifying and assessing risks
of material misstatement related to the fair value of financial
instruments;
    [cir] Add a note in AS 2301 to emphasize that performing
substantive procedures for the relevant assertions of significant
accounts and disclosures involves testing whether the significant
accounts and disclosures are in conformity with the applicable
financial reporting framework; and
    [cir] Add a note to AS 2301 providing that for certain estimates
involving complex models or processes, it might be impossible to design
effective substantive tests that, by themselves, would provide
sufficient appropriate evidence regarding the assertions.
     Make other updates to the requirements for auditing
accounting estimates, including:
    [cir] Update the description of what constitutes an accounting
estimate to encompass the general characteristics of the variety of
accounting estimates, including fair value measurements, in financial
statements;
    [cir] Set forth specific requirements for evaluating data and
pricing information used by the company or the auditor that build on
the existing requirements in AS 1105;
    [cir] Establish more specific requirements for developing an
independent expectation that vary depending on the source of data,
assumptions or methods used by the auditor and build on AS 2810 to
provide a requirement when developing an independent expectation as a
range; and
    [cir] Relocate requirements in the derivatives standard for
obtaining audit evidence when the valuation of investments is based on
investee results as an appendix to AS 1105.
     Provide specific requirements and direction to address
auditing the fair value of financial instruments, including:
    [cir] Establish requirements to determine whether pricing
information obtained from third parties, such as pricing services and
brokers or dealers, provides sufficient appropriate audit evidence,
including:
    [ssquf] Focus auditors on the relevance and reliability of pricing
information from third-party sources,\11\ regardless of whether the
pricing information was obtained by the company or the auditor;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The requirements in this area focus primarily on pricing
information from pricing services and brokers or dealers, but also
cover pricing information obtained from other third-party pricing
sources, such as exchanges and publishers of exchange prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] Establish factors that affect relevance and reliability of
pricing information obtained from a pricing service;
    [ssquf] Require the auditor to perform additional audit procedures
to evaluate the process used by the pricing service when fair values
are based on transactions of similar financial instruments;
    [ssquf] Require the auditor to perform additional procedures on
pricing information obtained from a pricing service when no recent
transactions have occurred for either the financial instrument being
valued or similar financial instruments;
    [ssquf] Establish conditions under which less information is needed
about particular methods and inputs of individual pricing services in
circumstances where prices are obtained from multiple pricing services;
and
    [ssquf] Establish factors that affect the relevance and reliability
of quotes from brokers or dealers.
    [cir] Require the auditor to understand, if applicable, how
unobservable inputs were determined and evaluate the reasonableness of
unobservable inputs.

B. Applicability and Effective Date

    The Proposed Rules would be effective for audits of financial
statements for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2020. The
PCAOB has proposed application of the Proposed Rules to include audits
of emerging growth companies (``EGCs''),\12\

as discussed in Section IV below, and audits of brokers and dealers
under Exchange Act Rule 17a-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``emerging growth company'' is defined in Section
3(a)(80) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(80)). See also
Release No. 33-10332 Inflation Adjustments and Other Technical
Amendments Under Titles I and III of the JOBS Act (Mar. 31, 2017),
82 FR 17545 (Apr. 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    The comment period on the Proposed Rules ended on April 25, 2019.
We received four comment letters from accounting firms, an investor
association, and an issuer organization.\13\ Commenters generally
supported the Proposed Rules.\14\ Most commenters encouraged us to
support the PCAOB's plans to monitor implementation, conduct post-
implementation review, or monitor advancements in technology that may
affect application of the Proposed Rules.\15\ One commenter raised
concerns regarding the effective date due to other financial reporting
activities that need to be implemented and the potential impact on
smaller audit firms.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Deloitte Letter, PwC Letter, CII Letter, and CCMC
Letter.
    \14\ See Deloitte Letter, PwC Letter, CII Letter, and CCMC
Letter.
    \15\ See e.g., Deloitte Letter; PwC Letter, and CCMC Letter.
    \16\ See CCMC Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires us to determine whether the
Proposed Rules are consistent with the requirements of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act and the securities laws or are necessary or appropriate in
the public interest or for the protection of investors.\17\ In making
this determination, we have considered the comments we received, as
well as the feedback received and modifications made by the PCAOB
throughout its rulemaking process. The discussion below addresses the
significant points raised in the comment letters we received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Section 107(b)(3) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act also specifies that the provisions of Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act shall govern the proposed rules of the
Board. See Section 107(b)(4) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Section 19
of the Exchange Act covers the registration, responsibilities, and
oversight of self-regulatory organizations. Under the procedures
prescribed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act, the Commission must either approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rules of the
Board should be disapproved; and these procedures do not expressly
permit the Commission to amend or supplement the proposed rules of
the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General Support for the Proposed Rules

    Commenters generally supported the Proposed Rules, including
strengthening the audit requirements by applying a more uniform, risk-
based approach to the audit of accounting estimates, including fair
value measurements.\18\ One commenter agreed with the Board's view that
the evolution of financial reporting frameworks has resulted in the
expanded use of estimates and expressed support for a single, more
uniform principles-based standard to address the auditing of accounting
estimates, including fair value measurements, that is aligned with the
Board's risk assessment standards.\19\ Another commenter stressed the
need for the Proposed Rules because accounting estimates, and
particularly fair value measurements and related disclosures, provide
investors with ``more useful information than amounts that would be
reported under amortized cost or other existing alternative accounting
approaches'' and because the PCAOB has observed numerous deficiencies
in auditing accounting estimates.\20\ The commenter also indicated that
the Proposed Rules will strengthen auditor responsibilities, improve
audit quality, and further investor protection.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Deloitte Letter, CII Letter, PwC Letter, and CCMC
Letter.
    \19\ See PwC Letter.
    \20\ See CII Letter.
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Implementation Efforts

    Most commenters noted their desire for ongoing monitoring by the
PCAOB if the Proposed Rules are approved.\22\ Two commenters
specifically supported the PCAOB's plan \23\ to monitor implementation,
including advances in technology and any related effects on the
application of the proposed amendments.\24\ Another commenter
recommended that the Commission, as part of its oversight of the PCAOB,
should request that the PCAOB periodically update the Commission on the
PCAOB's activities for monitoring the implementation of the Proposed
Rules along with the PCAOB's findings and responses to these
activities, including the PCAOB's plans for a post-implementation
review.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See e.g., Deloitte Letter, PwC Letter, and CCMC Letter.
    \23\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 3, 21, and 46.
    \24\ See Deloitte Letter and CCMC Letter.
    \25\ See CCMC Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the PCAOB Adopting Release, the Board stated it would monitor
implementation to determine whether additional interpretive guidance is
necessary, including monitoring the advancement of technology.\26\ In
addition, the PCAOB has an established program to conduct post-
implementation reviews of its rules and standards to evaluate the
overall effect of significant rulemakings.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 3, 21, and 46.
    \27\ See PCAOB website at https://pcaobus.org/EconomicAndRiskAnalysis/pir/Pages/default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We acknowledge the importance of monitoring the implementation of
the Proposed Rules. The Commission staff works closely with the PCAOB
as part of our general oversight mandate.\28\ As part of that
oversight, Commission staff will keep itself apprised of the PCAOB's
activities for monitoring the implementation of the Proposed Rules and
update the Commission, as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Section 107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Effective Date of the Proposed Rules

    As noted above, the Proposed Rules would be effective for audits of
financial statements for fiscal years ending on or after December 15,
2020. One commenter expressed concerns related to the effective date as
a result of other financial reporting activities, including upcoming
effective dates of certain Financial Accounting Standards Board
(``FASB'') projects, other PCAOB standards, and a view that smaller
audit firms may be disproportionately impacted.\29\ The commenter
suggested a phased implementation of the Proposed Rules. Specifically,
the commenter recommended, as an example, that the Commission allow
triennially inspected audit firms \30\ to elect an effective date of
audits for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2021, while
also permitting earlier implementation since smaller audit firms may be
disproportionally impacted.\31\ The commenter further expressed the
belief that a phased implementation may facilitate post-implementation
reviews of the Proposed Rules.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See CCMC Letter.
    \30\ ``Triennially inspected audit firms'' are audit firms that,
in accordance with PCAOB Rule 4003(b), are required to be inspected
at least once in every three calendar years if, during that time,
the audit firm issued an audit report for at least one issuer but no
more than 100 issuers. An audit firm is required to be inspected on
an annual basis if, during the prior calendar year, it issued audit
reports for more than 100 issuers (``annually inspected audit
firms). See PCAOB Rule 4003, Frequency of Inspections, available at
https://pcaobus.org/Rules/Pages/Section_4.aspx.
    \31\ See CCMC Letter.
    \32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the PCAOB Adopting Release, the Board recognized the effort
required for other implementation efforts, but stated the effective
date determined by the Board was designed to provide auditors with a
reasonable period of time to implement the Proposed Rules, without
unduly delaying the intended benefits of the Proposed Rules.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 58.

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

    We believe the Board has appropriately balanced the amount of time
needed by audit firms to implement the Proposed Rules with the
objectives of, and benefits obtained from, the Proposed Rules. In this
regard, we note that, aside from the commenter who suggested that the
Commission consider a phased implementation approach, we received no
other comments from audit firms, including triennially inspected audit
firms, requesting a phased implementation.
    In addition, there could be practical implications of allowing for
a phased implementation approach related to an auditor performance
standard.\34\ For example, audits of multi-national companies often
involve the work of more than one auditor conducted in accordance with
AS 1205, Part of the Audit Performed by Other Independent Auditors
(``AS 1205''), wherein a principal auditor may provide instructions to
the other auditors. Under a phased implementation approach, an annually
inspected audit firm serving as the principal auditor may instruct a
triennially inspected audit firm to follow the Proposed Rules before
the triennially inspected audit firm has implemented the Proposed
Rules. This approach could create challenges for the triennially
inspected audit firm as it would be instructed to implement the
Proposed Rules on individual engagements even though it may not have
updated its methodologies or trained its professionals on the Proposed
Rules, which could have a negative effect on audit quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The CCMC Letter references differences in considering a
phased implementation approach for an auditor performance standard
as compared to an auditor reporting standard, which is why it did
not suggest a phased implementation approach based on issuer size
similar to the auditor communicating critical audit matters in
accordance with AS 3101, The Auditor's Report on an Audit of
Financial Statements When the Auditor Expresses an Unqualified
Opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, within the Global Networks of accounting firms,\35\ many
of the affiliated accounting firms outside the United States are
triennially inspected audit firms. Many of these affiliated firms
participate in the multi-national audits discussed above. Our
understanding is that these arrangements make it more practical for the
Global Network Firms to adopt the Proposed Rules simultaneously across
their respective networks. As a result, the Global Network Firms may
not delay implementation for the triennially inspected audit firms
within their network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See PCAOB website for a listing of ``Global Networks'' and
further discussion, available at https://pcaobus.org/Registration/Firms/Pages/GlobalNetworkFirms.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these considerations, we do not believe a phased
implementation approach for the Proposed Rules, including providing
triennially inspected audit firms with the option to delay
implementation, is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or
for the protection of investors.

IV. Effect on Emerging Growth Companies

    In the PCAOB Adopting Release, the Board recommended that the
Commission determine that the Proposed Rules apply to audits of
EGCs.\36\ Section 103(a)(3)(C) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as amended by
Section 104 of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012,
requires that any rules of the Board ``requiring mandatory audit firm
rotation or a supplement to the auditor's report in which the auditor
would be required to provide additional information about the audit and
the financial statements of the issuer (auditor discussion and
analysis)'' shall not apply to an audit of an EGC. The provisions of
the Proposed Rules do not fall into these categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 103(a)(3)(C) further provides that ``[a]ny additional
rules'' adopted by the PCAOB after April 5, 2012, do not apply to
audits of EGCs ``unless the Commission determines that the application
of such additional requirements is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, after considering the protection of investors and
whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital
formation.'' The Proposed Rules fall within this category. Having
considered those statutory factors, we find that applying the Proposed
Rules to the audits of EGCs is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest.
    The PCAOB provided information identified by the Board's staff from
public sources, including data and analysis of EGCs that sets forth its
views as to why it believes the Proposed Rules should apply to audits
of EGCs. To inform consideration of the application of auditing
standards to audits of EGCs, the PCAOB staff has also published a white
paper that provides general information about characteristics of EGCs
(``EGC White Paper'').\37\ In addition, the Board sought public input
on the application of the Proposed Rules to the audits of EGCs.\38\
Commenters who addressed this question supported applying the proposed
requirements to audits of EGCs, citing benefits to the users of EGC
financial statements and the risk of confusion and inconsistency if
different methodologies were required for EGC and non-EGC audits.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Characteristics of Emerging Growth Companies as of
November 15, 2017 (Oct. 11, 2018), available at https://pcaobus.org/EconomicAndRiskAnalysis/Documents/White-Paper-Characteristics-Emerging-Growth-Companies-November-2017.pdf.
    \38\ See PCAOB Proposal; see also, comment letters provided to
the PCAOB related to this matter, available at https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Pages/docket-043-comments-auditing-accounting-estimates-fair-value-measurements.aspx.
    \39\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the PCAOB Adopting Release, the Board expressed its belief that
accounting estimates are common in the financial statements of many
EGCs.\40\ The Board also noted that data from 2012-2016 reported
inspection findings for audits of EGCs indicated a relatively high
number of deficiencies (i.e., 45%-60% of Part I findings on audits of
EGCs) related to the accounting estimates standard and the fair value
standard.\41\ The PCAOB further observed that ``[s]ince EGCs tend to be
smaller public companies, their accounting estimates may be less likely
to involve complex processes, although those estimates may constitute
some of the largest accounts in EGCs' financial statements.'' \42\ The
Board noted that the Proposed Rules are ``risk-based and scalable for
firms of all sizes,'' and expressed the view that ``any related cost
increases are justified by expected improvements in audit quality.''
\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See id at 53. The five Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) codes with the highest total assets as a percentage of the
total assets for the EGC population are: (i) Real estate investment
trusts; (ii) state commercial banks; (iii) national commercial
banks; (iv) crude petroleum and natural gas; and (v) pharmaceutical
preparations. See EGC White Paper at 14-15. In the PCAOB Adopting
Release, the Board noted that financial statements of companies
operating in these industries would likely have accounting estimates
that include, for example, asset impairments and allowances for loan
losses.
    \41\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 55-56.
    \42\ See id at 54.
    \43\ See id at 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the PCAOB Adopting Release noted that ``any new PCAOB
standards and amendments to existing standards determined not to apply
to the audits of EGCs would require auditors to address the differing
requirements within their methodologies, which would create the
potential for confusion.'' \44\ In the EGC White Paper, the PCAOB staff
stated that ``[a]pproximately 99% of EGC filers were audited by
accounting firms that also audit issuers that are not EGC filers.''
\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See id at 53.
    \45\ See EGC White Paper at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PCAOB Adopting Release also noted EGCs generally tend to have

shorter financial reporting histories and as a result, there is less
information available to investors regarding such companies relative to
the broader population of public companies.\46\ As such, the Proposed
Rules, which are intended to enhance audit quality, could increase the
credibility of financial statement disclosures by EGCs.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See PCAOB Adopting Release at 54.
    \47\ See id at 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with the Board's analysis. We believe the Proposed Rules
will benefit EGCs at least as much as non-EGCs, in part, because of the
prevalence of accounting estimates in financial statements of many
EGCs. Specifically, we agree with the Board applying the Proposed Rules
to EGCs would be consistent with the objective of the Proposed Rules to
provide a more uniform, risk-based approach to auditing accounting
estimates but also provide a scalable approach for firms of all sizes.
Additionally, we also agree with the Board that Proposed Rules could
increase the credibility of the financial statement disclosures by
EGCs.
    As such, after considering the protection of investors and whether
the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation,
we believe there is a sufficient basis to determine that applying the
Proposed Rules to the audits of EGCs is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest.

V. Conclusion

    The Commission has carefully reviewed and considered the Proposed
Rules, the information submitted therewith by the PCAOB, and the
comment letters received. In connection with the PCAOB's filing and the
Commission's review,
    A. The Commission finds that the Proposed Rules are consistent with
the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the securities laws and
are necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
protection of investors; and
    B. Separately, the Commission finds that the application of the
Proposed Rules to the audits of EGCs is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, after considering the protection of investors and
whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital
formation.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 107 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act and Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that the Proposed
Rules (File No. PCAOB-2019-005) be and hereby are approved.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14411 Filed 7-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 33368-33369]
[DOCID:fr11jn10-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request; Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rules 7a-15 thru 7a-37; OMB Control No. 3235-0132; SEC File No.
270-115.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously

approved collection of information discussed below.
    Rules 7a-15 through 7a-37 (17 CFR 260.7a-15-260.7a-37) under the
Trust Indenture Act of 1939 set forth the general requirements relating
to applications, statements and reports that must be filed under the
Act by issuers of, and trustees to, qualified indentures under the Act.
The respondents are persons and entities subject to the requirements of
the Trust Indenture Act. Rules 7a-15 through 7a-37 are disclosure
guidelines and do not directly result in any collection of information.
The Rules are assigned only one burden hour for administrative
convenience.
    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 control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503; or send an e-mail to: Shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, Securities
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: June 7, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14055 Filed 6-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 153 (Thursday, August 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54251-54252]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1147; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-55]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Alaskan Very High Frequency (VHF) Omnidirectional
Range (VOR) Federal Airway V-333 in the Vicinity of Shishmaref, AK, and
Revocation of Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-401 in the Vicinity of
Ambler, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-333
and to revoke Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-401. The FAA is taking this
action due to the pending decommissioning of the Shishmaref, AK, and
Ambler, AK, Nondirectional Radio Beacons (NDB). The identifier V-333 is
also used as an identifier for Domestic VOR Federal Airway V-333 in the
vicinity of Rome, GA. The identifier V-401 is also used as an
identifier for Domestic VOR Federal Airway V-401 in the vicinity of
Worland, WY. This proposed airspace action only pertains to the Alaskan
V-333 and V-401. The V-333 near Rome, GA and V-401 near Worland, WY,
would not be affected by this proposed airspace action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-1147 and
Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-55 using any of the following methods:
    * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it proposes to amend Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-333 and
revoke Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-401.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or
commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of the comments it receives.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and
hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the office of the Western Service Center,
Federal Aviation 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198.

Incorporation by Reference

    Alaskan VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(b) of
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,

which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis.
This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA
Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15,
2022. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order
JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

Background

    In 2003, Congress enacted the Vision 100-Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Pub L., 108-176), which established a joint
planning and development office in the FAA to manage the work related
to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Today,
NextGen is an ongoing FAA-led modernization of the nation's air
transportation system to make flying safer, more efficient, and more
predictable.
    In support of NextGen, this proposal is part of an ongoing, large
and comprehensive T-route modernization project in the state of Alaska.
The project mission statement states: ``To modernize Alaska's Air
Traffic Service route structure using satellite-based navigation
development of new T-routes and optimization of existing T-routes will
enhance safety, increase efficiency and access, and will provide en
route continuity that is not subject to the restrictions associated
with ground-based airway navigation.''
    As part of this initiative, the Shishmaref, AK, and Ambler, AK,
NDBs are scheduled to be decommissioned. As a result, portions of
Alaskan V-333 and V-401 in its entirety will become unusable. This
airspace action proposes to amend the Alaskan V-333 by removing the
portion of the airways that rely on the Shishmaref NDB and revoke
Alaskan V-401 airway it its entirety. The mitigations to these
amendments are already in place. United States Area Navigation (RNAV)
route T-228 overlays Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-333. Alaskan VOR
Federal Airway V-401 extends between Ambler, AK, NDB, Kotzebue, AK, VOR
distance measuring equipment (VOR/DME) and Shishmaref, AK, NDB. T-233
is near V-401 to the south between the Ambler, AK, NDB and the
Kotzebue, AK, VOR/DME. RNAV route T-364 overlies the V-401 between
Kotzebue, AK, VOR/DME and Shishmaref, AK, NDB.
    The VOR Federal airway identifier V-333 is used in Alaska and in
the Rome, GA, area. The VOR Federal airway identifier V-401 is used in
Alaska and in the Worland, WY, area. This proposed airspace action only
pertains to the Alaskan V-333 and V-401. It would not affect the V-333
near Rome, GA or the V-401 near Worland, WY.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 by amending Alaskan VOR
Federal airway V-333 and revoking Alaskan VOR Federal airway V-401 in
its entirety. The Domestic VOR Federal airways V-333 and V-401 would
remain unchanged. The proposed airspace actions are described below.
    V-333: The Alaskan V-333 currently extends between the Hooper Bay,
AK, VOR/DME, Nome, AK, VOR/DME, and the Shishmaref, AK, NDB. The FAA
proposes to revoke the portion of the Alaskan V-333 that extends
between the Nome, AK, VOR/DME and the Shishmaref, AK, NDB. As amended,
Alaskan V-333 would extend between the Hooper Bay, AK, VOR/DME and the
Nome, AK, VOR/DME. The Domestic route V-333 would remain unchanged.
    V-401: The Alaskan V-401 extends between the Ambler, AK, NDB,
Kotzebue, AK, VOR/DME, and the Shishmaref, AK, NDB. The FAA proposes to
revoke the Alaskan V-401 in its entirety. The domestic V-401 would
remain unchanged.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

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, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(b) Alaskan VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-333 [Amended]

    From Hooper Bay, AK; to Nome, AK.
* * * * *

V-401 [Remove]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 3, 2023.
Karen L. Chiodini,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2023-16978 Filed 8-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P