[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36481-36484]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 730, 747, 748, and 762

[Docket No. 160303182-6182-01]
RIN 0694-AG89

Amendment to the Export Administration Regulations: Removal of
Special Iraq Reconstruction License

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
proposes to amend the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to remove
the Special Iraq Reconstruction License (SIRL) from the EAR. The
action, if published in final form, would further the objectives of the
Retrospective Regulatory Review Initiative that directs BIS and other
federal agencies to streamline regulations and reduce unnecessary
regulatory burdens on the public. Specifically, the SIRL is outdated
and seldom used by exporters, who now have more efficient options for
exports and reexports to Iraq and transfers (in-country) in Iraq. This
rule also makes conforming changes.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
The identification number for this rulemaking is BIS-2016-0017.
     By email directly to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include
RIN 0694-AG89 in the subject line.
     By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau
of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Refer to RIN
0694-AG89.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Andrukonis, Director, Export
Management and Compliance Division, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau
of Industry and Security, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) proposes to
continue to advance the President's directives in the Retrospective
Regulatory Review Initiative to streamline regulations, reduce
unnecessary regulatory burdens on the public and modernize export
controls. (See ``Improving Regulatory Review'' (Executive Order 13563
of January 18, 2011). Consistent with these directives and objectives,
in this rule, BIS proposes to remove the Special Iraq Reconstruction
License (SIRL) from the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).
    BIS established the SIRL in 2004 (69 FR 46070, July 30, 2004) to
supplement options to facilitate exports and reexports to Iraq and
transfers within Iraq of items in furtherance of civil reconstruction
and other projects in Iraq funded by specified entities, including the
United States government. At the time of its establishment, SIRL was
intended to benefit the public by allowing for faster processing times
as compared to individual license applications, and longer license
validity periods, which would extend to the completion or
discontinuation of the associated reconstruction project (in contrast,
individual license applications generally only had a two-year validity
period). However, exporters supplying items used in support of the
civil reconstruction efforts in Iraq have not relied on the SIRL to
advance those efforts, apparently because of its complexity and
narrowness.
    Since 2004, BIS has processed only three applications for the SIRL,
and granted only one approval, as compared to over 400 approved
individual license applications for items to Iraq between 2012 and
2015. A SIRL applicant must provide details regarding the items to be
exported or reexported to or transferred within Iraq, a narrative
statement to identify all parties to the transaction, and a description
of the reconstruction project that formed the basis of the transaction.
In addition, the applicant must provide separate written statements
from all agencies providing funding, and certification that all parties
to the transaction will obtain licenses prior to transferring the items
on the license application within Iraq or reexporting the items to end
users not authorized under the SIRL. SIRL holders must submit reports
when the Iraq project is discontinued or is completed and must get
approval from BIS to make specified changes to the respective SIRL.
These requirements are numerous compared to the individual license
application process or the use of other authorizations such as eligible
license exceptions, resulting in exporters choosing to apply for or use
individual licenses and other authorizations under the EAR to ship
items to Iraq instead of the SIRL.
    In addition, with the implementation of updates to the EAR, the
relative advantages of the SIRL have been offset by changes to
individual licenses and other types of authorizations offered by BIS
that provide less complex alternatives to the SIRL. For example, in
addition to streamlined procedures for submitting license applications
and improved processing times, BIS now issues individual licenses with
a four-year validity period, with agency consideration of requests to
extend the validity period. Similarly, most individual licenses now do
not include a requirement for reports on the authorized items exported
or reexported. Additionally, license exceptions such as License
Exception Temporary imports, exports, and reexports, and transfers (in-
country) (TMP) (Section 740.9 of the EAR) have been expanded. (TMP now
includes authorizations for temporary exports to a U.S. person's
foreign subsidiary, affiliates, or facility abroad outside of Country
Group B. Additionally, BIS will, upon request, authorize the retention
of items abroad that were exported under License Exception TMP beyond
one year and up to a total of four years.)
    Thus, the SIRL has proven not to be useful. Its removal from the
EAR is consistent with and would advance regulatory initiatives
priorities. As part of the removal, this rule also would make
conforming changes in the EAR.

Export Administration Act

    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001,
the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR,
2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March
8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of
August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015), has continued the Export
Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the
Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted
by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order
13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
    2. This rule amends collections previously approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Numbers 0694-0088,
``Simplified Network Application Processing + System (SNAP+) and the
Multi-Purpose Application,'' which carries a burden hour estimate of
43.8 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748; and 0694-0137,
``License Exemptions and Exclusions.''
    The total burden hours associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA) and the aforementioned OMB
Control Numbers would be expected to decrease as a result of this
proposed removal of part 747 of the EAR and related provisions if the
rule is eventually issued in final form, thereby reducing burden hours
associated with approved collections related to the EAR.
    Public comment is sought regarding: whether the collection of
information, for the provisions BIS proposes to remove, is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of
the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send
comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information
to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce at the ADDRESSES above, and email to OMB at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply

with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid
OMB Control Number.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
    4. Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The
Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted in final form, would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    Economic Impact. BIS believes this rule would have no economic
impact, because, although this rule would eliminate the availability of
the SIRL, entities are not using the SIRL. Moreover, they could still
obtain individual validated licenses from BIS to export their
product(s). The individual validated licenses that BIS issues are
generally less burdensome and require fewer compliance/reporting
measures than the measures required for a SIRL. For example, a SIRL
applicant must provide a narrative statement to identify all parties to
the transaction, and a description of the reconstruction project. In
addition, the applicant must provide separate written statements for
all participating agencies and certification that all parties to the
transaction will obtain licenses prior to transferring items within
Iraq or reexporting items outside of Iraq for end users not authorized
under the SIRL. SIRL holders must submit reports when the Iraq project
is discontinued or is completed and must get prior approval for any
changes to their SIRL. Although these requirements may be included as
conditions on an individual validated license, BIS's license
applications review process for individual validated licenses includes
other methods, less burdensome on the exporter, to vet the bona fides
of parties to the proposed transaction and to verify compliance. Also,
impacted entities would have the convenience of applying for a license
via the Simplified Network Application Process-Redesign (SNAP-R)
System, an updated system for electronically filing export and reexport
license applications, which is not available for the submission of SIRL
applications. Finally, the historical lack of usage of the SIRL does
not warrant maintaining such a complex option.
    Number of Small Entities. Since the SIRL's introduction in 2004,
there have been only three applications for it, with only one
application approved. Due to the nature of the SIRL and the complexity
of its requirements, BIS expects that past applicants would be
considered large entities under the Small Business Administration's
size standards. However, BIS does not collect data on the size or
annual revenue of these entities, and thus some of these entities may
be considered small under the SBA size standards. Also, although small
entities likely would not be the direct or the primary users of the
SIRL, BIS acknowledges that small entities may have been parties to
SIRL transactions. To assist in the evaluation of a significant
economic impact of this rule on a substantial number of small entities,
BIS welcomes comments to explain how and to what extent your business
or organization could be affected, if your business or organization is
a small entity and if adoption of any of the amendments discussed in
this proposed rulemaking could have a significant financial impact on
your operations.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 730

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees,
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and
critical materials.

15 CFR Part 747

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign trade,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

15 CFR Part 748

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

15 CFR Part 762

    Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry,
Confidential business information, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Accordingly, parts 730, 747, 748 and 762 of the Export
Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as
follows:

PART 730--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 730 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10
U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note;
22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42
U.S.C. 2139a; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. 4305; 22
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 11912, 41 FR 15825, 3 CFR,
1976 Comp., p. 114; E.O. 12002, 42 FR 35623, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p.
133; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12214,
45 FR 29783, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 256; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3
CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp.,
p. 179; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; E.O.
12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR
5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 12981, 60 FR 62981, 3 CFR,
1995 Comp., p. 419; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p.
219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099,
63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3
CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp.,
p. 786; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p 168; E.O.
13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2014 Comp., p. 223; Notice of May 6,
2015, 80 FR 26815 (May 8, 2015); Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR
48233 (August 11, 2015); Notice of September 18, 2015, 80 FR 57281
(September 22, 2015); Notice of November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667
(November 13, 2015); Notice of January 20, 2016, 81 FR 3937 (January
22, 2016).

Supplement No. 1 to Part 730--  [Amended]

0
2. Supplement No. 1 to Part 730 is amended by revising the entry for
Collection number ``0694-0129''. The revision reads as follows:

SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO PART 730--INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER
THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Collection No.                 Title         Reference in the EAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
0694-0129...................  Export and Reexport   Sec.  Sec.   732.3,
                               Controls For Iraq.    738, 744.18,
                                                     746.3(b)(1), 750,
                                                     758, 762, 772, 774.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 747--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
3. Remove and reserve part 747.

PART 748--[AMENDED]

0
4. The authority citation for part 748 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O.
13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR
44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR
48233 (August 11, 2015).

Sec.  748.1--[Amended]

0
5. Section 748.1 is amended by removing the parenthetical phrase
``(other than Special Iraq Reconstruction License applications)'' from
the first sentence of paragraph (d).

Sec.  748.7--[Amended]

0
6. Section 748.7 is amended by removing the parenthetical phrase
``(other than Special Iraq Reconstruction Licenses)'' from paragraphs
(a) and (d).

PART 762--[AMENDED]

0
7. The authority citation for part 762 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O.
13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7,
2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015).

Sec.  762.2--[Amended]

0
8. Section 762.2 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(17).

    Dated: June 1, 2016.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-13397 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register: April 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 18605-18606]
[DOCID:fr23ap09-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; Airports Grants Program; Supplementary
Notice

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. This request is a change to FAA Form 5100-127,
Operating and Financial Summary, where we will now collect limited
statistical information on airport operations. This new information
will add 10 lines to the Form and 1 hour to the Form's preparation
time. Large, medium, and small hub commercial service airports will be
asked to provide this information. A copy of the modified Form is
available for public inspection at FAA Docket-2009-0257. This notice is
supplementary to the notice of this Airport Grants Program revision
published in the Federal Register on February 3, 2009 [74 FR 5968].
Additionally, since that notice of revision, the burden for this
collection has increased due to new requirements imposed by the
American Recovery and Reimbursement Act of 2009 (ARRA). A letter of
public notification of this emergency increase was published in the
Federal Register on April 10, 2009 [74 FR 16439].

DATES: Please submit comments by June 22, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Airports Grants Program Including ARRA Requirements.
    Type of Request: Revision of an approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0569.
    Forms(s): Forms 5100-100, 5100-101, 5100-108, 5100-126, 5100-127,
5370-1.
    Affected Public: A total of 1,950 Respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 9 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 86,379 hours annually.
    Abstract: The FAA collects information from airport sponsors and
planning agencies in order to administer the Airports Grants Program.
Data is used to determine eligibility, ensure proper use of Federal
Funds, and ensure project accomplishments.
    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 W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management
Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the docket shortly after receipt.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 15, 2009.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E9-9207 Filed 4-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28171-28173]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12886]

========================================================================
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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

 14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0422; Product Identifier 2018-CE-015-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-23-
03 for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This proposed
AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as fatigue cracks on the fin forward pickup
plates. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 2, 2018.

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 W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027,
Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134;
email: [email protected]; internet: www.aerospace.co.nz. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Policy
and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148.

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-2018-
0422; or in person at Docket Operations 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 Docket Operations (telephone
(800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

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-2018-0422;
Product Identifier 2018-CE-015-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 because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://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

    We issued AD 2015-23-03, Amendment 39-18319 (80 FR 69569; November
10, 2015) (``AD 2015-23-03''). That AD required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL
airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country.
    Since we issued AD 2015-23-03, a new part number (P/N) hi-lok
fastener has become available due to limited availability of the
original hi-lok P/N.
    The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (CAA), has issued DCA/
750XL/18B, dated February 28, 2018 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for Pacific Aerospace Limited
Model 750XL airplanes. The MCAI states:

    This (CAA) AD revised to introduce Pacific Aerospace Limited
Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/068 issue 6, dated 8
January 2018. The changes to the SB are limited to minor editorial
changes, and the addition of alternate P/N hi-lok fasteners due to
limited availability of the original P/N. There are no changes to
the AD applicability or the requirements.

    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0422.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued Pacific Aerospace Service
Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 6, dated January 8, 2018. The service
information describes procedures for reducing the torque setting for
the fin forward pickup bolt. The service bulletin also introduces a
new, improved replacement fin forward pickup plate, part number (P/N)
11-0375-1, to replace P/N 11-10281-1. 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.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation

in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this
State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information
and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 22 work-hours per product to
comply with all the requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is
$85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,692 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $78,364, or $3,562 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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders,
balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and
associated products to the Director of the Policy and Innovation
Division.

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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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 removing Amendment 39-18319 (80 FR
69569; November 10, 2015), and adding the following new AD:

Pacific Aerospace Limited: Docket No. FAA-2018-0422; Product
Identifier 2018-CE-015-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 2, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-23-03, Amendment 39-18319 (80 FR 69569;
November 10, 2015) (``AD 2015-23-03'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL
airplanes, all serial numbers through XL-193, XL-195, and XL-197,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53: Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as fatigue cracks
on the fin forward pickup plates. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct cracked fin forward pickup plates to prevent failure of
the fin forward pickup plates, which could result in reduced
control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(f)(4) of this AD:
    (1) Within the next 150 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD, reduce the fin forward pickup bolt torque
following the procedures in section 1.D., paragraphs A. 1) and A. 2)
of the PLANNING INFORMATION in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory
Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 6, dated January 8, 2018.
    (2) At or before reaching 2,000 hours total time-in-service
(TTIS) or within the next 150 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 600 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs
first, do a detailed visual inspection and liquid penetrant
inspection of the fin forward pickup plates for any evidence of
cracking. Do the inspections following the procedures in sections
2.A. and 2.B. of the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS in Pacific
Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 6,
dated January 8, 2018.
    (3) If cracks are found in either of the forward pickup plates
during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD,
before further flight, replace both fin forward pickup plates with
new fin forward pickup plates, part number (P/N) 11-03375-1. Do the
replacement following the procedures in section 2.C. of the
ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory
Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 6, dated January 8, 2018. This
replacement terminates the repetitive inspections required in
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
    (4) If no cracks are found during any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, at or before reaching 6,000 hours TTIS
or within the next 600 hours TIS after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later, replace both fin forward pickup plates,
P/N 11-10281-1, with P/N 11-03375-1. Do the replacement following
the procedures in section 2.C or 2.D. of the ACCOMPLISHMENT
INSTRUCTIONS in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin
PACSB/XL/068, Issue 6, dated January 8, 2018. This replacement
terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(2)
of this AD.

(g) Credit for Previous Actions

    This AD allows credit for actions required in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (4) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD
following Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin
PACSB/XL/068, Issue 5, dated June 29, 2015.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, 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: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816) 329-
4090; email: [email protected]. 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) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Standards
Office, FAA; or the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (CAA).

(i) Special Flight Permit

    A special flight permit is prohibited until Part A of the
ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory
Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 6, dated January 8, 2018, is
completed. Once Part A has been completed, a special flight permit
is allowed for Part B of the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS in Pacific
Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/068, Issue 6,
dated January 8, 2018.

 (j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI CAA AD DCA/750XL/18B, dated February 28, 2018, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2018-0422. For service information related to this AD, contact
Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027,
Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134;
email: [email protected]; internet: www.aerospace.co.nz. You
may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Policy
and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 7, 2018.
Melvin J. Johnson,
Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-12886 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4069-4072]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01463]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94014; File No. SR-ICC-2021-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Clearing Rules and
ICC Exercise Procedures

January 20, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On November 19, 2021, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4,\2\ a proposed rule change to revise Rule
26R-319 of the ICC Clearing Rules (``Rules'') and the ICC Exercise
Procedures (``Exercise Procedures'') \3\ in connection with the
clearing of credit default index options (``Index Swaptions''). The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on December 7, 2021.\4\ The Commission did not receive comments
regarding the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed below,
the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the Rules and Exercise Procedures.
    \4\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Clearing Rules
and ICC Exercise Procedures; Exchange Act Release No. 34-93690 (Dec.
1, 2021); 86 FR 69308 (Dec. 7, 2021) (SR-ICC-2021-023) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Background

    Pursuant to an Index Swaption, one party (the ``Swaption Buyer'')
has the right (but not the obligation) to cause the other party (the
``Swaption Seller'') to enter into an index credit default swap
transaction at a pre-determined strike price on a specified expiration
date on specified terms. In the case of Index Swaptions cleared by ICC,
the underlying index credit default swap is limited to certain CDX and
iTraxx index credit default swaps that are accepted for clearing by
ICC, and which would be automatically cleared by ICC upon exercise of
the Index Swaption by the Swaption Buyer in accordance with its terms.

B. Revisions to Rule 26R-319

    ICC Rule 26R-319 describes what happens upon the exercise of an
Index Swaption. ICC Rule 26R-319 consists of three parts: 26R-319(a),
26R-319(b), and 26R-319(c). 26R-319(a) applies when a Swaption Buyer
effectively exercises an Index Swaption and the underlying index is not
subject to a restructuring due to a credit event, while (b) and (c)
apply when an Index Swaption is effectively exercised and the
underlying index is subject to a restructuring due to a credit event.
    Under 26R-319(a), upon the effective exercise of an Index Swaption,
a contract in the form of the underlying index comes into effect
between the Swaption Buyer and ICC and an exactly

offsetting contract comes into effect between ICC and the Swaption
Seller. The proposed rule change would not amend 26R-319(a).
    26R-319(b) describes what happens when an Index Swaption is
effectively exercised and one or more Event Determination Dates have
occurred with respect to the underlying index on or prior to the
Expiration Date. In that case, in addition to the new contracts that
come into effect under 26R-319(a), certain additional settlements may
be required, as further described in 26R-319(b).
    The proposed rule change would make two amendments to 26R-319(b).
The proposed rule change would add a parenthetical to clarify that 26R-
319(b) does not apply to an Event Determination Date in respect of an
M(M)R Restructuring Credit Event because 26R-319(c) would apply in that
case, as described below. The proposed rule change would further modify
subpart (i) of 26R-319(b) by adding a note that the settlement
contemplated by that subsection would be subject to any modification
with respect to fixed rate payments or accrual rebates as specified by
ICC by Circular.
    26R-319(c) describes what happens when an Index Swaption is
effectively exercised and one or more M(M)R Restructuring Credit Events
have occurred with respect to the underlying index on or prior to the
Expiration Date. 26R-319(c) is only applicable to iTraxx Index
Swaptions. Under 26R-319(c) as currently written, upon settlement the
Swaption Buyer would receive a re-versioned underlying index plus a
single name CDS contract.
    The proposed rule change would amend 26R-319(c) so that, in certain
circumstances, the Swaption Buyer would receive a re-versioned
underlying index plus a single name CDS contract and a cash payment.
Settlement under 26R-319(c) as amended therefore could result in the
re-versioned underlying index and a blend of single name position and
cash. This settlement would be similar to what occurs when a buyer and
seller settle an index swaption bilaterally. Thus, the proposed
amendments would make settlement of a cleared Index Swaption at ICC
similar to the settlement that occurs in the bilateral market, outside
of the clearinghouse.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notice, 86 FR at 69309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26R-319(c) as currently written has an introductory sentence and
four subparts. The proposed rule change first would revise the
introductory sentence of 26R-319(c) to incorporate text currently found
in subparts (ii) and (iii) of 26R-319(c). Specifically, the proposed
rule change would incorporate from subpart (ii) language referring to
the effective exercise of the Index Swaption and rights and obligations
under 26-319(b). The proposed rule change also would incorporate from
subpart (iii) language regarding the Relevant Index Swaption Untranched
Terms Supplement.
    Subpart (i) of 26R-319(c) as currently written is intentionally
omitted. The proposed rule change would not revise subpart (i).
    Under subpart (ii) as currently written, if an Index Swaption is
effectively exercised, then in addition to the rights and obligations
under 26R-319(b), a Contract constituting an Underlying New Trade for
purposes of the Relevant Index Swaption Untranched Terms Supplement
comes into effect between the exercising Swaption Buyer and ICC and an
exactly offsetting Contract constituting an Underlying New Trade comes
into effect between ICC and the assigned Swaption Seller. As mentioned
above, the proposed rule change would move to the introductory clause
of 26R-319(c) language currently found in subpart (ii), and therefore,
the proposed rule change would delete this language from subpart (ii).
The proposed rule change also would add a statement to subpart (ii)
that it would be subject to a new subpart (v), as applicable (discussed
below).
    Subpart (iii) as currently written applies to two situations.
First, it applies when the Expiration Date occurs prior to the
commencement of the CEN Triggering Period (as defined in the
Restructuring Procedures) for Open Positions in single-name Contracts
referencing the relevant Reference Entity. Second, it applies when the
Expiration Date occurs on or following the commencement of the CEN
Triggering Period for Open Positions in single-name Contracts
referencing the relevant Reference Entity. The proposed rule change
would split current subpart (iii) into a revised subpart (iii) and a
new subpart (iv).
    Like the current subpart (iii), revised subpart (iii) would apply
when the Expiration Date occurs prior to the commencement of the CEN
Triggering Period (as defined in the Restructuring Procedures) for Open
Positions in single-name Contracts referencing the relevant Reference
Entity. Under subpart (iii) as revised, the Underlying New Trade
described in subpart (ii) would be subject to the provisions of the CDS
Restructuring Rules (and may become a Triggered Restructuring CDS
Transaction thereunder) in the same manner as other Open Positions in
single-name Contracts referencing the relevant Reference Entity. This
would be the same as currently found in subpart (iii). Moreover, the
proposed rule change would delete from subpart (iii) language regarding
the Relevant Index Swaption Untranched Terms Supplement, which would be
moved to the introductory sentence of 26R-319(c), as described above.
The proposed rule change also would add a reference to the Existing
Restructuring (a termed defined in the introductory sentence of 26R-
319(c)) and a reference to subpart (ii) of 26R-319(c).
    New subpart (iv) generally would apply to the second situation
described in current subpart (iii)--when the Expiration Date occurs on
or following the commencement of the CEN Triggering Period. The
proposed rule change would specify further that subpart (iv) only
applies when the Expiration Date occurs on or following the
commencement of the CEN Triggering Period and prior to the Auction
Settlement Date. Under new subpart (iv), with respect to the Underlying
New Trade described in subpart (ii), neither party would be permitted
to deliver an MP Notice in respect of the Existing Restructuring for
such Underlying New Trade, such Underlying New Trade could not become a
Triggered Restructuring CDS Transaction with respect to the Existing
Restructuring, and no Event Determination Date or settlement would
occur in respect of the Existing Restructuring for purposes of the
Underlying New Trade. This language generally would be the same as
currently found in subpart (iii).
    New subpart (v) would apply in the situation not covered by subpart
(iii) or subpart (iv)--if the Expiration Date occurs on or following
the Auction Settlement Date. In that situation, ICC would: (a)
determine the extent to which positions in relevant single-name CDS
contracts of the relevant tenor referencing the Reference Entity
subject to the Existing Restructuring are settled based on CDS auctions
for particular maturity categories and (b) determine, if applicable, a
cash settlement amount payable from one party to the other with respect
to the corresponding portion of the notional amount of the Index
Swaption applicable to such Reference Entity, with such settlement to
be based on the applicable final settlement prices under such auctions.
Moreover, with respect to the remaining portion of such notional
amount, an Underlying New Trade would come into effect, provided that
neither party would be permitted to deliver an MP Notice in respect of
the Existing Restructuring for such

Underlying New Trade, such Underlying New Trade could not become a
Triggered Restructuring CDS Transaction with respect to the Existing
Restructuring, and no Event Determination Date or settlement would
occur in respect of the Existing Restructuring for purposes of the
Underlying New Trade, as set forth in further detail in the ICC
Exercise Procedures or other applicable ICC Procedures. Thus, this new
subpart (v) would set out the framework for the blend of deliverables
described above and would be applicable if the expiration date occurs
on or following the Auction Settlement Date.

C. Revisions to the Exercise Procedures

    The Exercise Procedures supplement the provisions of Subchapter 26R
of the Rules with respect to Index Swaptions. The proposed rule change
would amend the Exercise Procedures in connection with amended 26R-319
discussed above, as well as to incorporate a new defined term,
``Minimum Intrinsic Value''.
    With respect to amended 26R-319, the proposed rule change would add
a new paragraph 3 (Restructuring Settlement) to the Exercise
Procedures. New paragraph 3 would apply in connection with 26R-
319(c)(v), discussed above. Under new paragraph 3.1, however, ICC could
modify or supplement these provisions pursuant to an ICC Circular.
    New paragraph 3.3 (Settlement with respect to Existing
Restructuring under Exercised Index Swaption) would describe how ICC
would determine the amount of the cash settlement and the notional
amount of the Underlying New Trade contemplated under new 26R-
319(c)(v). ICC would determine these amounts using the Triggered
Portion and Untriggered Portion of the aggregate notional amount of
Relevant CDS Transaction. New paragraph 3.2 (Determination of Settled
Portions) would describe how ICC would determine such Triggered Portion
and Untriggered Portion.
    With respect to the new defined term Minimum Intrinsic Value, the
proposed rule change would define it as a minimum intrinsic value below
which an Index Swaption position would not be identified as ``in the
money'' for paragraph 2.2(e)(ii) or 2.8. ICC could establish a Minimum
Intrinsic Value and/or permit an exercising party to specify a Minimum
Intrinsic Value for its Index Swaptions for a relevant pre-exercise
notification period or exercise period.
    The proposed rule change would incorporate this new term into the
existing fallback provisions described in paragraphs 2.2(e)(ii) and 2.8
of the Exercise Procedures. Specifically, ICC would take into account
any applicable Minimum Intrinsic Value as part of its procedures for
submitting preliminary exercise notices on behalf of the Exercising
Party during the pre-exercise notification period (during which
preliminary exercise notices can be submitted, modified, and/or
withdrawn) in paragraph 2.2(e)(ii). ICC also would take into account
any applicable Minimum Intrinsic Value in determining whether an Index
Swaption is ``in the money'' for automatic exercise during an Exercise
System Failure in paragraph 2.8.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\6\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \7\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposed rule change would revise Rule 26R-
319 and the Exercise Procedures to allow for a settlement consisting of
the re-versioned underlying index and a blend of single name position
and cash, similar to settlement in the bilateral market outside of the
clearinghouse. The Commission believes that increasing consistency
between cleared and non-cleared transactions should in general
encourage market participants to clear transactions in Index Swaptions.
The Commission therefore believes these changes would promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of such transactions.
    Similarly, the Commission believes that amending the Exercise
Procedures to incorporate the new defined term Minimum Intrinsic Value
should encourage market participants to clear transactions in Index
Swaptions. As discussed above, Minimum Intrinsic Value would be a value
below which an Index Swaption position would not be identified as ``in
the money,'' and therefore would not be exercised by ICC under
paragraphs 2.2(e)(ii) and 2.8 of the Exercise Procedures. The
Commission therefore believes that incorporating this new defined term
could help establish a threshold below which ICC would not exercise
Index Swaptions, thereby allowing Clearing Participants to better
understand and anticipate when ICC would exercise their Index Swaption
positions. The Commission believes that this change should in general
encourage market participants to clear transactions in Index Swaptions,
thereby promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
such transactions.
    Moreover, the Commission believes that both sets of changes would
establish clear and predictable procedures for settlement and exercise
of Index Swaptions by ICC, thereby promoting ICC's prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of such transactions. Specifically, the
Commission believes the amendments to Rule 26R-319 and the Exercise
Procedures would establish clear and effective procedures for ICC to
use in effecting settlement with a re-versioned underlying index and a
blend of single name position and cash. Similarly, the Commission
believes that incorporating a Minimum Intrinsic Value below which ICC
would not exercise Index Swaptions positions, in the circumstances
contemplated by paragraphs 2.2(e)(ii) and 2.8 of the Exercise
Procedures, would make ICC's exercise of Index Swaptions in such
situations more predictable and reliable.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) requires that ICC establish, implement,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and
enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all
relevant jurisdictions.\11\ As discussed above, the Commission believes
that the amendments to Rule 26R-319 and the Exercise Procedures would
establish

clear and effective procedures for ICC to use in effecting settlement
with a re-versioned underlying index and a blend of single name
position and cash, and therefore would provide a clear and transparent
basis for ICC's settlement of Index Swaptions. Moreover, the Commission
believes that incorporating Minimum Intrinsic Value into paragraphs
2.2(e)(ii) and 2.8 of the Exercise Procedures would make ICC's exercise
of Index Swaptions in such circumstances more predictable and reliable,
and therefore well-founded and clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \13\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2021-023), be, and hereby
is, approved.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \16\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01463 Filed 1-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US

09/19/2007 08:14 AM	To

	"Andrew Hackman"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 	cc

	"'Doug Fratz'"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 	bcc

	Subject

	RE: CSPA Comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064

Mr. Hackman,

Thank you for your willingness to follow up with your members.

I suggest that you move ahead with your members, at least by getting their

permission.  I am particularly interested in the representativeness of the

mass of nPB used and the type and amount of ventilation used.

We would treat the information as confidential business information if

there is a written claim of confidentiality at the time it is submitted.

It will be helpful if you send either (1) a cover letter that could be put

in the docket, with confidential information in attachments that does not

go in the docket, or (2) two versions of the letter, where one version is

suitable for submission to the docket.

At this point, I am starting to draft the preamble for the final rule.  If

I get information in the next 30 days, it is likely to be considered and

addressed in our final decision.

Margaret Sheppard

USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division

SNAP Program

Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS> -----"Andrew Hackman"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote: -----

To: Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Andrew Hackman"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date: 09/17/2007 12:10PM

cc: "'Doug Fratz'"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: CSPA Comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064

Ms. Sheppard,

CSPA has compiled the actual data and characteristics from each of the

sampling facilities that were performed with our member?s products; which

should provide some additional information with regard to the

representative nature of the data.  However, because this data was

collected by CSPA members with the cooperation of their customers and

would disclose some product formulation information, we will need to seek

their approval before we can provide that information.  We also would need

to ensure that the information is treated as Confidential Business

Information.

Please let me know if you would like us to reach out to or members for

approval now, or if it would be more appropriate to wait until the request

is in writing.

Also, let me know if there is a schedule for upcoming dates when decisions

might be made on this issue.

Thank you,

Andy Hackman

Manager of State Affairs Programs

The Consumer Specialty Products Association

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attachments)

contains information from the Consumer Specialty Products Association

(CSPA) and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18

U.S.C. 2510-21, and is intended only for the named recipient (or

recipients) and CSPA member companies. This e-mail, including any

attachments or hyperlinks within it, may contain information that is

confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the

intended recipient of this email, you are not entitled to use, disclose,

distribute, copy, print, disseminate or rely on this email in any way.

Even if you are the intended recipient or a CSPA member company, you may

not distribute, disclose or otherwise disseminate this email or its

attachments outside the membership of CSPA, without CSPA's prior written

consent.

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, September 14,

2007 4:51 PM To: Andrew Hackman

Cc: 'Doug Fratz'

Subject: RE: CSPA Comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064

Mr. Hackman,

I do have some questions, but I need to check with our counsel before

putting anything in writing.  In general, I am interested in whatever

additional information you can provide to show if the workplace data you

provided are representative.  I am glad that CSPA was able to provide EPA

with the exposure data.

Margaret Sheppard

USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division

SNAP Program

Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

-----"Andrew Hackman"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote: -----

To: Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Andrew Hackman"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date: 09/11/2007 04:51PM

cc: "'Doug Fratz'"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: CSPA Comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0064

Manager of State Affairs Programs

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attachments)

contains information from the Consumer Specialty Products Association

(CSPA) and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18

U.S.C. 2510-21, and is intended only for the named recipient (or

recipients) and CSPA member companies. This e-mail, including any

attachments or hyperlinks within it, may contain information that is

confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the

intended recipient of this email, you are not entitled to use, disclose,

distribute, copy, print, disseminate or rely on this email in any way.

Even if you are the intended recipient or a CSPA member company, you may

not distribute, disclose or otherwise disseminate this email or its

attachments outside the membership of CSPA, without CSPA's prior written

consent.

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> To: Andrew Hackman

Thank you for the courtesy copy of your comments.  I appreciate that you

the workplace.  I will look forward to reading them in detail.

Sincerely,

USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division

Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65763-65765]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC23-3-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725M); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-725M (Mandatory Reliability Standard:
Transmission Vegetation Management).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due January 3,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments (identified by Docket No. IC23-
3-000) by one of the following methods:
    Electronic filing through https://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native

applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission,12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: https://www.ferc.gov. For
user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
[email protected], or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at https://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email
at: [email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at:
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725M (Mandatory Reliability Standard: Transmission
Vegetation Management).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0263.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725M with no
updates to the current reporting requirements.
    Abstract: On September 19, 2013, the Commission issued Order No.
785, Docket No. RM12-16-000, a Final Rule \1\ approving modifications
to four existing Reliability Standards submitted by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission certified
Electric Reliability Organization. Specifically, the Commission
approved Reliability Standards FAC-001-1 (Facility Connection
Requirements), FAC-003-3 (Transmission Vegetation Management), PRC-004-
2.1a (Analysis and Mitigation of Transmission and Generation Protection
System Misoperations), and PRC-005-1.1b (Transmission and Generation
Protection System Maintenance and Testing).\2\ The modifications
improved reliability either by extending applicability of the
Reliability Standard to certain generator interconnection facilities,
or by clarifying that the existing Reliability Standard is and remains
applicable to generator interconnection facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Generator Requirements at the Transmission Interface, 144
FERC ] 61,221 (2013).
    \2\ The burden included in information collection FERC-725M
corresponds to FAC-003-3 (Transmission Vegetation Management). The
Final Rule RM12-16-000 modifications included in PRC-004-2.1a and
PRC-005-1.1b, which are not a subject of the 725M information
collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The currently effective reliability standard is FAC-003-4
(Transmission Vegetation Management). Reliability Standard FAC-003-4
includes the Minimum Vegetation Clearance Distances (MVCDs) which are
based on additional testing regarding the appropriate gap factor to be
used to calculate clearance distances for vegetation. NERC previously
explained that Reliability Standard FAC-003-4 includes higher and more
conservative MVCD values and, therefore, maintained that FAC-003-4
would ``enhance reliability and provide additional confidence by
applying a more conservative approach to determining the vegetation
clearing distances.''
    On March 4, 2022, a Delegated Letter Order was issued, Docket No.
RD22-2-000, approving FAC-003-5. The Reliability Standard FAC-003-5 set
fourth requirements to maintain a reliable electric transmission system
by using a defense[hyphen]in[hyphen]depth strategy to manage vegetation
located on transmission rights of way (ROW) and minimize encroachments
from vegetation located adjacent to the ROW, thus preventing the risk
of those vegetation[hyphen]related outages that could lead to
cascading. Specific to FAC-003-5 modifications were done to replace the
Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL) with new language.
The requirements in FAC-003-5 result in two years of one-time costs,
which are reflected in the burden table below.
    In FERC-725M we are renewing the information collection
requirements that are currently in Reliability Standard FAC-003-4 but
were not specified in RD22-2-000. Furthermore, we are adjusting the
burden in FAC-003-4 to reflect the latest number of applicable entities
based on the NERC Compliance Registry as of September 16, 2022.
    Type of Respondents: Transmission Owner (TO); Generator Owner (GO);
and Regional Entity (RE).
    Estimate of Annual Burden.\3\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden and cost \4\ for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. See 5
CFR 1320 for additional information on the definition of information
collection burden.
    \4\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) are based
on the figures for May 2022 posted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
for the Utilities sector (available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and updated May 2022 for benefits information
(at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). The hourly
estimates for salary plus benefits are:
    --Manager (code 11-0000), $102.41
    --Information and Records Clerks (code 43-4199), $42.35
    --Electrical Engineer (code 17-2071), $77.02
    The average hourly burden cost for this collection is $68.08
[($102.41 + $42.35 + $77.02)/3 = $73.93)]. and is rounded to $74.00
an hour.

                            FERC-725M, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Generator Requirements at the Transmission Interface
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Number of    Annual  number                                              Total annual burden       Cost per
                                         respondents    of  responses   Total number    Average burden hours &     hours & total annual     respondent
                                             \5\       per respondent   of responses       cost per response               cost                 ($)
                                                  (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).....................  (3) * (4) = (5)........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Currently Effective Standard: FAC-003-4 (Transmission Vegetation Management)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generator Owners, Regional Entities:          \6\ 116               4             464  0.25 hrs.; $18.50.......  116 hrs.; $8,584.00....          $74.00
 Quarterly Reporting (Compliance 1.4).
Generator Owners: Annual Veg.                     110               1             110  2 hrs.; $148.00.........  220 hrs.; $16,280.00...          148.00
 inspect. Doc. (M6); Work Plan (M7);
 Evidence of Mgt. of Veg. (M1 & M2);
 Confirmed Veg. Condition (M4); &
 Corrective Action (M5).

Generator Owners, Transmission                    437               1             437  1 hr.; $74.00...........  437 hrs.; $32,338.00...           74.00
 Owners: Record Retention (Compliance
 1.2).
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sub-Total for standards in FAC-    ..............  ..............           1,011  ........................  773 hrs.; $57,202.00...  ..............
     003-4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      FERC-725M (Modifications from RD22-2-000) \7\
                                                           One Time Estimate Years 1 and 2 \8\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAC-003-5............................        TO (325)               4           1,300  8 hrs.; $728............  10,400 hrs.; $946,400..  ..............
                                            GO (1068)               4           4,272  8 hrs.; $728............  34,176 hrs.; $3,110,016  ..............
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sub-Total for standards in FAC-    ..............  ..............           5,572  ........................  44,576 hrs.; $4,056,416  ..............
     003-5.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Average Annual Burden over 3       ..............  ..............        1,857.33  ........................  14,858.67 hrs.;          ..............
     years.                                                                                $1,352,138.97.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total of 725M................  ..............  ..............        2,868.33  ........................  15,631.67 hrs.;          ..............
                                                                                $1,422,481.97.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ According to the NERC Compliance Registry as of September
16, 2022, there are 1,099 generator owners and 327 transmission
owners registered in North America. We estimate that approximately
10 percent (or 110) of these generator owners have interconnection
facilities that are applicable to the standard.
    \6\ The estimated number of respondents (116) includes 110
generator owners and 6 Regional Entities.
    \7\ RD22-2-000 and the related reliability standards in FAC-003-
5 becomes effective 4/1/2023 and are one-time burdens for year 1 and
2. These modifications are currently under review at OMB. This
renewal covers other information collection requirements in 725M
that were not part of RD22-2-000.
    \8\ Commission staff estimated that the industry's skill set
(wages and benefits) for RD22-2-000 is comparable to the
Commission's skill set. The FERC 2022 average salary plus benefits
for one FERC full-time equivalent (FTE) is $188,922 year (or $91 per
hour [rounded]).

    Dated: October 25, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-23665 Filed 10-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30439-30440]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12550]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0249; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-16]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Apopka, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Apopka,
FL, to accommodate the Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Orlando Apopka
Airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 9, 2012. 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 Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket Number FAA-2012-0249; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-16, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at http:[sol][sol]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-2012-0249; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-16) 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:[sol][sol]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-2012-0249; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-16.'' 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:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http:[sol][sol]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 a.m. and 5 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 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs 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 establish Class E airspace at Apopka,
FL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the RNAV GPS
standard instrument approach procedures for Orlando Apopka Airport.
Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
would be established for the safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, 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 establish Class E airspace at Orlando
Apopka Airport, Apopka, FL.
    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

    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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, effective September 15, 2011,
is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Apopka, FL [New]

Orlando Apopka Airport, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]42'27'' N., long. 81[deg]34'55'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Orlando Apopka Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 16, 2012.
Michael D. Wagner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2012-12550 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P