[Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 20649-20651]
[DOCID:fr20ap10-96]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61892; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-015)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Enable
the Listing and Trading of Options on the ETFS Palladium Trust and the
ETFS Platinum Trust

April 13, 2010.
    On February 8, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade options on the
ETFS Palladium Trust and the ETFS Platinum Trust (collectively ``ETFS
Options''). The proposed rule change was published in the Federal
Register on March 12, 2010.\3\ The Commission received no comments on
the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61663 (March 5,
2010), 75 FR 11955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of Proposal

    Recently, the Commission authorized CBOE to list and trade options
on the SPDR Gold Trust,\4\ the iShares COMEX Gold Trust, the iShares
Silver Trust,\5\ the ETFS Silver Trust and the ETFS Gold Trust.\6\ Now,
the Exchange proposes to list and trade options on the ETFS Palladium
Trust and the ETFS Platinum Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57897 (May 30,
2008), 73 FR 32061 (June 5, 2008) (order approving SR-CBOE-2005-11).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59055 (December 4,
2008), 73 FR 75148 (December 10, 2008) (order approving SR-CBOE-
2008-72).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61483 (February 3,
2010), 75 FR 6753 (February 10, 2010) (order approving SR-CBOE-2010-
007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current Rule 5.3, only Units (also referred to herein as
exchange traded fund (``ETFs'')) representing (i) interests in
registered investment companies (or series thereof) organized as open-
end management investment companies, unit investment trusts or similar
entities that hold portfolios of securities and/or financial
instruments including, but not limited to, stock index futures
contracts, options on futures, options on securities and indexes,
equity caps, collars and floors, swap agreements, forward contracts,
repurchase agreements and reverse purchase agreements (the ``Financial
Instruments''), and money market instruments, including, but not
limited to, U.S. government securities and repurchase agreements (the
``Money Market Instruments'') comprising or otherwise based on or
representing investments in indexes or portfolios of securities and/or
Financial Instruments and Money Market Instruments (or that hold
securities in one or more other registered investment companies that
themselves hold such portfolios of securities and/or Financial
Instruments and Money Market Instruments), or (ii) interests in a trust
or similar entity that holds a specified non-U.S. currency deposited
with the trust or similar entity when aggregated in some specified
minimum number may be surrendered to the trust by the beneficial owner
to receive the specified non-U.S. currency and pays the beneficial
owner interest and other distributions on deposited non-U.S. currency,
if any, declared and paid by the trust, or (iii) commodity pool
interests principally engaged, directly or indirectly, in holding and/
or managing portfolios or baskets of securities, commodity futures
contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward
contracts and/or options on physical commodities and/or non-U.S.
currency (``Commodity Pool Units''), or (iv) represent interests in the
streetTRACKS Gold Trust or the iShares COMEX Gold Trust or the iShares
Silver Trust or the ETFS Silver Trust or the ETFS Gold Trust, or (v)
represents an interest in a registered investment company (``Investment
Company'') organized as an open-end management investment company or
similar entity, that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by
the Investment Company's investment adviser consistent with the
Investment Company's investment objectives and policies, which is
issued in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit
of a specified portfolio of securities and/or a cash amount with a
value equal to the next determined net asset value (``NAV''), and when
aggregated in the same specified minimum number, may be redeemed at a
holder's request, which holder will be paid a specified portfolio of
securities and/or cash with a value equal to the next determined NAV
(``Managed Fund Share'') are eligible as underlying securities for
options traded on the Exchange.\7\ This rule change proposes to expand
the types of ETFs that may be approved for options trading on the
Exchange to include the ETFS Palladium Trust and the ETFS Platinum
Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Interpretation and Policy .06 to CBOE Rule 5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Apart from allowing the ETFS Palladium Trust and the ETFS Platinum
Trust to be an underlying security for options traded on the Exchange
as described above, the listing standards for ETFs will remain
unchanged from those that apply under current Exchange rules. ETFs on
which options may be listed and traded must still be listed and traded
on a national securities exchange and must satisfy the other listing
standards set forth in Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 5.3.
    Specifically, in addition to satisfying the aforementioned listing
requirements, Units must meet either: (1) The criteria and guidelines
under Rule 5.3 and Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 5.3, Criteria
for Underlying Securities; or (2) they must be available for creation
or redemption each business day from or through the issuer

in cash or in kind at a price related to net asset value, and the
issuer must be obligated to issue Units in a specified aggregate number
even if some or all of the investment assets required to be deposited
have not been received by the issuer, subject to the condition that the
person obligated to deposit the investments has undertaken to deliver
the investment assets as soon as possible and such undertaking is
secured by the delivery and maintenance of collateral consisting of
cash or cash equivalents satisfactory to the issuer, as provided in the
respective prospectus.
    The Exchange states that the current continued listing standards
for options on ETFs will apply to options on the ETFS Palladium Trust
and the ETFS Platinum Trust. Specifically, under Interpretation and
Policy .08 to Rule 5.4, options on Units may be subject to the
suspension of opening transactions as follows: (1) Following the
initial twelve-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading
of the Units, there are fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders
of the Units for 30 or more consecutive trading days; (2) the value of
the index or portfolio of securities, non-U.S. currency, or portfolio
of commodities including commodity futures contracts, options on
commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward contracts and/or options on
physical commodities and/or Financial Instruments and Money Market
Instruments on which Units are based is no longer calculated or
available; or (3) such other event occurs or condition exists that in
the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing on the Exchange
inadvisable.
    Additionally, the ETFS Palladium Trust and the ETFS Platinum Trust
shall not be deemed to meet the requirements for continued approval,
and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of
option contracts of the class covering the ETFS Palladium Trust and the
ETFS Platinum Trust, if the ETFS Palladium Trust and the ETFS Platinum
Trust ceases to be an ``NMS stock'' as provided for in paragraph (f) of
Interpretation and Policy .01 of Rule 5.4 or the ETFS Palladium Trust
and the ETFS Platinum Trust is halted from trading on its primary
market.
    The addition of the ETFS Palladium Trust and the ETFS Platinum
Trust to Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 5.3 will not have any
effect on the rules pertaining to position and exercise limits \8\ or
margin.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CBOE Rules 4.11 and 4.12.
    \9\ See CBOE Rule 12.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures applicable
to trading in options on the ETFS Palladium Trust and the ETFS Platinum
Trust will be similar to those applicable to all other options on other
Units currently traded on the Exchange. The Exchange represents that
its surveillance procedures applicable to trading in options on the
ETFS Palladium Trust and the ETFS Platinum Trust will be similar to
those applicable to all other options on other ETFs currently traded on
the Exchange. Also, the Exchange may obtain information from the New
York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (``NYMEX'') (a member of the Intermarket
Surveillance Group) related to any financial instrument that is based,
in whole or in part, upon an interest in or performance of palladium or
platinum.

II. Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change submitted by CBOE is consistent with the requirements of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange \10\ and, in particular, the requirements
of Section 6 of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the Commission finds that
the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. In accordance with the
Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and the Commission on March 11, 2008, and
in particular the addendum thereto concerning Principles Governing the
Review of Novel Derivative Products, the Commission believes that novel
derivative products that implicate areas of overlapping regulatory
concern should be permitted to trade in either or both a CFTC- or
Commission-regulated environment, in a manner consistent with laws and
regulations (including the appropriate use of all available exemptive
and interpretive authority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a national securities exchange, the CBOE is required under
Section 6(b)(1) of the Act \13\ to enforce compliance by its members,
and persons associated with its members, with the provisions of the
Act, Commission rules and regulations thereunder, and its own rules. In
addition, brokers that trade ETFS Options will also be subject to best
execution obligations and FINRA rules.\14\ Applicable exchange rules
also require that customers receive appropriate disclosure before
trading ETFS Options.\15\ Further, brokers opening accounts and
recommending options transactions must comply with relevant customer
suitability standards.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \14\ See NASD Rule 2320.
    \15\ See CBOE Rule 9.15.
    \16\ See FINRA Rule 2360(b) and CBOE Rules 9.7 and 9.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ETFS Options will trade as options under the trading rules of the
CBOE. These rules, among other things, are designed to avoid trading
through better displayed prices for ETFS Options available on other
exchanges and, thereby, satisfy CBOE's obligation under the Options
Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan.\17\ Series of the ETFS
Options will be subject to exchange rules regarding continued listing
requirements, including standards applicable to the underlying ETFS
Silver and ETF Gold Trusts. Shares of the ETFS Silver and ETFS Gold
Trusts must continue to be traded through a national securities
exchange or through the facilities of a national securities
association, and must be ``NMS stock'' as defined under Rule 600 of
Regulation NMS.\18\ In addition, the underlying shares must continue to
be available for creation or redemption each business day from or
through the issuer in cash or in kind at a price related to net asset
value.\19\ If the ETFS Silver or ETFS Gold Trust shares fail to meet
these requirements, the exchanges will not open for trading any new
series of the respective ETFS Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See CBOE Rule 6.81. Specifically, CBOE is a participant in
the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan.
    \18\ 17 CFR 242.600.
    \19\ See Interpretation and Policy .06 to CBOE Rule 5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE has represented that it has surveillance programs in place for
the listing and trading of ETFS Options. For example, CBOE may obtain
trading information via the ISG from the NYMEX related to any financial
instrument traded there that is based, in whole or in part, upon an
interest in, or performance of, palladium or platinum. Additionally,
the listing and trading of ETFS Options will be subject to the

exchange's rules pertaining to position and exercise limits \20\ and
margin.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See CBOE Rules 4.11 and 4.12.
    \21\ See CBOE Rule 12.3. See also FINRA Rule 2360(b) and
Commentary .01 to FINRA Rule 2360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\22\ that the propose rule change (SR-CBOE-2010-015) be, and is
hereby, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9032 Filed 4-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38524]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15434]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-610, OMB Control No. 3235-0707]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form SF-1

    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.
    Form SF-1 (17 CFR 239.44) is the registration statement for non-
shelf issuers of assets-backed securities register a public offering of
their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et
seq.). The information collected is intended to ensure that the
information required to be filed by the Commission permits verification
of compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public
availability of such information in the asset-backed securities market.
Form SF-1 takes approximately 1,384 hours per response and is filed by
approximately 6 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 1,384 hours
per response (346 hours) is prepared by the registrant for a total
annual reporting burden of 2,076 hours (346 hours per response x 6
responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 15, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15434 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64028-64030]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26867]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76062; File No. SR-OCC-2015-803]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Advance Notice of and No Objection to the Options
Clearing Corporation's Proposal To Enter a New Credit Facility
Agreement

October 1, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing
Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), notice is hereby given that,
on September 10, 2015, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
an advance notice (SR-OCC-2015-803) with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''). The advance notice is described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by OCC. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the advance notice from
interested persons, and to provide notice that the Commission does not
object to the changes set forth in the advance notice and authorizes
OCC to implement those changes earlier than 60 days after the filing of
the advance notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Advance
Notice

    This advance notice is filed by OCC in connection with a proposed
change to its operations to replace an existing credit facility OCC
maintains for the purposes of meeting obligations arising out of the
default or suspension of a clearing member, in anticipation of a
potential default by a clearing member, or the failure of a bank or
securities or commodities clearing organization to perform its
obligations due to its bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or
suspension of operations.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and
discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A and B below,
of the most significant aspects of these statements.

A. Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Advance Notice
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the advance notice and none have been received.

B. Advance Notice Filed Pursuant to Section 806(e) of the Clearing
Supervision Act

(i) Description of Change
    This advance notice is being filed in connection with a proposed
change in the form of the replacement of a revolving credit facility
that OCC maintains for a 364-day term for the purpose of meeting
obligations arising out of the default or suspension of a clearing
member, in anticipation of a potential default by a clearing member, or
the failure of a bank or securities or commodities clearing
organization to perform its obligations due to its bankruptcy,
insolvency, receivership or suspension of operations. OCC's existing
credit facility (the ``Existing Facility'') was implemented on October
7, 2014 through the execution of a Credit Agreement among OCC, JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A. (``JP Morgan''), as administrative agent, and the
lenders that are parties to the agreement from time to time. The
Existing Facility provides short-term secured borrowings in an
aggregate principal amount of $2 billion but may be increased to $3
billion if OCC so requests and sufficient commitments from lenders are
received and accepted. To obtain a loan under the Existing Facility,
OCC must pledge as collateral U.S. dollars or certain securities issued
or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or the Government of Canada.
Certain mandatory prepayments or deposits of additional collateral are
required depending on changes in the collateral's market value. In
connection with OCC's past implementation of the Existing Facility, OCC
filed an advance notice with the Commission on September 11, 2014, and
the Commission published a notice of no objection on September 30,
2014.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73257 (September 30,
2014), 79 FR 60214 (October 6, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-806).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Existing Facility is set to expire on October 6, 2015, and OCC
is therefore currently negotiating the terms of a new credit facility
(the ``New Facility'') on substantially similar terms as the Existing
Facility, except that a new administrative agent, Bank of America, N.A.
(``Bank of America''), has been selected and OCC anticipates that U.S.
Bank National Association (``U.S. Bank'') will act as collateral agent,
joint lead arranger and joint book runner. Under the Existing Facility,
both of these roles are performed by JP Morgan. OCC also anticipates
that The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. (``Bank of Tokyo
Mitsubishi'') will act as a back-up administrative agent and collateral
agent as well as joint lead arranger and joint book runner. On
September 9, 2015, OCC, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith Incorporated (``MLPF&S''), a joint lead arranger and book
runner, U.S. Bank and Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi executed a Commitment
Letter with regard to the New Facility.
    The terms and conditions applicable to the New Facility are set
forth in the Summary of Terms and Conditions, which is not a public
document.\4\ OCC has separately submitted a request for confidential
treatment to the Commission regarding the Summary of Terms and
Conditions, which is included in this filing as Exhibit 3. The
conditions regarding the availability of the New Facility, which OCC
anticipates will be satisfied on or before October 6, 2015, include the
execution and delivery of (i) a credit agreement between OCC and the
administrative agent, collateral agent and various lenders under the
New Facility, (ii) a pledge agreement between OCC and the
administrative agent or collateral agent, and (iii) such other
documents as may be required by the parties. The definitive
documentation concerning the New Facility is expected to be consistent
with the Summary of Terms and Conditions and substantially similar to
that concerning the Existing Facility, although it will include certain
changes to accommodate the use of accounts at a new collateral agent
and certain other changes as may be necessary regarding administrative
and operational terms being finalized

between the parties. Mainly, and in order to effect a borrowing under
the New Facility, OCC would pledge collateral to the collateral agent
for the benefit of the administrative agent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Summary of Terms and Conditions for the New Facility
clarifies certain terms regarding mandatory prepayments or deposits
of additional collateral, which, as described above, are also
features of the Existing Facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The New Facility involves a variety of customary fees payable by
OCC, including: (1) An arrangement fee payable to the joint lead
arrangers; (2) administrative and collateral agent fees payable to the
administrative agent and collateral agent if the New Facility closes;
(3) upfront commitment fees payable to the lenders based on the amount
of their commitments; and (4) an ongoing quarterly commitment fee based
on the unused amount of the New Facility.
(ii) Anticipated Effect on and Management of Risk
    Completing timely settlement is a key aspect of OCC's role as a
clearing agency performing central counterparty services. Overall, the
New Facility would continue to promote the reduction of risks to OCC,
its clearing members and the options market in general because it would
allow OCC to obtain short-term funds to address liquidity demands
arising out of the default or suspension of a clearing member, in
anticipation of a potential default or suspension of clearing members
or the insolvency of a bank or another securities or commodities
clearing organization. The existence of the New Facility would
therefore help OCC minimize losses in the event of such a default,
suspension or insolvency, by allowing it to obtain funds on extremely
short notice to ensure clearance and settlement of transactions in
options and other contracts without interruption. OCC believes that the
reduced settlement risk presented by OCC resulting from the New
Facility would correspondingly reduce systemic risk and promote the
safety and soundness of the clearing system. By drawing on the New
Facility, OCC would also be able to avoid liquidating margin or
clearing fund assets in what would likely be volatile market
conditions, which would preserve funds available to cover any losses
resulting from the failure of a clearing member, bank or other clearing
organization. Because the New Facility preserves substantially the same
terms and conditions as the Existing Facility, OCC believes that the
change would not otherwise affect or alter the management of risk at
OCC.
(iii) Consistency With the Clearing Supervision Act
    OCC believes that the New Facility is consistent with Section
805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act \5\ because it promotes robust
risk management by OCC of settlement and liquidity risk. The New
Facility would promote robust risk management of these risks by
providing OCC with timely access to a stable and reliable liquidity
funding source to help it complete timely clearing and settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iv) Accelerated Commission Action Requested
    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the Clearing Supervision
Act,\6\ OCC requests that the Commission notify OCC that it has no
objection to the New Facility not later than Friday, October 2, which
is four days prior to the October 6, 2015 effective date of the New
Facility. OCC requests Commission action four days in advance of the
effective date in order to ensure that there is no period of time that
OCC operates without this essential liquidity resource, given its
importance to OCC's borrowing capacity in connection with its
management of liquidity and settlement risk and timely completion of
clearance and settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Advance Notice and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not
object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the
date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the
date that any additional information requested by the Commission is
received. OCC shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission
has any objection to the proposed change.
    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission providing the OCC with prompt written notice of the
extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days
from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further
information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission
notifies OCC in writing that it does not object to the proposed change
and authorizes OCC to implement the proposed change on an earlier date,
subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
    OCC shall post notice on its Web site of proposed changes that are
implemented.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2015-803 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2015-803. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method of submission. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed change between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and
on OCC's Web site at http://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_15_803.pdf.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2015-803
and should be submitted on or before November 12, 2015.

V. Commission's Findings and Notice of No Objection

    Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard
of review for an advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive.\7\
The stated purpose is to mitigate systemic risk in the financial system
and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting
uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial
market utilities (``FMUs'') and strengthening the liquidity of
systemically important FMUs.\8\ Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing
Supervision Act \9\ authorizes the Commission to prescribe risk
management standards for the payment, clearing, and settlement
activities of designated clearing entities and financial institutions
engaged in designated activities for which it is the Supervisory Agency
or the appropriate financial regulator. Section 805(b) of the Clearing
Supervision Act \10\ states that the objectives and principles for the
risk management standards prescribed under Section 805(a) shall be to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \10\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     promote robust risk management;
     promote safety and soundness;
     reduce systemic risks; and
     support the stability of the broader financial system.
    The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \11\ and the Exchange Act
(``Clearing Agency Standards'').\12\ The Clearing Agency Standards
require registered clearing agencies to establish, implement, maintain,
and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably
designed to meet certain minimum requirements for their operations and
risk management practices on an ongoing basis.\13\ Therefore, it is
appropriate for the Commission to review advance notices against these
Clearing Agency Standards and the objectives and principles of these
risk management standards as described in Section 805(b) of the
Clearing Supervision Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \12\ See Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22. 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68080 (October 22, 2012), 77 FR
66220 (November 2, 2012) (S7-08-11).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal in the advance notice is
consistent with the Clearing Agency Standards, in particular, Exchange
Act Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11) and Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3). Exchange
Act Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11) requires that registered clearing agencies
``establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable . . . establish
default procedures that ensure that the clearing agency can take timely
action to contain losses and liquidity pressures and to continue
meeting its obligations in the event of a participant default.'' The
Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Exchange Act
Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11) because the New Facility will allow OCC to obtain
short-term funds to address liquidity demands arising out of the
default or suspension of a clearing member, in anticipation of a
potential default or suspension of clearing members or the insolvency
of a bank or another securities or commodities clearing organization.
Therefore, the New Facility should help OCC minimize losses in the
event of such a default, suspension or insolvency, by allowing it to
obtain funds on extremely short notice to ensure clearance and
settlement of transactions in options and other contracts without
interruption.
    Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) requires a central counterparty
(``CCP''), to ``establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to . . . [m]aintain
sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a default by
the participant family to which it has the largest exposure in extreme
but plausible market conditions. . . .'' The Commission believes that
the proposal is consistent with Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) because
OCC's proposal to enter into the New Facility, thereby ensuring
continued access to a committed bank syndicated credit facility, will
help OCC maintain sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a
minimum, a default by an clearing member family to which it has the
largest exposure.
    For these reasons, the Commission believes the proposal contained
in the advance notice is consistent with the objectives and principles
described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act, including
that it reduces systemic risks and promote the safety and soundness of
the broader financial system. As discussed above, the New Facility will
continue to promote the reduction of risks to OCC, its clearing
members, and the options market in general because it will allow OCC to
obtain short-term funds to address liquidity demands, which should
ensure clearance and settlement of transactions in options and other
contracts without interruption. Given that OCC has been designated as a
systemically important FMU, its ability to access financial resources
to address short-term liquidity demands contributes to reducing
systemic risks and supporting the stability of the broader financial
system.
    For these reasons, stated above, the Commission does not object to
the advance notice.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the
Clearing Supervision Act,\15\ that the Commission does not object to
the proposed change, and authorizes OCC to implement the change in the
advance notice (SR-OCC-2015-803) as of the date of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I).

    By the Commission.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26867 Filed 10-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51438-51439]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21031]

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

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:
    Rule 17a-10; SEC File No. 270-154; OMB Control No. 3235-0122.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-
10 (17 CFR 240.17a-10) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a-10 generally requires broker-dealers
that are exempted from the requirement to file monthly and quarterly
reports pursuant to paragraph (a) of Exchange Act Rule 17a-5 (17 CFR
240.17a-5) to file with the Commission the Facing Page, a Statement of
Income (Loss), and balance sheet from Part IIA of Form X-17A-5 \1\ (17
CFR 249.617), and Schedule I of Form X-17A-5 not later than 17 business
days after the end of each calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Form X-17A-5 is the Financial and Operational Combined
Uniform Single Report (``FOCUS Report''), which is used by brokers
and dealers to provide certain required information to the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 17a-10 requires a broker-dealer subject to
Rule 17a-5(a) to submit Schedule I of Form X-17A-5 with its Form X-17A-
5 for the calendar quarter ending December 31 of each year. The burden
associated with filing Schedule I of Form X-17A-5 is accounted for in
the PRA filing associated with Rule 17a-5.

    Paragraph (b) of Rule 17a-10 provides that the provisions of
paragraph (a) do not apply to members of national securities exchanges
or registered national securities associations that maintain records
containing the information required by Form X-17A-5 and which transmit
to the Commission copies of the records pursuant to a plan which has
been declared effective by the Commission.
    The primary purpose of Rule 17a-10 is to obtain the economic and
statistical data necessary for an ongoing analysis of the securities
industry. As originally adopted in 1968, Rule 17a-10 required brokers
and dealers to provide their revenue and expense data on a special
form. The Rule was amended in 1977 to eliminate the form. The data
previously reported on the form is now reported using Form X-17A-5 and
its supplementary schedules.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 103 broker-dealers will
spend an average of approximately 12 hours per year complying with Rule
17a-10. Thus, the total compliance burden is estimated to be
approximately 1,236 burden-hours per year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The number of burden hours stated in this notice is lower
than the number of burden hours stated in the 60 day notice
(``Proposed Collection; Comment Request'') published earlier this
year in connection with this OMB control number. The reason for this
difference is that the burden hours stated in the 60-day notice had
been based on the number of respondent broker-dealers who had
complied with Rule 17a-10 during 2009 (i.e., 168 respondents),
whereas the burden hours in this notice reflect the more updated
number of respondent broker-dealers who complied with Rule 17a-10
during 2010 (i.e., 103 respondents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Background documentation for this information collection may be
viewed at the following link, http://www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (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 by sending an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
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.

    August 12, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21031 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37122-37124]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-4233; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-003-AD;
Amendment 39-18540; AD 2016-11-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BLANIK LIMITED Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 99-19-33 for
BLANIK LIMITED Models L-13 Blanik and L-13 AC Blanik gliders (type
certificate previously held by LET Aeronautical Works). This AD results
from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as lack of distinct color marking of the elevator drive. We
are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 14, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
November 8, 1999 (64 FR 50440, September 17, 1999).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
4233; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact BLANIK
LIMITED, 2nd Floor Beaux Lane House, Mercer Street Lower, Dublin 2,
Republic of Ireland; phone: +420 733 662 194; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.blanik.aero/%EF%BB%BFcustomer_support. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for Docket No. FAA-2016-4233.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816)
329-4165; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to BLANIK LIMITED Models L-13
Blanik and L-13 AC Blanik gliders. That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on March 4, 2016 (81 FR 11473), and proposed to
supersede AD 99-19-33, Amendment 39-11320 (64 FR 50440; September 17,
1999) (``AD 99-19-33'').
    The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country. The MCAI states that:

    Colour marking of elevator drive is not inspected or re-painted
during sailplane operation. The elevator drive is asymmetrical and
improper installation causes significant elevator deflection
changes.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2016-4233-0003.
    A review of records since issuance of AD 99-19-33 revealed that the
FAA inadvertently did not address this MCAI for the EVEKTOR, spol.
s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and the BLANIK
LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders. This AD would supersede AD 99-19-
13 to add

the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders to the applicability of
the AD.
    The FAA is addressing the EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH
VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders in another AD action.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 11473, March 4,
2016) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (81 FR 11473, March 4, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 11473, March 4, 2016).

Related Service Information

    We reviewed LET Aeronautical Works LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.:
L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998. The service information describes
procedures for painting the left arm of the elevator drive. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 124 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $11,780, or $95 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
4233; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-11320 (64 FR
50440, September 17, 1999) and adding the following new AD:

2016-11-13 BLANIK LIMITED: Amendment 39-18540; Docket No. FAA-2016-
4233; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-003-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 14,
2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 99-19-33, Amendment 39-11320 (64 FR 50440;
September 17, 1999) (``AD 99-19-33'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to BLANIK LIMITED Models L-13 Blanik and L-13 AC
Blanik gliders (type certificate previously held by LET Aeronautical
Works), all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as lack of distinct
color marking of the elevator drive. We are issuing this AD to
prevent inadvertent backward installation of the elevator drive,
which could cause significant elevator deflection changes and lead
to loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs:
    (1) Model L-13 Blanik gliders:
    (i) Within the next 3 calendar months after November 8, 1999
(the effective date retained from AD 99-19-33), paint the elevator
drive mechanism using a contrasting color (such as red) following
the procedures in LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated
December 10, 1998.
    (ii) As of November 8, 1999 (the effective date retained from AD
99-19-33), only install an elevator bellcrank that has been painted
as specified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD and that has been
properly oriented to make sure it is not being installed backward.
    (2) Model L-13 AC Blanik gliders:
    (i) Within the next 3 calendar months after July 14, 2016 (the
effective date of this AD), paint the elevator drive mechanism using
a contrasting color (such as red) following the procedures in LET
Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10, 1998.

    (ii) As of July 14, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), only
install an elevator bellcrank that has been painted as specified in
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD and that has been properly oriented
to make sure it is not being installed backward.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority AD CAA-AD-4-099/98, dated
December 30, 1998, for related information. The MCAI can be found in
the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2016-4233-0003.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
November 8, 1999 (64 FR 50440, September 17, 1999).
    (i) LET Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/082a, dated December 10,
1998.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
BLANIK LIMITED, 2nd Floor Beaux Lane House, Mercer Street Lower,
Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland; phone: +420 733 662 194; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.blanik.aero/%EF%BB%BFcustomer_support.
    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4233.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 20, 2016.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-12591 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 27488]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10790]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of EQCO2, Inc., Hondo Minerals Corp., and Liberty
Gold Corp., Order of Suspension of Trading

May 4, 2016.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
EQCO2, Inc. (CIK No. 1371487), a Nevada corporation with its principal
place of business listed as Las Vegas, Nevada, with stock quoted on OTC
Link (previously, ``Pink Sheets'') operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc.
(``OTC Link'') under the ticker symbol CLNO, because it has not filed
any periodic reports since the period ended July 31, 2013. On September
16, 2014, a delinquency letter was sent by the Division of Corporation
Finance to EQCO2, Inc. requesting compliance with its periodic filing
obligations, and EQCO2, Inc. received the delinquency letter on
September 19, 2014, but failed to cure its delinquencies.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Hondo Minerals Corp. (CIK No. 1471136), a defaulted Nevada corporation
with its principal place of business listed as Chloride, Arizona with
stock quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol HMNC, because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the period ended April 30, 2013.
On August 19, 2015, a delinquency letter was sent by the Division of
Corporation Finance to Hondo Minerals Corp. requesting compliance with
its periodic filing obligations, but Hondo Minerals Corp. did not
receive the delinquency letter due to its failure to maintain a valid
address on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules
(Rule 301 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR
Filer Manual).
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Liberty Gold Corp. (CIK No. 1459697), a void Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business listed as Phoenix, Arizona, with stock
quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol LBGO, because it has not
filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2013. On
October 17, 2014, a delinquency letter was sent by the Division of
Corporation Finance to Liberty Gold Corp. requesting compliance with
its periodic filing obligations, but Liberty Gold Corp. did not receive
the delinquency letter due to its failure to maintain a valid address
on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules (Rule 301
of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232.301 and Section 5.4 of EDGAR Filer
Manual).
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on May 4, 2016, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 17, 2016.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10790 Filed 5-4-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77857-77862]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30365]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0225; Amdt. No. 91-331A]
RIN 2120-AK56

Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) and
Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight Information Regions (FIRs)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Immediately adopted final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)
No. 113, ``Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV)
Flight Information Region (FIR),'' which prohibited certain flight
operations in a portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR by all U.S. air
carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges
of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a
U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of
U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign
air carriers. This action expands the area in which flight operations
by persons subject to SFAR No. 113 are prohibited, to include all of
the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR, as well as the entire Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV)
FIR. The FAA finds this action to be necessary to prevent a potential
hazard to persons and aircraft engaged in such flight operations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 29, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Will Gonzalez, Air Transportation Division, AFS-
220, Flight Standards Service Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Robert Frenzel,
Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
7638; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to
dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency
for ``good cause'' finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' In this instance,
the FAA finds that notice and public comment to this immediately
adopted final rule, as well as any delay in the effective date of this
rule, are contrary to the public interest due to the immediate need to
address the potential hazard to civil aviation that now exists in the
Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnepropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs, as described in the
Background section of this Notice.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the United
States (U.S.) and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-
registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the
world. The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found
in title

49, U.S. Code. Subtitle I, section 106(f), describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section
40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the
public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and
enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air
commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise
his authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government
under international agreements.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, section 44701, General requirements.
Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe
flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other
things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and
procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security. This regulation is within the scope of
that authority, because it prohibits the persons subject to paragraph
(a) of SFAR No. 113 from conducting flight operations in the entirety
of the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs due to the
potential hazard to the safety of such persons' flight operations, as
described in the ``Background'' section of this document.

I. Overview of Immediately Adopted Final Rule Amending SFAR No. 113

    This action prohibits flight operations in the entirety of the
Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs by all U.S. air
carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges
of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a
U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of
U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign
air carriers. The FAA finds this action necessary to prevent a
potential hazard to persons and aircraft engaged in such flight
operations.

II. Background

    On April 23, 2014, the FAA issued SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607,
which prohibited flight operations in a portion of the Simferopol
(UKFV) FIR by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons
exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when
such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air
carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when
such operators are foreign air carriers. On March 28, 2014, the Russian
Federation had issued a Notice-to-Airmen (NOTAM) purporting to
establish unilaterally a new FIR, effective April 3, 2014, in a
significant portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR, which included
sovereign Ukrainian airspace over the Crimean Peninsula and the
associated Ukrainian territorial sea, as well as international airspace
managed by Ukraine over the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Ukraine
rejected the Russian Federation's purported establishment of a new FIR
within the existing Simferopol (UKFV) FIR, established a prohibited
area over the Crimean Peninsula for flight operations below flight
level 290, and closed various air traffic services (ATS) route
segments.
    The Russian Federation responded by issuing a NOTAM that rejected
and directly conflicted with Ukrainian NOTAMs concerning the
establishment of the prohibited area and the route segment closures. On
April 2, 2014, the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO's)
Regional Director for Europe and the North Atlantic Regions issued a
state letter to countries and their civil aviation authorities
highlighting the possible existence of serious risks to the safety of
international civil flights and recommending that consideration be
given to implementing measures to avoid the airspace and to
circumnavigate the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR with alternative routings.
    When SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607, was issued, the FAA viewed the
possibility of civil aircraft receiving confusing and conflicting air
traffic control instructions from both Ukrainian and Russian ATS
providers when operating in the portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR
covered by SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607, as an unsafe condition that
presented a potential hazard to civil flight operations in the disputed
airspace. Because political and military tensions between Ukraine and
the Russian Federation remained high, the FAA was also concerned that
compliance with air traffic control instructions issued by the
authorities of one country could result in a civil aircraft being
misidentified as a threat and intercepted or otherwise engaged by air
defense forces of the other country. The FAA continues to have these
concerns.
    The FAA is now expanding SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607, due to safety
and national security concerns regarding flight operations in the
Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs. The ongoing conflict
in the region poses a significant threat to civil aviation operations
in these FIRs. In addition to a series of attacks on fixed-wing and
rotary-wing military aircraft flying at lower altitudes, a Ukrainian
An-26 flying at 21,000 feet southeast of Luhansk was shot down on July
14, 2014, and a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was shot down on July 17,
2014, while flying over Ukraine at 33,000 feet just west of the Russian
border. Approximately 290 passengers and crew perished. The use of
weapons capable of targeting and shooting down aircraft flying on civil
air routes at cruising altitudes poses a significantly dangerous threat
to civil aircraft flying in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk
(UKDV) FIRs.
    In response to this situation, the FAA issued a NOTAM on July 18,
2014 (UTC), to prohibit operations within the Simferopol (UKFV) and
Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial
operators; persons exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman
certificate, except when such persons are operating a U.S.-registered
aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered
civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign air carriers.
Given the uncertainty about when the conflict in the region will end,
this amendment follows up on that action.
    The FAA will continue to actively evaluate the area and the
airports in the region to determine to what extent U.S. civil operators
may be able to safely operate in the region. Amendments to the SFAR may
be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The
FAA may amend or rescind the SFAR as necessary prior to its expiration
date. This amendment also makes a few technical corrections to SFAR No.
113, Sec.  91.1607.
    Because the circumstances described herein warrant immediate action
by the FAA, I find that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
However, we will accept any comments regarding the impact of this
action for consideration in any future rulemaking action to amend or
rescind this SFAR. Further, I find that good cause exists under 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this rule effective immediately upon issuance.
I also find that this action is fully consistent with the obligations
under 49 U.S.C. 40105 to ensure that I exercise my duties consistently
with the obligations of the United States under international
agreements.

Approval Based on Authorization Request of an Agency of the United
States Government

    On April 23, 2014, the FAA put an approval process in place as part
of SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607. In this rule, the approval process has
been expanded to address flight operations by persons covered by SFAR
No. 113, Sec.  91.1607, in the entirety of the Simferopol (UKFV) and
Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs. If a department, agency, or instrumentality
of the U.S. Government determines that it has a critical need to engage
any person covered under SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607, including a U.S.
air carrier or a U.S. commercial operator, to conduct a charter to
transport civilian or military passengers or cargo in the Simferopol
(UKFV) FIR and/or the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR, that department,
agency, or instrumentality may request the FAA to approve persons
covered under SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607, to conduct such operations.
An approval request must be made to the FAA in a letter signed by an
appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or
instrumentality of the U.S. Government. The letter must be sent to the
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (AVS-1), Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may
request that the FAA notify it electronically as to whether the
approval request is granted. If a requestor wishes to make an
electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact the Air
Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to obtain the appropriate email address. A single letter may request
approval from the FAA for multiple persons covered under SFAR No. 113,
Sec.  91.1607, and/or for multiple flight operations. To the extent
known, the letter must identify the person(s) expected to be covered
under the SFAR on whose behalf the U.S. Government department, agency,
or instrumentality is seeking FAA approval, and it must describe--
     The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the
mission being supported;
     The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the
SFAR;
     To the extent known, the specific locations within the
Simferopol (UKFV) FIR and/or the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR covered by
this SFAR where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted; and
     The method by which the department, agency, or
instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise
obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the
operator will integrate this information into all phases of its
proposed operations (e.g., pre-mission planning and briefing, in-
flight, and post-flight).
    The request for approval must also include a list of operators with
whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality
requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or
cooperative agreement(s) (or with whom its prime contractor has a
subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the Simferopol (UKFV)
FIR and/or the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR. Additional such operators may
be identified to the FAA at any time after the FAA approval is issued.
Updated lists should be sent to the email address to be obtained from
the Air Transportation Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If an approval request includes classified information, requestors
may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Will Gonzalez for instructions on
submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the
``For Further Information Contact'' section of this final rule.
    FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607,
does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their responsibility
to comply with all applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of
civil aircraft will have to comply with the conditions of their
certificate and Operations Specifications (OpSpecs). Operators will
also have to comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S.
Government departments or agencies that may apply to the proposed
operation, including, but not limited to, the Transportation Security
Regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration,
Department of Homeland Security.

Approval Conditions

    On April 23, 2014, the FAA put approval conditions in place as part
of SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607. The approval conditions will now apply
to flight operations conducted by persons covered by SFAR No. 113,
Sec.  91.1607, in the entirety of the Simferopol (UKFV) and
Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs. If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's
Aviation Safety Organization (AVS) will send an approval letter to the
requesting department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the
FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:
    (1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions
that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator,
while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational
objectives.
    (2) The approval will specify that the operation is not eligible
for coverage under a premium war risk insurance policy issued by the
FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ If and when, in connection with an operator's contract with
a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government, an
operation is covered by a non-premium war risk insurance policy
issued by FAA under 49 U.S.C. 44305, coverage under that operator's
FAA premium war risk insurance policy is suspended as a condition
contained in that premium policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) If the proposed operation would have been covered by a premium
war risk insurance policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title
49, U.S. Code, but for SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607, the FAA will issue
an endorsement to that premium policy that specifically excludes
coverage for any operations into, out of, within, or through the
Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs, including operations
under a flight plan that contemplates landing in or taking off from
Ukrainian territory within those two FIRs. The endorsement to the
premium policy will take effect before the approval's effective date.
The exclusion specified in the endorsement will remain in effect as
long as this SFAR remains in effect, notwithstanding the issuance of
any approval under, or exemption from, this SFAR (the chapter 443
premium policy refers to such approval as a ``waiver'' and such
exemption as an ``exclusion'').
    (4) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to
the FAA a written release of the U.S. Government (including but not
limited to the United States of America, as Insurer) from all damages,
claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and
expenses, and the operator's agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government
(including but not limited to the United States of America, as Insurer)
with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and
liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses,
relating to any event arising from or related to the approved
operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR and/or Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV)
FIR. The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator
from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance
policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443.
    (5) Other conditions that the FAA may specify, including those that
may be imposed in OpSpecs.
    If the proposed operation or operations are approved, the FAA will
issue OpSpecs to the certificate holder

authorizing these operations and will notify a department, agency, or
instrumentality that requests FAA approval of civil flight operations
to be conducted by one or more persons described in paragraph (a) of
SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607, of any additional conditions beyond those
contained in the approval letter, if the operations are approved. The
requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must have a contract,
grant, or cooperative agreement (or its prime contractor must have a
subcontract) with the person(s) described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No.
113, Sec.  91.1607, on whose behalf the department, agency, or
instrumentality requests FAA approval.
Request for Exemptions
    The FAA included a section about requests for exemption when it
issued SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607, on April 23, 2014. The section
concerning requests for exemption has been expanded to address flight
operations by persons covered by SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607, in both
the Simferopol (UKFV) and the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs. Any
operations not conducted under the approval process set forth above
must be conducted under an exemption from SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607.
A request by any person covered under SFAR No. 113, Sec.  91.1607, for
an exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11, and will require
exceptional circumstances beyond those contemplated by the approval
process set forth above. In addition to the information required by 14
CFR Sec.  11.81, at a minimum, the requestor must describe in its
submission to the FAA--
     The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the
operation;
     The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the
SFAR;
     The specific locations within the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR
and/or the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR where the proposed operation(s)
will be conducted; and
     The method by which the operator will obtain current
threat information, and an explanation of how the operator will
integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations
(e.g., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-
flight phases).
    Additionally, FAA's endorsement of any premium war risk insurance
policy issued under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code, and the release
and agreement to indemnify, all as referred to above, will be required
as a condition of any exemption that may be issued under SFAR No. 113,
Sec.  91.1607.
    The FAA recognizes that operations that may be affected by SFAR No.
113, Sec.  91.1607, including this amendment, may be planned for the
governments of other countries with the support of the U.S. Government.
While these operations will not be permitted through the approval
process, the FAA will process exemption requests for such operations on
an expedited basis and prior to any private exemption requests.

III. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires agencies to analyze
the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as codified in 19 U.S.C.
2532, prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing
U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more
annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion
of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts
of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows:
    This rule prohibits flights in both the Simferopol (UKFV) and
Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs due to the significant hazards to civil
aviation described in the Background section of this preamble. The
alternative flight routes result in some additional fuel and operations
costs to the operators, as well as some costs attributed to passenger
time. However, no U.S. operators are now operating in the portion of
the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR for which flight operations have already been
prohibited by SFAR No. 113. Moreover, almost all U.S. operators had
already voluntarily ceased their operations in these two FIRs prior to
the issuance of the FAA NOTAM on July 18, 2014 (UTC), because of the
significant hazards involved. Accordingly, the incremental costs of
this proposed amendment to SFAR No. 113 are minimal. By prohibiting
unsafe flights, the benefits of this rule will exceed the minimal
flight deviation costs.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this final rule is
a ``significant regulatory action,'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, because it raises novel policy issues
contemplated under that Executive Order. The rule is also
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The final rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary
obstacles to international trade and will not impose an unfunded
mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private
sector.

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354, ``RFA'')
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    U.S. certificate holders affected by this final rule are
predominately large passenger and all-cargo carriers. There are some
small entity operators flying under U.S. government contract and some
operators providing flights that support oil operations that the FAA
anticipates will also be affected. Many of these operations are
conducted by small entities, but due to the immediacy of the potential
harm to U.S. certificate holders, their passengers, crew, and cargo,
there is not a sufficient amount of time to ascertain exact numbers.
There are likely to be enough such operators to be considered a
substantial number of small entities. The incremental costs of this
amendment are minimal because operators have largely stopped overflying
this area voluntarily.
    Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA
certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

B. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that
its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from a
potential hazard outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance
with the Trade Agreements Act.

C. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151.0 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this immediately adopted final rule.

E. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (the ``Chicago Convention''), it is FAA
policy to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the
maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no
ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these
proposed regulations.

F. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (``NEPA'') in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA
has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312(f) and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
    The FAA has reviewed the implementation of the proposed SFAR and
determined it is categorically excluded from further environmental
review according to FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures,'' paragraph 312(f). The FAA has examined
possible extraordinary circumstances and determined that no such
circumstances exist. After careful and thorough consideration of the
proposed action, the FAA finds that the Federal action does not require
preparation of an EA or EIS in accordance with the requirements of
NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and FAA Order
1050.1E.

IV. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

    The FAA has analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under the
principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' The
agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, and,
therefore, does not have Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (May 18,
2001). The agency has determined that it is not a ``significant energy
action'' under the executive order and it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

V. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) Portal
(http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or

    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this
document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at the beginning of the
preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety,
Freight, Ukraine.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105,
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712,
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507,
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126
Stat. 11).

0
2. Revise Sec.  91.1607 to read as follows:

Sec.  91.1607  Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 113--Prohibition
Against Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) and the Dnipropetrovsk
(UKDV) Flight Information Regions (FIRs).

    (a) Applicability. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)
applies to the following persons:
    (1) All U.S. air carriers and U.S. commercial operators;
    (2) All persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate
issued by the FAA, except such persons operating U.S.-registered
aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
    (3) All operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except where
the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.
    (b) Flight prohibition. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and
(d) of this section, no person described in paragraph (a) of this
section may conduct flight operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR or
the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR.
    (c) Permitted operations. This section does not prohibit persons
described in paragraph (a) of this section from conducting flight
operations in either or both of the Simferopol (UKFV) and the
Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs, provided that such flight operations are
conducted under a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with a
department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. government (or under
a subcontract between the prime contractor of the department, agency,
or instrumentality, and the person subject to paragraph (a)), with the
approval of the FAA, or under an exemption issued by the FAA. The FAA
will process requests for approval or exemption in a timely manner,
with the order of preference being: First, for those operations in
support of U.S. government-sponsored activities; second, for those
operations in support of government-sponsored activities of a foreign
country with the support of a U.S. government department, agency, or
instrumentality; and third, for all other operations.
    (d) Emergency situations. In an emergency that requires immediate
decision and action for the safety of the flight, the pilot in command
of an aircraft may deviate from this section to the extent required by
that emergency. Except for U.S. air carriers and commercial operators
that are subject to the requirements of 14 CFR parts 119, 121, 125, or
135, each person who deviates from this section must, within 10 days of
the deviation, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays,
submit to the nearest FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) a
complete report of the operations of the aircraft involved in the
deviation, including a description of the deviation and the reasons for
it.
    (e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain in effect until October 27,
2015. The FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this SFAR as necessary.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f),
40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), in Washington, DC, on
December 19, 2014.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-30365 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P