[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1660-1661]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71233; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-127]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Order Format 1

January 3, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 24, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.53A (Types of Order
Formats). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.53A. (Types of Order
Formats), which rule describes the types of order formats available to
Trading Permit Holders (TPHs) to facilitate order entry. Specifically
the Exchange proposes to amend where Order Format 1 orders are
processed.
    By way of background, order formats are message types that are used
to send orders into CBOE Command \3\ through a user's selected API.
Currently, all orders must be submitted to CBOE using the message type
Order Format 1 (``OF1''). Orders using the OF1 format must pass through
various processes, including validation checks in the Order Handling
Service (``OHS''),\4\ before execution, entry into the book,
cancellation, or routing for manual handling. Where an order is routed
for processing by the OHS depends on various parameters configured by
the Exchange and the order entry firm itself. Examples of such
parameters are firm-specific volume restrictions (i.e., orders larger
than a firm-imposed quantity are routed to booth/order management
terminal) or inbound limit order price reasonability (i.e., orders may
be rerouted to booth/order management terminal for manual review if
``too marketable''). OF1 supports all order types, including auction
responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CBOE Command is the trading engine platform for CBOE, C2,
CBSX and CBOE Futures Exchange (``CFE''). CBOE Command incorporates
both order handling and trade processing on the same platform.
    \4\ The Order Handling System (``OHS'') performs basic
validation checks and has the capability to route orders to the
trade engine for automatic execution and book entry, to Trading
Permit Holder and PAR Official workstations located in the trading
crowds for manual handling, and/or to other order management
terminals (``OMTs'') generally located in booths on the trading
floor for manual handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to change where OF1 orders are processed.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to have orders using the OF1 format
pass through various processes, including the validation checks in the
trade engine, as opposed to the OHS. The Exchange notes that OF1 orders
will still be subject to the same validation checks. The proposed rule
change merely changes where these checks occur.
    As before, orders using OF1 can still be executed in the trade
engine, routed to TPH and PAR Official workstations located in the
trading crowds for manual handling, and/or routed to other order
management terminals (``OMTs'') generally located in booths on the
trading floor for manual handling. Where an order is routed will still
depend upon various parameters set by the Exchange and the order entry
firms. For example, if during these checks in the trade engine an order
hits a certain parameter that requires it to be routed to a booth/order
management terminal (e.g. a firm-specific volume restriction which
requires orders larger than the firm-imposed quantity to be routed to
booth/order management terminal), that order will be routed to the OHS,
and the OHS will then route the order to the appropriate booth/order
management terminal for manual review and processing. The Exchange
believes that allowing OF1 orders to pass straight to the trade engine
for validation checks, as opposed to stopping first in the OHS for
these checks, increases overall efficiency. The Exchange finally notes
that the proposed new Order Format 1 will operate substantially similar
to how C2 Order Format 1 currently operates on C2.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See C2 Rule 6.19(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change in an Information Circular to be published no later than 90
days following the effective date of this rule filing. The
implementation date will be no later than 180 days following the
effective date of this rule filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) \6\ of
the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule

change is consistent with the requirements under Section 6(b)(5) \7\
that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the proposed rule change to have orders using the OF1 format
pass through various processes, including validation checks, in the
trade engine as opposed to the OHS provides for increased efficiency
while still maintaining important validation checks, thereby protecting
investors and the public interest. Additionally, clearly specifying the
manner in which inbound orders are submitted and processed provides
additional transparency in the rules and provides market participants
an additional avenue to easily understand the system and processes CBOE
offers. The Exchange believes additional transparency removes a
potential impediment to and perfecting the mechanism for a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting
investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change to Order Format 1 still allows for the
Exchange to receive from TPHs information in a uniform format, which
aids the Exchange's efforts to monitor and regulate CBOE's markets and
TPHs and helps prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices. The
Exchange finally believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
not permit unfair discrimination among market participants, as the
proposed change is applicable to all TPHs and provides that all TPHs
must submit their orders using Order Format 1.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed
rule changes impose any burden on intramarket competition because it
applies to all TPHs and all orders must be submitted to CBOE using the
OF1 message type. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule
change will impose any burden on intermarket competition as it is
merely proposing to change the location of where an order using OF1 is
processed. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes
transparency in the rules without adding any burden on market
participants.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-127 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-127. 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. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-127,
and should be submitted on or before January 30, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00119 Filed 1-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 246)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72968-72969]
[DOCID:fr26de07-25]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0371; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-269-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146 and Model Avro 146-RJ Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from service history of
incidents and accidents involving transport category turbojet airplanes
without leading edge high lift devices, that shows that even small
amounts of frost, ice, snow, or slush on the wing leading edges or
forward upper wing surfaces can cause an adverse change in the stall
speeds, stall characteristics, and the protection provided by the stall
protection system. This proposed AD requires revising the airplane
flight manual to include a new cold weather operations limitation. We
are proposing this AD to prevent possible loss of control on takeoff
resulting from even small amounts of frost, ice, snow, or slush on the
wing leading edges or forward upper wing surfaces. The proposed AD
would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe
condition.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 25,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0371;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-269-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    In February 2005, the FAA began a review of certain airplanes of
concern--turbojet airplanes without leading edge high lift devices--to
determine their sensitivity to takeoff in ice/frost conditions. We have
taken a broad and proactive approach to this issue. This approach
involved a review of the effect of small amounts of wing contamination
on the takeoff safety margins of the existing fleet of turbojet
transport category airplanes that do not have leading edge high lift
devices. Included in this review were the BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Model BAe 146 and Model Avro 146-RJ airplanes. We have already
taken airworthiness action against certain airplane types that have
experienced accidents and incidents due to a contaminated wing.
Although there have been no accidents or incidents related to wing
contamination associated with the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Model BAe 146 and Model Avro 146-RJ airplanes, the wings of these
airplanes are similarly sensitive to small amounts of wing
contamination.
    Small, almost visually imperceptible, amounts of ice on the wing's
leading edge or upper surface can cause severe aerodynamic penalties
and result in a loss of control of the airplane during takeoff. Despite
operating rules, procedures, and training programs stressing the
importance of a clean wing for takeoff, continued accidents and
incidents show that airplanes are still departing with ice-contaminated
wings.
    This proposed AD would require revising the airplane flight manual
(AFM) to include new limitations for cold weather operation. The
actions in this proposed AD are intended to prevent possible loss of
control on takeoff resulting from even small amounts of frost, ice,
snow, or slush on the wing leading edges or forward upper wing
surfaces.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    These airplanes are manufactured in the United Kingdom and are type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement.
    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or

develop in other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 1 product of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with this proposed
AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $80, or $80 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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

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

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly British Aerospace
Regional Aircraft): Docket No. FAA-2007-0371; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-269-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by January 25, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Model BAE 146-100A, -200A, and -300A series airplanes, certificated
in any category; and all Model Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-
RJ100A airplanes, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30: Ice and
Rain Protection.

Reason

    (e) This AD results from service history of incidents and
accidents involving transport category turbojet airplanes without
leading edge high lift devices, that shows that even small amounts
of frost, ice, snow, or slush on the wing leading edges or forward
upper wing surfaces can cause an adverse change in the stall speeds,
stall characteristics, and the protection provided by the stall
protection system. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible loss
of control on take-off resulting from even small amounts of frost,
ice, snow, or slush on the wing leading edges or forward upper wing
surfaces.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to
include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a
copy of this AD in the AFM.

    ``1. Takeoff is prohibited with frost, ice, snow, or slush
adhering to the wings, control surfaces, engine inlets, or other
critical surfaces.
    2. A visual and tactile (hand on surface) check of the wing
leading edge and the wing upper surface must be performed to ensure
the wing is free from frost, ice, snow, or slush when the outside
air temperature is less than 42 degrees F (6 degrees C), or if it
cannot be ascertained that the wing fuel temperature is above 32
degrees F (0 degrees C); and
    a. There is visible moisture (rain, drizzle, sleet, snow, fog,
etc.) present; or
    b. Water is present on the wing; or
    c. The difference between the dew point and the outside air
temperature is 5 degrees F (3 degrees C) or less; or
    d. The atmospheric conditions have been conducive to frost
formation.''

    Note 1: When a statement identical to that in paragraph (f) of
this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the
general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this
AD may be removed from the AFM.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-116, 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: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 14, 2007.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-24922 Filed 12-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 128 (Thursday, July 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37953]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15706]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-1033]

Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan Zone--Manistee Independence Day Fireworks,
Manistee, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on Lake Michigan
in Manistee, MI. for the Manistee Independence Day fireworks. This zone
will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2014. This action
is necessary and intended to ensure the safety of life on navigable
waters during a fireworks display.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety
zone (e)(7), Table 165.929, from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Coast Guard will enforce the Manistee Independence Day
fireworks safety zone listed as item (e)(7) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR
165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety
zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. The Manistee
Independence Day fireworks zone will encompass all waters of Lake
Michigan, in the vicinity of the First Street Beach, within the arc of
a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site
located in position 44[deg]14'51'' N, 086[deg]20'46'' W (NAD 83). This
zone will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2014.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or
exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter
the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or a designated representative.
Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zone may request
permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. Requests must be
made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits
will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety
Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan zone and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of this event via Broadcast Notice
to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in
effect. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene
representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

    Dated: June 18, 2014.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2014-15706 Filed 7-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51595-51597]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-D-3764]

Demonstrating Bioequivalence for Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form
Products and Type A Medicated Articles Manufactured From Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients Considered To Be Soluble in Aqueous Media;
Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is

announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry (GFI) #171
entitled ``Demonstrating Bioequivalence for Soluble Powder Oral Dosage
Form Products and Type A Medicated Articles Manufactured from Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients Considered to be Soluble in Aqueous Media.''
This draft guidance describes how the Agency intends to evaluate
requests for waiving the requirement for performing in vivo
bioequivalence studies for animal drugs administered orally as soluble
powders or as Type A medicated articles manufactured from active
pharmaceutical ingredients considered to be soluble in aqueous media.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by November 29, 2019 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-D-3764 for ``Demonstrating Bioequivalence for Soluble Powder
Oral Dosage Form Products and Type A Medicated Articles Manufactured
from Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Considered to be Soluble in
Aqueous Media.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
     Biopharmaceutics and Pharmacokinetics: Marilyn Martinez,
Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration,
7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Manufacturing Chemistry/Solubility Concerns: Catherine
Finnegan, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-147), Food and Drug
Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Generic Drug Approval Requirements: Ian S. Hendricks,
Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-172), Food and Drug Administration,
7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft GFI #171 entitled
``Demonstrating Bioequivalence for Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form
Products and Type A Medicated Articles Manufactured from Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients Considered to be Soluble in Aqueous Media.''
This draft guidance describes how the Agency intends to evaluate
requests for waiving the requirement for performing in vivo
bioequivalence studies (biowaivers) for animal drugs administered
orally as soluble powders or as Type A medicated articles manufactured
from active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) considered to be soluble
in aqueous media (water soluble APIs). This draft guidance expands upon
GFI #35, ``Bioequivalence Guidance,'' published November 8, 2006, to
include biowaivers for soluble powder oral dosage form products as well
as Type A medicated articles manufactured from active pharmaceutical
ingredients considered to be soluble in aqueous media. This draft
guidance offers particular focus on criteria for the waiver of the
requirements for

submitting in vivo bioequivalence study data.
    This draft guidance is applicable to generic investigational new
animal drug (JINAD) files and to abbreviated new animal drug
applications (ANADAs). Although the recommendations in this guidance
refer to generic drug applications, the general principles described
may also be applicable to new animal drug applications (NADAs),
investigational new animal drug (INAD) files, and supplemental NADAs.
This draft guidance does not address Type A medicated articles
manufactured from active pharmaceutical ingredients considered to be
insoluble in aqueous media.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance,
when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on
``Demonstrating Bioequivalence for Soluble Powder Oral Dosage Form
Products and Type A Medicated Articles Manufactured from Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients Considered to be Soluble in Aqueous Media.''
It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on
FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This
guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to collections of information associated
with biowaiver requests for generic soluble powder oral dosage form
products and Type A medicated articles. These collections of
information are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information associated with biowaiver
requests for generic soluble powder oral dosage form products and Type
A medicated articles are being reviewed by OMB under OMB control number
0910-0669 (see 84 FR 16270 at 16271, April 18, 2019).

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 25, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-21202 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11493-11496]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03675]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Advisers Act Release No. 6244/File No. 803-00258]

J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.

February 16, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an exemptive order under Section 206A of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and rule 206(4)-5(e)
under the Act.

Applicant: J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.

Summary of Application: Applicant requests that the Commission issue an
order under Section 206A of the Act and rule 206(4)-5(e) under the Act
exempting it from rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Act to permit Applicant
to receive compensation from a government entity for investment
advisory services provided to the government entity within the two-year
period following a contribution by an individual, who was subsequently
hired and became a covered associate of the Applicant, to an official
of the government entity.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 15, 2022, and
amended on December 22, 2022.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
[email protected] and serving Applicant with a copy of the
request by email. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission
by 5:30 p.m. on March 13, 2023, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers,
a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request
notification of a hearing by emailing the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicant: J.P.
Morgan Investment Management Inc. [email protected].com,
[email protected], [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Priscilla Dao, Attorney-Adviser, at
(202) 551-5997 or Marc Mehrespand, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website at http://www.sec.gov/rules/iareleases.shtml or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicant's Representations

    1. Applicant is a Delaware corporation registered with the
Commission as an investment adviser under the Act. Applicant provides,
among other things, discretionary investment advisory services directly
to institutional investors and mutual funds (the ``Funds'').
    2. The individual who made the campaign contribution that triggered
the compensation ban (the ``Contribution'') is Ashbel Williams (the
``Contributor'').

The Contributor was offered a position by the Applicant on March 18,
2022 to serve as a liaison between Applicant and certain large
investors. At the time of the Contribution, he was between jobs--having
retired from the Florida State Board of Administration in September of
2021. He was not a ``covered associate'' as defined in rule 206(4)-
5(f)(2) at the time of the Contribution. The Contributor started
employment with the Applicant on April 4, 2022, and first solicited a
government entity for investment advisory business on June 9, 2022. The
Contributor does not hold an executive officer position. However, his
role does include attending meetings with prospective investors. Since
joining the Applicant, the Contributor has, in fact, attended meetings
with and solicited representatives of certain government entities,
although none from the Recipient's jurisdiction. As such, he is a
covered associate as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(2)(ii).
    3. A public pension plan identified as a government entity, as
defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(5)(ii), with respect to the City of
Tallahassee (the ``Client''), has a separate account managed by the
Applicant and offers one of the Funds advised by the Applicant as an
option in a participant-directed plan.
    4. The recipient of the Contribution was John Dailey (the
``Recipient''), who was the mayor of Tallahassee and running for re-
election as mayor. The investment decisions for the Client, including
the hiring of an investment adviser, are overseen by a six-member
board, on which the mayor serves in an ex-officio capacity. Due to the
Recipient's service on the Client's board, the Recipient is an
``official'' of the Client as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(6)(i). The
Contribution that implicated rule 206(4)-5's prohibition on
compensation under rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) was given on January 13, 2022 in
the amount of $1,000 to the Recipient's campaign for mayor. Applicant
states that a friend invited the Contributor to attend a fundraiser for
the Recipient's re-election campaign, and the Contributor contributed
in connection with that event. As a resident of Tallahassee, the
Contributor had a legitimate personal interest in the outcome of the
campaign and genuinely believed that the Recipient would promote more
favorable centrist and pro-free enterprise policies for Tallahassee.
When the Contributor attended the fundraiser discussed above, he and
the Recipient shared a conversation, but did not discuss the Client,
its relationship to the Applicant--with whom the Contributor was not
affiliated--or any other existing or prospective investors. Applicant
states that there was no discussion of the Recipient's powers,
influence or responsibilities involving the investment of city assets
or public pension funds. At the time of the Contribution, the
Contributor had no intention of soliciting investment advisory business
from the Client or any other government entity of which the Recipient
was an official. Applicant represents that the Contributor did not
solicit any other persons to make contributions to the Recipient's
campaign, and did not arrange any introductions to potential
supporters. The Contribution and attendance at the fundraiser was the
Contributor's only involvement with the Recipient's campaign. The
Contributor never informed the Client or its relationship managers at
the Applicant of the Contribution. Applicant represents that at no time
did any employees of the Applicant other than the Contributor have any
knowledge that the Contribution had been made prior to its discovery by
the Applicant in February as a result of its routine prospective
employee onboarding procedures.
    5. The Client's advisory relationship with the Applicant dates back
to at least 1989, and the Client began offering a Fund managed by
Applicant as an option in a participant-directed plan in 2016, in both
cases before the Recipient was elected and began serving on the
Client's board. Applicant represents that the Contributor has never
presented for, or met with, any of the Client's representatives over
the course of the relationship. The Contributor has no role with
respect to the Client. The Contributor has had no contact with any
representative of the Client regarding investment advisory business.
    6. The Contribution was discovered by the Applicant's compliance
department in February 2022 in the course of prospective employee
vetting that included review of a pre-hire political contribution
disclosure form on which the Contributor disclosed the Contribution.
The Contributor formally applied for the position with the Applicant on
February 1, 2022. Pursuant to the Applicant's pre-hire process for
applicants for covered associate positions, the Contributor then
received a form asking him to disclose past political contributions and
provided that form (on which he disclosed the Contribution) to the
Applicant on February 2. The Applicant informed the Contributor that he
would need to seek a refund, which he did by contacting the Recipient
on February 10, 2022. The Contribution was refunded by the campaign on
February 11, 2022.
    7. The Applicant determined that after beginning employment and
soliciting a government entity the Contributor would become a covered
associate and trigger a ban. At the point he became a covered
associate, the Applicant ceased invoicing the Client or accepting
compensation for its separate account investment advisory services for
the period beginning on the date the Contributor became a covered
associate until two years after the date of the Contribution. The
Applicant also established a procedure to ensure that any compensation
for investment advisory services associated with the Client's
investment in a Fund for that period will be held by such Fund in a
segregated account and not distributed to the Applicant. When the
Client inquired about the status of its invoices for separate account
investment advisory services, the Applicant promptly notified Client of
the Contribution and the resulting two-year prohibition on compensation
absent exemptive relief from the Commission. The Applicant told the
Client that they would not be charged fees for the duration of the two-
year period absent exemptive relief from the Commission. The Applicant
noted that, as an alternative, the fees and compensation could be
placed in escrow pending resolution of the Applicant's exemptive
application; however, the Client expressed a preference for the
Applicant's approach.
    8. The Applicant states that it also took steps to limit the
Contributor's contact with any representative of the Client for the
duration of the two-year period beginning January 13, 2022, including
informing the Contributor that he could have no contact with any
representative of the Client regarding the Applicant's investment
advisory business.
    9. The Applicant's Pay-to-Play Policies and Procedures (the
``Policy'') were adopted and implemented before the Contribution was
made. The Policy was adopted even before rule 206(4)-5's proposal to
address state pay-to-play laws. Applicant represents that at all times
the Policy has been more restrictive than what was contemplated by rule
206(4)-5. All contributions to federal, state and local office
incumbents and candidates are subject to pre-clearance, not post-
contribution reporting, by employees under the Policy. There is no de
minimis exception from pre-clearance for small contributions to state
and local officials. All employees of the Applicant are subject to the
Policy and the spouse,

domestic partner, and dependent child of each employee are also fully
subject to the Policy. The Applicant requires that all employees
periodically certify to their compliance with the Policy. Additionally,
the Applicant conducts periodic testing (i.e., searches of federal and
state campaign finance databases) to confirm the Policy is being
followed. Prior to hiring, all prospective hires for covered associate
positions are required to disclose any political contributions within
the past two years. The Applicant's Compliance department circulates
quarterly compliance certifications that reiterate the need to pre-
clear all political contributions. The Applicant's employees also
receive regional compliance reminders about the Code of Conduct and the
Policy, and additional reminders of the need to pre-clear contributions
during election season. The Policy has been incorporated into the
firm's Code of Conduct-related trainings and its periodic reminders.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Act prohibits a registered
investment adviser from providing investment advisory services for
compensation to a government entity within two years after a
contribution to an official of the government entity is made by the
investment adviser or any covered associate of the investment adviser.
The Client is a ``government entity,'' as defined in rule 206(4)-
5(f)(5), the Contributor is a ``covered associate'' as defined in rule
206(4)-5(f)(2), and the Recipient is an ``official'' as defined in rule
206(4)-5(f)(6).
    2. Section 206A of the Act authorizes the Commission to
``conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person or transaction . .
. from any provision or provisions of [the Act] or of any rule or
regulation thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of [the Act].''
    3. Rule 206(4)-5(e) provides that the Commission may conditionally
or unconditionally grant an exemption to an investment adviser from the
prohibition under rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) upon consideration of the factors
listed below, among others:
    (1) Whether the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act;
    (2) Whether the investment adviser: (i) before the contribution
resulting in the prohibition was made, adopted and implemented policies
and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the rule;
(ii) prior to or at the time the contribution which resulted in such
prohibition was made, had no actual knowledge of the contribution; and
(iii) after learning of the contribution: (A) has taken all available
steps to cause the contributor involved in making the contribution
which resulted in such prohibition to obtain a return of the
contribution; and (B) has taken such other remedial or preventive
measures as may be appropriate under the circumstances;
    (3) Whether, at the time of the contribution, the contributor was a
covered associate or otherwise an employee of the investment adviser,
or was seeking such employment;
    (4) The timing and amount of the contribution which resulted in the
prohibition;
    (5) The nature of the election (e.g., federal, state or local); and
    (6) The contributor's apparent intent or motive in making the
contribution which resulted in the prohibition, as evidenced by the
facts and circumstances surrounding such contribution.
    4. Applicant requests an order pursuant to Section 206A and rule
206(4)-5(e), exempting it from the two-year prohibition on compensation
imposed by rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) with respect to investment advisory
services provided to the Client within the two-year period following
the Contribution.
    5. Applicant submits that the exemption is necessary and
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and
provisions of the Act. Applicant further submits that the other factors
set forth in rule 206(4)-5(e) similarly weigh in favor of granting an
exemption to the Applicant to avoid consequences disproportionate to
the violation.
    6. Applicant contends that, given the nature of the Contribution
and the lack of any evidence that the Applicant or the Contributor
intended to, or actually did, interfere with the Client's merit-based
process for the selection or retention of advisory services, the
interests of the Client are best served by allowing the Applicant and
the Client to continue their relationship uninterrupted. Applicant
states that causing the Applicant to serve without compensation for the
remainder of the two year period could result in a financial loss that
is approximately 1,000 times the amount of the Contribution. Applicant
suggests that the policy underlying rule 206(4)-5 is served by ensuring
that no improper influence is exercised over investment decisions by
governmental entities as a result of campaign contributions, and not by
withholding compensation as a result of unintentional violations.
    7. Applicant represents that, before the Contribution occurred, the
Applicant had a Policy which was fully compliant with, and more
rigorous than, rule 206(4)-5's requirements before the rule's initial
proposal by the Commission and substantially before the rule's adoption
or dates for required compliance. The Applicant also implemented a
mandatory political contribution disclosure for all prospective
employees as part of the standard corporate employment application
process, and performed compliance testing that included random searches
of campaign contribution databases for the names of employees.
Applicant states that it was this disclosure that was effective in
identifying the Contribution before the Contributor became a covered
associate.
    8. Applicant asserts actual knowledge of the Contribution at the
time of its making cannot be imputed to the Applicant, given that the
Contributor was not an employee of the Applicant and had not yet
received an offer of employment with the Applicant. At no time did any
employees of the Applicant other than the Contributor have any
knowledge that the Contribution had been made prior to its discovery by
the Applicant in February 2022 as part of its standard pre-hire vetting
process.
    9. Applicant asserts that after learning of the Contribution, the
Applicant and the Contributor took all available steps to obtain a
return of the Contribution. Before the Contributor was offered
employment with the Applicant, the Contributor had obtained a full
refund of the Contribution. At the point he became a covered associate,
the Applicant ceased invoicing the Client or accepting compensation for
its separate account investment advisory services for the period
beginning on the date the Contributor became a covered associate until
two years after the date of the Contribution. The Applicant also
established a procedure to ensure that any compensation for investment
advisory services associated with the Client's investment in a Fund for
that period will be held by such Fund in a segregated account and not
distributed to the Applicant. The Applicant has restricted the
Contributor from soliciting the Client and began restricting
compensation related to the Client once

the Contributor solicited a government entity.
    10. Applicant states that the Contributor is employed to act as a
liaison between the Applicant and certain large investors in both the
public and private sector. Since joining the Applicant, the Contributor
has attended meetings with representatives of certain government
entities for the purpose of obtaining or retaining those clients.
Accordingly, the Contributor is a covered associate of the Applicant.
However, he is not an executive officer of the Applicant, as defined
under rule 206(4)-5(f)(4). After learning of the Contribution, the
Applicant took steps to limit the Contributor's contact with any
representative of the Client for the remainder of the two-year period
beginning January 13, 2022. The Applicant informed the Contributor that
he could have no contact with any representative of the Client
regarding any aspect of the Applicant's investment advisory business,
including current or prospective investments of the Client.
    11. Applicant states the Client's decision to invest substantially
predates the Contributor's employment with the Applicant and the
Recipient's becoming a covered official. The Client's decisions to
invest with Applicant and/or to establish advisory relationships have
been made on an arms' length basis free from any improper influence as
a result of the Contribution. Applicant also submits that the nature of
the election and other facts and circumstances indicate that the
Contributor's apparent intent in making the Contribution was not to
influence the selection or retention of the Applicant. The Contributor
has long been involved in public policy and his community. After
leaving public service, where he had a practice of not making political
contributions, he felt free to support a candidate whom he knew through
an economic club and whose policy views were in line with his own. The
Contributor also had a legitimate interest in the outcome of the
campaign given that he lives in Tallahassee.
    12. Applicant states that the Contributor's action in making a
contribution that would later trigger a ban resulted from his lack of
knowledge about rule 206(4)-5's look-back provisions and, thus, his
failure to appreciate the fact that the Contribution might impact
potential future activities for an investment advisory firm that might
employ him in the future. Applicant represents that the Contributor
never spoke with the Recipient or anyone else about the authority of
the mayor over investment decisions. The Contributor was not affiliated
with the Applicant at the time of the Contribution and, in any event,
never mentioned the Client, its relationship to the Applicant, or any
other existing or prospective investors to the Recipient. Applicant
contends that the Contributor had no intention of soliciting investment
advisory business from the Client or any other government entity of
which the Recipient was an official. The Contributor never told any
prospective or existing investor (including the Client) or any
relationship manager at the Applicant about the Contribution.
    13. Applicant submits that neither the Applicant nor the
Contributor sought to interfere with the Client's merit-based selection
process for advisory services, nor did they seek to negotiate higher
fees or greater ancillary benefits than would be achieved in arms'
length transactions. Applicant further submits that there was no
violation of the Applicant's fiduciary duty to deal fairly or disclose
material conflicts given the absence of any intent or action by the
Applicant or the Contributor to influence the selection process.
Applicant contends that in the case of the Contribution, the imposition
of the two-year prohibition on compensation does not achieve rule
206(4)-5's purposes and would result in consequences disproportionate
to the mistake that was made.

Applicant's Conditions

    The Applicant agrees that any order of the Commission granting the
requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
    (1) The Contributor will be prohibited from discussing any business
of the Applicant with any ``government entity'' client or prospective
client for which the Recipient is an ``official'' as defined in rule
206(4)-5(f)(6), until January 13, 2024.
    (2) The Contributor will receive written notification of this
condition and will provide a quarterly certification of compliance
until January 13, 2024. Copies of the certifications will be maintained
and preserved in an easily accessible place for a period of not less
than five years, the first two years in an appropriate office of the
Applicant, and be available for inspection by the staff of the
Commission.
    (3) The Applicant will conduct testing reasonably designed to
prevent violations of the conditions of this Order and maintain records
regarding such testing, which will be maintained and preserved in an
easily accessible place for a period of not less than five years, the
first two years in an appropriate office of the Applicant, and be
available for inspection by the staff of the Commission.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03675 Filed 2-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40203-40205]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14470]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-7415; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-076-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model MBB-BK
117 C-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. This proposed AD would require
repetitive visual inspections and a one-time torque of each hydraulic
module plate assembly attachment point (attachment point). This
proposed AD is prompted by a design reassessment showing the current
attachment point design is insufficient in preventing an attachment
point failure. The proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of
an attachment point, loss of the hydraulic module plate, and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7415; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other

information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2015-0210R1, Revision 1, dated
October 28, 2015, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters
Model MBB-BK117 C-2, MBB-BK117 C-2e, MBB-BK117 D-2, and MBB-BK117 D-2m
helicopters. EASA advises that the hydraulic plate assembly on certain
MBB-BK117 models has four attachment points on the fuselage secured by
a single locking mechanism. According to EASA, a design reassessment
revealed stiffness of the hydraulic plate may be insufficient in the
event one of the four single locking attachment points fails. EASA
states that if this condition is not detected and corrected, it may
lead to loss of the hydraulic module plate and possible loss of control
of the helicopter. Therefore, the EASA AD requires a repetitive
inspection and one-time torque tightening of the attachment points in
accordance with Airbus Helicopters' service information. EASA considers
its AD an interim action and states further AD action may follow.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB
MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 and Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-
29A-001, both Revision 0, and both dated October 12, 2015. This service
information specifies a repetitive visual inspection for condition and
correct installation of the attachment points, and if there is a crack,
replacing the affected parts and contacting Airbus Helicopters customer
support. This service information also specifies a tightening torque
check after the initial inspection and, if torque cannot be applied,
replacing the affected parts and contacting Airbus Helicopters customer
support.
    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.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 hours TIS,
performing a visual inspection of each attachment point of the
hydraulic module plate assembly for a crack and proper installation.
This proposed AD would also require, within 100 hours TIS, applying
torque to the nuts of each attachment point.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires contacting Airbus Helicopters customer support
when replacing affected parts, and this proposed AD would not.

Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD to be an interim action. Airbus
Helicopters is currently developing a modification that will address
the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is
developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional
rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 134 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this AD. We estimate the cost of labor at $85
per work-hour.
    Visually inspecting the four attachment points would take about
0.75 work-hour for an estimated cost of $64 per helicopter and $8,576
for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Inspecting the torque of the
four attachment points would take about 0.25 work-hour an estimated
cost of $21 per helicopter and $2,814 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing any
of the attachment point parts would take a minimal amount of time and
parts would cost about $48 per attachment point.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2016-7415;
Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-076-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-2
helicopters with a hydraulic module plate assembly part number
B291M0003103 with a single locking attachment point installed,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a hydraulic
module plate assembly attachment point (attachment point). This
condition could result in loss of the hydraulic module plate and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 22, 2016.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS):
    (i) Visually inspect the split pins, castellated nuts, plugs,
nuts, and hexagon bolts of each attachment point for a crack and for
proper installation by following the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraphs 3.B.1.2.a. through 3.B.1.2.e., of Airbus Helicopters
Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003, Revision
0, dated October 12, 2015 (ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003), or Airbus
Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, Revision 0, dated
October 12, 2015 (ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001), as applicable to your
model helicopter. Replace any part that has a crack before further
flight. If the split pins, castellated nuts, or hexagon bolts are
not as depicted in Figure 2 of ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 or ASB MBB-
BK117 D-2-29A-001, before further flight, properly install them.
    (ii) Apply a torque of 9 to 10 Nm to the left-hand and right-
hand nuts of each attachment point. If a torque of 9 to 10 Nm cannot
be applied, replace the affected nut before further flight.
    (2) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 400 hours TIS,
perform the inspection in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation
Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817)
222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0210R1, Revision 1, dated October 28,
2015. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2900, Hydraulic
Power System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 9, 2016.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-14470 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21234-21235]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08408]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14576-000]

Warm Springs Hydro LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On January 13, 2014, Warm Spring Hydro LLC filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Unity Dam
Hydroelectric Project (project) to be located on the Burnt River near
Unity in Baker County, Illinois. The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would be located at the U. S. Bureau of
Reclamation's Unity Dam and would consist of the following new
facilities: (1) A bifurcation at the end of the existing discharge
pipe; (2) a 130-foot-long, 4-foot-diameter steel penstock; (3) a
powerhouse containing two Francis turbine/generator units with a
combined rated capacity of 800 kilowatts at 100 feet of design head;
(4) a 500-foot-long, 12.5-kilovolt transmission line extending from the
powerhouse to an existing transmission line (the point of
interconnection); and (5) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual
generation of the project would be 3,400 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Nick Josten, GeoSense, 2742 St. Charles
Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83404; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kim Nguyen; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14576-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14576) in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.

    Dated: April 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08408 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 70719]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13994-001]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County; Notice of
Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document,
and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 13994-001.
    c. Date Filed: September 9, 2011.
    d. Submitted by: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County
(Snohomish PUD).
    e. Name of Project: Hancock Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On Hancock Creek, in King County, Washington. No
federal lands are occupied by the project works or located within the
project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Kim D. Moore, Assistant General
Manager of Generation, Water, and Corporate Services; Public Utility
District No. 1 of Snohomish County; 2320 California Street; P.O. Box
1107; Everett, WA 98206-1107;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Snohomish PUD No. 1 filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on September 9, 2011. Snohomish PUD provided public
notice of its request on September 8, 2011. In a letter dated November
7, 2011, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved
Snohomish PUD's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c)
the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by
section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Snohomish PUD as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Snohomish PUD filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a
proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18
CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-(866) 208-3676, or for
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: November 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29406 Filed 11-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6260-6261]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02042]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0831; Airspace Docket No. 12-AEA-13]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Kingston, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Kingston,
NY, creating controlled airspace to accommodate new Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures at Kingston-Ulster Airport. This action would
enhance the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the
airport's geographic coordinates.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2013. The
Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2012-0831; Airspace Docket No. 12-AEA-13 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2011-0831; Airspace Docket No. 12-AEA-13) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2012-0831; Airspace Docket No. 12-AEA-13.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace at Kingston, NY
providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV GPS
standard instrument approach procedures for Kingston-Ulster Airport.
Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
would be created for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport. The geographic coordinates for Kingston-Ulster Airport also
would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Kingston-Ulster
Airport, Kingston, NY.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

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

* * * * *

 AEA NY E5 Kingston, NY [Amended]

Kingston-Ulster Airport
    (Lat. 41[deg]59[min]07[sec] N., long 73[deg]57[min]52[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
of the Earth within an 8.6-mile radius of Kingston-Ulster Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 18, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-02042 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P