is presumed to control another person if the person:
    (1) Is a director, general partner or officer exercising executive
responsibility (or having similar status or functions);
    (2) Directly or indirectly has the right to vote 25 percent or more
of a class of voting securities or has the power to sell or direct the
sale of 25 percent or more of a class of voting securities; or
    (3) In the case of a partnership, has the right to receive, upon
dissolution, or has contributed, 25 percent or more of the capital.
    (i) Counterparty means a person that is a direct counterparty or
indirect counterparty of a security-based swap.
    (j) Counterparty ID means the UIC assigned to a counterparty to a
security-based swap.
    (k) Direct counterparty means a person that is a primary obligor on
a security-based swap.
    (l) Direct electronic access has the same meaning as in Sec.
240.13n-4(a)(5) of this chapter.
    (m) Exchange Act means the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.), as amended.
    (n) Execution agent ID means the UIC assigned to any person other
than a broker or trader that facilitates the execution of a security-
based swap on behalf of a direct counterparty.
    (o) Foreign branch has the same meaning as in Sec.  240.3a71-
3(a)(1) of this chapter.
    (p) Indirect counterparty means a guarantor of a direct
counterparty's performance of any obligation under a security-based
swap such that the direct counterparty on the other side can exercise
rights of recourse against the indirect counterparty in connection with
the security-based swap; for these purposes a direct counterparty has
rights of recourse against a guarantor on the other side if the direct
counterparty has a conditional or unconditional legally enforceable
right, in whole or in part, to receive payments from, or otherwise
collect from, the guarantor in connection with the security-based swap.
    (q) Life cycle event means, with respect to a security-based swap,
any event that would result in a change in the information reported to
a registered security-based swap data repository under Sec.
242.901(c), (d), or (i), including: An assignment or novation of the
security-based swap; a partial or full termination of the security-
based swap; a change in the cash flows originally reported; for a
security-based swap that is not a clearing transaction, any change to
the title or date of any master agreement, collateral agreement, margin
agreement, or any other agreement incorporated by reference into the
security-based swap contract; or a corporate action affecting a
security or securities on which the security-based swap is based (e.g.,
a merger, dividend, stock split, or bankruptcy). Notwithstanding the
above, a life cycle event shall not include the scheduled expiration of
the security-based swap, a previously described and anticipated
interest rate adjustment (such as a quarterly interest rate
adjustment), or other event that does not result in any change to the
contractual terms of the security-based swap.
    (r) Non-mandatory report means any information provided to a
registered security-based swap data repository by or on behalf of a
counterparty other than as required by Sec. Sec.  242.900 through
242.909.
    (s) Non-U.S. person means a person that is not a U.S. person.
    (t) Parent means a legal person that controls a participant.
    (u) Participant, with respect to a registered security-based swap
data repository, means a counterparty, that meets the criteria of Sec.
242.908(b), of a security-based swap that is reported to that
registered security-based swap data repository to satisfy an obligation
under Sec.  242.901(a).
    (v) Platform means a national securities exchange or security-based
swap execution facility that is registered or exempt from registration.
    (w) Platform ID means the UIC assigned to a platform on which a
security-based swap is executed.
    (x) Post-trade processor means any person that provides
affirmation, confirmation, matching, reporting, or clearing services
for a security-based swap transaction.
    (y) Pre-enactment security-based swap means any security-based swap
executed before July 21, 2010 (the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank
Act (Pub. L. 111-203, H.R. 4173)), the terms of which had not expired
as of that date.
    (z) Price means the price of a security-based swap transaction,
expressed in terms of the commercial conventions used in that asset
class.
    (aa) Product means a group of security-based swap contracts each
having the same material economic terms except those relating to price
and size.
    (bb) Product ID means the UIC assigned to a product.
    (cc) Publicly disseminate means to make available through the
Internet or other electronic data feed that is widely accessible and in
machine-readable electronic format.
    (dd) [Reserved].
    (ee) Registered clearing agency means a person that is registered
with the Commission as a clearing agency pursuant to section 17A of the
Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1) and any rules or regulations thereunder.
    (ff) Registered security-based swap data repository means a person
that is registered with the Commission as a security-based swap data
repository pursuant to section 13(n) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C.
78m(n)) and any rules or regulations thereunder.
    (gg) Reporting side means the side of a security-based swap
identified by Sec.  242.901(a)(2).
    (hh) Side means a direct counterparty and any guarantor of that
direct counterparty's performance who meets the definition of indirect
counterparty in connection with the security-based swap.
    (ii) Time of execution means the point at which the counterparties
to a security-based swap become irrevocably bound under applicable law.
    (jj) Trader ID means the UIC assigned to a natural person who
executes one or more security-based swaps on behalf of a direct
counterparty.
    (kk) Trading desk means, with respect to a counterparty, the
smallest discrete unit of organization of the participant that
purchases or sells security-based swaps for the account of the
participant or an affiliate thereof.
    (ll) Trading desk ID means the UIC assigned to the trading desk of
a participant.
    (mm) Transaction ID means the UIC assigned to a specific security-
based swap transaction.
    (nn) Transitional security-based swap means a security-based swap
executed on or after July 21, 2010, and before the first date on which
trade-by-trade reporting of security-based swaps in that asset class to
a registered security-based swap data repository is required pursuant
to Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909.
    (oo) Ultimate parent means a legal person that controls a
participant and that itself has no parent.
    (pp) Ultimate parent ID means the UIC assigned to an ultimate
parent of a participant.
    (qq) Unique Identification Code or UIC means a unique
identification code assigned to a person, unit of a person, product, or
transaction.
    (rr) United States has the same meaning as in Sec.  240.3a71-
3(a)(5) of this chapter.

    (ss) U.S. person has the same meaning as in Sec.  240.3a71-3(a)(4)
of this chapter.

Sec.  242.901  Reporting obligations.

    (a) Assigning reporting duties. A security-based swap, including a
security-based swap that results from the allocation, termination,
novation, or assignment of another security-based swap, shall be
reported as follows:
    (1) [Reserved].
    (2) All other security-based swaps. For all security-based swaps
other than platform-executed security-based swaps that will be
submitted to clearing, the reporting side shall provide the information
required by Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909 to a registered
security-based swap data repository. The reporting side shall be
determined as follows:
    (i) [Reserved].
    (ii) Security-based swaps other than clearing transactions. (A) If
both sides of the security-based swap include a registered security-
based swap dealer, the sides shall select the reporting side.
    (B) If only one side of the security-based swap includes a
registered security-based swap dealer, that side shall be the reporting
side.
    (C) If both sides of the security-based swap include a registered
major security-based swap participant, the sides shall select the
reporting side.
    (D) If one side of the security-based swap includes a registered
major security-based swap participant and the other side includes
neither a registered security-based swap dealer nor a registered major
security-based swap participant, the side including the registered
major security-based swap participant shall be the reporting side.
    (E) If neither side of the security-based swap includes a
registered security-based swap dealer or registered major security-
based swap participant:
    (1) If both sides include a U.S. person, the sides shall select the
reporting side.
    (2) [Reserved].
    (b) Alternate recipient of security-based swap information. If
there is no registered security-based swap data repository that will
accept the report required by Sec.  242.901(a), the person required to
make such report shall instead provide the required information to the
Commission.
    (c) Primary trade information. The reporting side shall report the
following information within the timeframe specified in paragraph (j)
of this section:
    (1) The product ID, if available. If the security-based swap has no
product ID, or if the product ID does not include the following
information, the reporting side shall report:
    (i) Information that identifies the security-based swap, including
the asset class of the security-based swap and the specific underlying
reference asset(s), reference issuer(s), or reference index;
    (ii) The effective date;
    (iii) The scheduled termination date;
    (iv) The terms of any standardized fixed or floating rate payments,
and the frequency of any such payments; and
    (v) If the security-based swap is customized to the extent that the
information provided in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section does not provide all of the material information necessary to
identify such customized security-based swap or does not contain the
data elements necessary to calculate the price, a flag to that effect;
    (2) The date and time, to the second, of execution, expressed using
Coordinated Universal Time (UTC);
    (3) The price, including the currency in which the price is
expressed and the amount(s) and currenc(ies) of any up-front payments;
    (4) The notional amount(s) and the currenc(ies) in which the
notional amount(s) is expressed;
    (5) If both sides of the security-based swap include a registered
security-based swap dealer, an indication to that effect;
    (6) Whether the direct counterparties intend that the security-
based swap will be submitted to clearing; and
    (7) If applicable, any flags pertaining to the transaction that are
specified in the policies and procedures of the registered security-
based swap data repository to which the transaction will be reported.
    (d) Secondary trade information. In addition to the information
required under paragraph (c) of this section, for each security-based
swap for which it is the reporting side, the reporting side shall
report the following information within the timeframe specified in
paragraph (j) of this section:
    (1) The counterparty ID or the execution agent ID of each
counterparty, as applicable;
    (2) As applicable, the branch ID, broker ID, execution agent ID,
trader ID, and trading desk ID of the direct counterparty on the
reporting side;
    (3) To the extent not provided pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, the terms of any fixed or floating rate payments, or otherwise
customized or non-standard payment streams, including the frequency and
contingencies of any such payments;
    (4) For a security-based swap that is not a clearing transaction,
the title and date of any master agreement, collateral agreement,
margin agreement, or any other agreement incorporated by reference into
the security-based swap contract;
    (5) To the extent not provided pursuant to paragraph (c) of this
section or other provisions of this paragraph (d), any additional data
elements included in the agreement between the counterparties that are
necessary for a person to determine the market value of the
transaction;
    (6) If applicable, and to the extent not provided pursuant to
paragraph (c) of this section, the name of the clearing agency to which
the security-based swap will be submitted for clearing;
    (7) If the direct counterparties do not intend to submit the
security-based swap to clearing, whether they have invoked the
exception in Section 3C(g) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c-3(g));
    (8) To the extent not provided pursuant to the other provisions of
this paragraph (d), if the direct counterparties do not submit the
security-based swap to clearing, a description of the settlement terms,
including whether the security-based swap is cash-settled or physically
settled, and the method for determining the settlement value; and
    (9) The platform ID, if applicable.
    (10) If the security-based swap arises from the allocation,
termination, novation, or assignment of one or more existing security-
based swaps, the transaction ID of the allocated, terminated, assigned,
or novated security-based swap(s), except in the case of a clearing
transaction that results from the netting or compression of other
clearing transactions.
    (e) Reporting of life cycle events. (1)(i) Generally. A life cycle
event, and any adjustment due to a life cycle event, that results in a
change to information previously reported pursuant to paragraph (c),
(d), or (i) of this section shall be reported by the reporting side,
except that the reporting side shall not report whether or not a
security-based swap has been accepted for clearing.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) All reports of life cycle events and adjustments due to life
cycle events shall, within the timeframe specified in paragraph (j) of
this section, be reported to the entity to which the original security-
based swap transaction was reported and shall include the transaction
ID of the original transaction.
    (f) Time stamping incoming information. A registered security-based
swap data repository shall time stamp, to the second, its receipt of
any information submitted to it pursuant to paragraph (c), (d), (e), or
(i) of this section.
    (g) Assigning transaction ID. A registered security-based swap data

repository shall assign a transaction ID to each security-based swap,
or establish or endorse a methodology for transaction IDs to be
assigned by third parties.
    (h) Format of reported information. A reporting side shall
electronically transmit the information required under this section in
a format required by the registered security-based swap data repository
to which it reports.
    (i) Reporting of pre-enactment and transitional security-based
swaps. With respect to any pre-enactment security-based swap or
transitional security-based swap in a particular asset class, and to
the extent that information about such transaction is available, the
reporting side shall report all of the information required by
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section to a registered security-based
swap data repository that accepts security-based swaps in that asset
class and indicate whether the security-based swap was open as of the
date of such report.
    (j) Interim timeframe for reporting. The reporting timeframe for
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section shall be 24 hours after the time
of execution (or acceptance for clearing in the case of a security-
based swap that is subject to regulatory reporting and public
dissemination solely by operation of Sec.  242.908(a)(1)(ii)), or, if
24 hours after the time of execution or acceptance, as applicable,
would fall on a day that is not a business day, by the same time on the
next day that is a business day. The reporting timeframe for paragraph
(e) of this section shall be 24 hours after the occurrence of the life
cycle event or the adjustment due to the life cycle event.

Appendix to 17 CFR 242.901 Reports Regarding the Establishment of Block
Thresholds and Reporting Delays for Regulatory Reporting of Security-
Based Swap Transaction Data

    This appendix sets forth guidelines applicable to reports that
the Commission has directed its staff to make in connection with the
determination of block thresholds and reporting delays for security-
based swap transaction data. The Commission intends to use these
reports to inform its specification of the criteria for determining
what constitutes a large notional security-based swap transaction
(block trade) for particular markets and contracts; and the
appropriate time delay for reporting large notional security-based
swap transactions (block trades) to the public in order to implement
regulatory requirements under Section 13 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78m).
In producing these reports, the staff shall consider security-based
swap data collected by the Commission pursuant to other Title VII
rules, as well as any other applicable information as the staff may
determine to be appropriate for its analysis.
    (a) Report topics. As appropriate, based on the availability of
data and information, the reports should address the following
topics for each asset class:
    (1) Price impact. In connection with the Commission's obligation
to specify criteria for determining what constitutes a block trade
and the appropriate reporting delay for block trades, the report
generally should assess the effect of notional amount and observed
reporting delay on price impact of trades in the security-based swap
market.
    (2) Hedging. In connection with the Commission's obligation to
specify criteria for determining what constitutes a block trade and
the appropriate reporting delay for block trades, the report
generally should consider potential relationships between observed
reporting delays and the incidence and cost of hedging large trades
in the security-based swap market, and whether these relationships
differ for interdealer trades and dealer to customer trades.
    (3) Price efficiency. In connection with the Commission's
obligation to specify criteria for determining what constitutes a
block trade and the appropriate reporting delay for block trades,
the report generally should assess the relationship between
reporting delays and the speed with which transaction information is
impounded into market prices, estimating this relationship for
trades of different notional amounts.
    (4) Other topics. Any other analysis of security-based swap data
and information, such as security-based swap market liquidity and
price volatility, that the Commission or the staff deem relevant to
the specification of:
    (i) The criteria for determining what constitutes a large
notional security-based swap transaction (block trade) for
particular markets and contracts; and
    (ii) The appropriate time delay for reporting large notional
security-based swap transactions (block trades).
    (b) Timing of reports. Each report shall be complete no later
than two years following the initiation of public dissemination of
security-based swap transaction data by the first registered SDR in
that asset class.
    (c) Public comment on the report. Following completion of the
report, the report shall be published in the Federal Register for
public comment.

Sec.  242.902  Public dissemination of transaction reports.

    (a) General. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a
registered security-based swap data repository shall publicly
disseminate a transaction report of a security-based swap, or a life
cycle event or adjustment due to a life cycle event, immediately upon
receipt of information about the security-based swap, or upon re-
opening following a period when the registered security-based swap data
repository was closed. The transaction report shall consist of all the
information reported pursuant to Sec.  242.901(c), plus any condition
flags contemplated by the registered security-based swap data
repository's policies and procedures that are required by Sec.
242.907.
    (b) [Reserved].
    (c) Non-disseminated information. A registered security-based swap
data repository shall not disseminate:
    (1) The identity of any counterparty to a security-based swap;
    (2) With respect to a security-based swap that is not cleared at a
registered clearing agency and that is reported to the registered
security-based swap data repository, any information disclosing the
business transactions and market positions of any person;
    (3) Any information regarding a security-based swap reported
pursuant to Sec.  242.901(i);
    (4) Any non-mandatory report;
    (5) Any information regarding a security-based swap that is
required to be reported pursuant to Sec. Sec.  242.901 and
242.908(a)(1) but is not required to be publicly disseminated pursuant
to Sec.  242.908(a)(2);
    (6) Any information regarding a clearing transaction that arises
from the acceptance of a security-based swap for clearing by a
registered clearing agency or that results from netting other clearing
transactions; or
    (7) Any information regarding the allocation of a security-based
swap.
    (d) Temporary restriction on other market data sources. No person
shall make available to one or more persons (other than a counterparty
or a post-trade processor) transaction information relating to a
security-based swap before the primary trade information about the
security-based swap is sent to a registered security-based swap data
repository.

Sec.  242.903  Coded information.

    (a) If an internationally recognized standards-setting system that
imposes fees and usage restrictions on persons that obtain UICs for
their own usage that are fair and reasonable and not unreasonably
discriminatory and that meets the criteria of paragraph (b) of this
section is recognized by the Commission and has assigned a UIC to a
person, unit of a person, or product (or has endorsed a methodology for
assigning transaction IDs), the registered security-based swap data
repository shall employ that UIC (or methodology for assigning
transaction IDs). If no such system has been recognized by the
Commission, or a recognized system has not assigned a UIC to a
particular person, unit of a person, or product (or has not endorsed a
methodology for assigning transaction IDs), the registered security-
based swap data repository shall assign a UIC to that person, unit of
person, or product using its own methodology (or endorse a methodology
for assigning transaction IDs). If the

Commission has recognized such a system that assigns UICs to persons,
each participant of a registered security-based swap data repository
shall obtain a UIC from or through that system for identifying itself,
and each participant that acts as a guarantor of a direct
counterparty's performance of any obligation under a security-based
swap that is subject to Sec.  242.908(a) shall, if the direct
counterparty has not already done so, obtain a UIC for identifying the
direct counterparty from or through that system, if that system permits
third-party registration without a requirement to obtain prior
permission of the direct counterparty.
    (b) A registered security-based swap data repository may permit
information to be reported pursuant to Sec.  242.901, and may publicly
disseminate that information pursuant to Sec.  242.902, using codes in
place of certain data elements, provided that the information necessary
to interpret such codes is widely available to users of the information
on a non-fee basis.

Sec.  242.904  Operating hours of registered security-based swap data
repositories.

    A registered security-based swap data repository shall have systems
in place to continuously receive and disseminate information regarding
security-based swaps pursuant to Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909,
subject to the following exceptions:
    (a) A registered security-based swap data repository may establish
normal closing hours during periods when, in its estimation, the U.S.
market and major foreign markets are inactive. A registered security-
based swap data repository shall provide reasonable advance notice to
participants and to the public of its normal closing hours.
    (b) A registered security-based swap data repository may declare,
on an ad hoc basis, special closing hours to perform system maintenance
that cannot wait until normal closing hours. A registered security-
based swap data repository shall, to the extent reasonably possible
under the circumstances, avoid scheduling special closing hours during
periods when, in its estimation, the U.S. market and major foreign
markets are most active; and provide reasonable advance notice of its
special closing hours to participants and to the public.
    (c) During normal closing hours, and to the extent reasonably
practicable during special closing hours, a registered security-based
swap data repository shall have the capability to receive and hold in
queue information regarding security-based swaps that has been reported
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909.
    (d) When a registered security-based swap data repository re-opens
following normal closing hours or special closing hours, it shall
disseminate transaction reports of security-based swaps held in queue,
in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  242.902.
    (e) If a registered security-based swap data repository could not
receive and hold in queue transaction information that was required to
be reported pursuant to Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909, it must
immediately upon re-opening send a message to all participants that it
has resumed normal operations. Thereafter, any participant that had an
obligation to report information to the registered security-based swap
data repository pursuant to Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909, but
could not do so because of the registered security-based swap data
repository's inability to receive and hold in queue data, must promptly
report the information to the registered security-based swap data
repository.

Sec.  242.905  Correction of errors in security-based swap information.

    (a) Duty to correct. Any counterparty to a security-based swap that
discovers an error in information previously reported pursuant to
Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909 shall correct such error in
accordance with the following procedures:
    (1) If a side that was not the reporting side for a security-based
swap transaction discovers an error in the information reported with
respect to such security-based swap, the counterparty shall promptly
notify the reporting side of the error; and
    (2) If the reporting side discovers an error in the information
reported with respect to a security-based swap, or receives
notification from its counterparty of an error, the reporting side
shall promptly submit to the entity to which the security-based swap
was originally reported an amended report pertaining to the original
transaction report. If the reporting side reported the initial
transaction to a registered security-based swap data repository, the
reporting side shall submit an amended report to the registered
security-based swap data repository in a manner consistent with the
policies and procedures contemplated by Sec.  242.907(a)(3).
    (b) Duty of security-based swap data repository to correct. A
registered security-based swap data repository shall:
    (1) Upon discovery of an error or receipt of a notice of an error,
verify the accuracy of the terms of the security-based swap and,
following such verification, promptly correct the erroneous information
regarding such security-based swap contained in its system; and
    (2) If such erroneous information relates to a security-based swap
that the registered security-based swap data repository previously
disseminated and falls into any of the categories of information
enumerated in Sec.  242.901(c), publicly disseminate a corrected
transaction report of the security-based swap promptly following
verification of the trade by the counterparties to the security-based
swap, with an indication that the report relates to a previously
disseminated transaction.

Sec.  242.906  Other duties of participants.

    (a) Identifying missing UIC information. A registered security-
based swap data repository shall identify any security-based swap
reported to it for which the registered security-based swap data
repository does not have the counterparty ID and (if applicable) the
broker ID, branch ID, execution agent ID, trading desk ID, and trader
ID of each direct counterparty. Once a day, the registered security-
based swap data repository shall send a report to each participant of
the registered security-based swap data repository or, if applicable,
an execution agent, identifying, for each security-based swap to which
that participant is a counterparty, the security-based swap(s) for
which the registered security-based swap data repository lacks
counterparty ID and (if applicable) broker ID, branch ID, execution
agent ID, desk ID, and trader ID. A participant of a registered
security-based swap data repository that receives such a report shall
provide the missing information with respect to its side of each
security-based swap referenced in the report to the registered
security-based swap data repository within 24 hours.
    (b) Duty to provide ultimate parent and affiliate information. Each
participant of a registered security-based swap data repository shall
provide to the registered security-based swap data repository
information sufficient to identify its ultimate parent(s) and any
affiliate(s) of the participant that also are participants of the
registered security-based swap data repository, using ultimate parent
IDs and counterparty IDs. Any such participant shall promptly notify
the registered security-based swap data repository of any changes to
that information.
    (c) Policies and procedures of registered security-based swap
dealers and registered major security-based swap participants. Each
participant of a registered security-based swap data

repository that is a registered security-based swap dealer or
registered major security-based swap participant shall establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to ensure that it complies with any obligations to
report information to a registered security-based swap data repository
in a manner consistent with Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909. Each
such participant shall review and update its policies and procedures at
least annually.

Sec.  242.907  Policies and procedures of registered security-based
swap data repositories.

    (a) General policies and procedures. With respect to the receipt,
reporting, and dissemination of data pursuant to Sec. Sec.  242.900
through 242.909, a registered security-based swap data repository shall
establish and maintain written policies and procedures:
    (1) That enumerate the specific data elements of a security-based
swap that must be reported, which shall include, at a minimum, the data
elements specified in Sec.  242.901(c) and (d);
    (2) That specify one or more acceptable data formats (each of which
must be an open-source structured data format that is widely used by
participants), connectivity requirements, and other protocols for
submitting information;
    (3) For specifying procedures for reporting life cycle events and
corrections to previously submitted information, making corresponding
updates or corrections to transaction records, and applying an
appropriate flag to the transaction report to indicate that the report
is an error correction required to be disseminated by Sec.
242.905(b)(2), or is a life cycle event, or any adjustment due to a
life cycle event, required to be disseminated by Sec.  242.902(a);
    (4) For:
    (i) Identifying characteristic(s) of a security-based swap, or
circumstances associated with the execution or reporting of the
security-based swap, that could, in the fair and reasonable estimation
of the registered security-based swap data repository, cause a person
without knowledge of these characteristic(s) or circumstance(s), to
receive a distorted view of the market;
    (ii) Establishing flags to denote such characteristic(s) or
circumstance(s);
    (iii) Directing participants that report security-based swaps to
apply such flags, as appropriate, in their reports to the registered
security-based swap data repository; and
    (iv) Applying such flags:
    (A) To disseminated reports to help to prevent a distorted view of
the market; or
    (B) In the case of a transaction referenced in Sec.  242.902(c), to
suppress the report from public dissemination entirely, as appropriate;
    (5) For assigning UICs in a manner consistent with Sec.  242.903;
and
    (6) For periodically obtaining from each participant information
that identifies the participant's ultimate parent(s) and any
participant(s) with which the participant is affiliated, using ultimate
parent IDs and counterparty IDs.
    (b) [Reserved].
    (c) Public availability of policies and procedures. A registered
security-based swap data repository shall make the policies and
procedures required by Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909 publicly
available on its Web site.
    (d) Updating of policies and procedures. A registered security-
based swap data repository shall review, and update as necessary, the
policies and procedures required by Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909
at least annually. Such policies and procedures shall indicate the date
on which they were last reviewed.
    (e) A registered security-based swap data repository shall provide
to the Commission, upon request, information or reports related to the
timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of data reported to it pursuant
to Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909 and the registered security-based
swap data repository's policies and procedures thereunder.

Sec.  242.908  Cross-border matters.

    (a) Application of Regulation SBSR to cross-border transactions.
(1) A security-based swap shall be subject to regulatory reporting and
public dissemination if:
    (i) There is a direct or indirect counterparty that is a U.S.
person on either or both sides of the transaction; or
    (ii) The security-based swap is accepted for clearing by a clearing
agency having its principal place of business in the United States.
    (2) A security-based swap that is not included within paragraph
(a)(1) of this section shall be subject to regulatory reporting but not
public dissemination if there is a direct or indirect counterparty on
either or both sides of the transaction that is a registered security-
based swap dealer or a registered major security-based swap
participant.
    (b) Limitation on obligations. Notwithstanding any other provision
of Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909, a person shall not incur any
obligation under Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909 unless it is:
    (1) A U.S. person; or
    (2) A registered security-based swap dealer or registered major
security-based swap participant.
    (c) Substituted compliance--(1) General. Compliance with the
regulatory reporting and public dissemination requirements in sections
13(m) and 13A of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(m) and 78m-1), and the rules
and regulations thereunder, may be satisfied by compliance with the
rules of a foreign jurisdiction that is the subject of a Commission
order described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, provided that at
least one of the direct counterparties to the security-based swap is
either a non-U.S. person or a foreign branch.
    (2) Procedure. (i) The Commission may, conditionally or
unconditionally, by order, make a substituted compliance determination
regarding regulatory reporting and public dissemination of security-
based swaps with respect to a foreign jurisdiction if that
jurisdiction's requirements for the regulatory reporting and public
dissemination of security-based swaps are comparable to otherwise
applicable requirements. The Commission may, conditionally or
unconditionally, by order, make a substituted compliance determination
regarding regulatory reporting of security-based swaps that are subject
to Sec.  242.908(a)(2) with respect to a foreign jurisdiction if that
jurisdiction's requirements for the regulatory reporting of security-
based swaps are comparable to otherwise applicable requirements.
    (ii) A party that potentially would comply with requirements under
Sec. Sec.  242.900 through 242.909 pursuant to a substituted compliance
order or any foreign financial regulatory authority or authorities
supervising such a person's security-based swap activities may file an
application, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Sec.  240.0-13 of
this chapter, requesting that the Commission make a substituted
compliance determination regarding regulatory reporting and public
dissemination with respect to a foreign jurisdiction the rules of which
also would require reporting and public dissemination of those
security-based swaps.
    (iii) In making such a substituted compliance determination, the
Commission shall take into account such factors as the Commission
determines are appropriate, such as the scope and objectives of the
relevant foreign regulatory requirements, as well as the effectiveness
of the supervisory

compliance program administered, and the enforcement authority
exercised, by the foreign financial regulatory authority to support
oversight of its regulatory reporting and public dissemination system
for security-based swaps. The Commission shall not make such a
substituted compliance determination unless it finds that:
    (A) The data elements that are required to be reported pursuant to
the rules of the foreign jurisdiction are comparable to those required
to be reported pursuant to Sec.  242.901;
    (B) The rules of the foreign jurisdiction require the security-
based swap to be reported and publicly disseminated in a manner and a
timeframe comparable to those required by Sec. Sec.  242.900 through
242.909 (or, in the case of transactions that are subject to Sec.
242.908(a)(2) but not to Sec.  242.908(a)(1), the rules of the foreign
jurisdiction require the security-based swap to be reported in a manner
and a timeframe comparable to those required by Sec. Sec.  242.900
through 242.909);
    (C) The Commission has direct electronic access to the security-
based swap data held by a trade repository or foreign regulatory
authority to which security-based swaps are reported pursuant to the
rules of that foreign jurisdiction; and
    (D) Any trade repository or foreign regulatory authority in the
foreign jurisdiction that receives and maintains required transaction
reports of security-based swaps pursuant to the laws of that foreign
jurisdiction is subject to requirements regarding data collection and
maintenance; systems capacity, integrity, resiliency, availability, and
security; and recordkeeping that are comparable to the requirements
imposed on security-based swap data repositories by the Commission's
rules and regulations.
    (iv) Before issuing a substituted compliance order pursuant to this
section, the Commission shall have entered into memoranda of
understanding and/or other arrangements with the relevant foreign
financial regulatory authority or authorities under such foreign
financial regulatory system addressing supervisory and enforcement
cooperation and other matters arising under the substituted compliance
determination.
    (v) The Commission may, on its own initiative, modify or withdraw
such order at any time, after appropriate notice and opportunity for
comment.

Sec.  242.909  Registration of security-based swap data repository as a
securities information processor.

    A registered security-based swap data repository shall also
register with the Commission as a securities information processor on
Form SDR (Sec.  249.1500 of this chapter).

    By the Commission.

    Dated: February 11, 2015.

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.

    Note:  The following appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations:

Appendix

Reopening of Comment Periods for Certain Rulemaking Releases and Policy
Statement Applicable to Security-Based Swaps Proposed Pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Action

[Release No. 34-69491; File No. S7-34-10]

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-34-10/s73410.shtml

 Email message from Larry E. Thompson, Managing Director and
General Counsel, Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC''),
to Stephen Luparello, SEC, dated December 10, 2014 (``DTCC X'').
 Letter from Marisol Collazo, Chief Executive Officer, DTCC
Data Repository US LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC,
dated November 14, 2014 (``DTCC IX'').
 Letter from Angie Karna, Managing Director, Legal, Nomura
Global Financial Products, Inc., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC,
dated September 10, 2014 (``NGFP Letter'')
 Letter from Carl Levin, Chairman, U.S. Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, to Kevin M. O'Neill, Deputy
Secretary, SEC, dated July 3, 2014 (``Levin Letter'').
 Email message from Christopher Young, Director, U.S. Public
Policy, ISDA, to Thomas Eady, SEC, dated March 27, 2014 (``ISDA
III'').
 Email message from Marisol Collazo, Chief Executive
Officer, DTCC Data Repository US LLC, to Thomas Eady and Michael J.
Gaw, SEC, dated March 24, 2014 (with attached letters submitted to
the CFTC regarding CME Rule 1001) (``DTCC VIII'').
 Email message from Marisol Collazo, Chief Executive
Officer, DTCC Data Repository US LLC, to Thomas Eady, SEC, dated
March 21, 2014 (with attached message submitted to the CFTC (``DTCC
VII'').
 Letter from Kim Taylor, President, Clearing, CME Group, and
Kara L. Dutta, General Counsel, ICE Trade Vault (``ICE''), LLC, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated November 19, 2013
(``CME/ICE Letter'').
 Letter from Kara L. Dutta, General Counsel, ICE Trade
Vault, LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
September 23, 2013 (``ICE Letter'').
 Letter from Matti Lepp[auml]l[auml], Secretary General/CEO,
PensionsEurope, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
September 3, 2013 (``PensionsEurope Letter'').
 Letter from Americans for Financial Reform, to Elizabeth
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 22, 2013 (``AFR
Letter'').
 Letter from Anne-Marie Leroy, Senior Vice President and
Group General Counsel, World Bank, and Fady Zeidan, Acting Deputy/
General Counsel, International Finance Corporation, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 21, 2013 (``World Bank
Letter'').
 Letter from Futures and Options Association, dated August
21, 2013 (``FOA Letter'').
 Letter from Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., President, Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''); Walt Lukken,
President & Chief Executive Officer, Futures Industry Association
(``FIA''); and Richard M. Whiting, Executive Director and General
Counsel, The Financial Services Roundtable (``Roundtable''), to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 21, 2013
(``SIFMA/FIA/Roundtable Letter'').
 Letter from Per Sj[ouml]berg, Chief Executive Officer, and
Christoffer Mohammar, General Counsel, TriOptima AB, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 21, 2013 (``TriOptima
Letter'').
 Letter from Larry E. Thompson, General Counsel, DTCC, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated August 21, 2013 (``DTCC
VI'').
 Letter from Jeff Gooch, Head of Processing, Markit, Chair
and CEO, MarkitSERV, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated August 21, 2013 (``MarkitSERV IV'').
 Letter from Coalition for Derivatives End-Users, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 21, 2013
(``CDEU Letter'').
 Letter from Kathleen Cronin, Senior Managing Director,
General Counsel, CME Group Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated August 21, 2013 (``CME II'').
 Letter from Sarah A. Miller, Chief Executive Officer,
Institute of International Bankers (``IIB''), to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 21, 2013 (``IIB
Letter'').
 Letter from Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 21, 2013 (``Sullivan
Letter'').
 Letter from S[oslash]ren Elbech, Treasurer, and Jorge
Alers, General Counsel, lnter-American Development Bank, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 21, 2013
(``IDB Letter'').
 Letter from Karrie McMillan, General Counsel, Investment
Company Institute (``ICI'') and Dan Waters, Managing Director, ICI
Global, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August
21, 2013 (``ICI II'').
 Letter from Dennis M. Kelleher, President and CEO, Stephen
W. Hall, Securities

Specialist, and Katelynn 0. Bradley, Attorney, Better Markets, Inc.,
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 21, 2013
(``Better Markets IV'').
 Letter from Monique S. Botkin, Associate General Counsel,
Investment Adviser Association, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated August 21, 2013 (``IAA Letter'').
 Letter from Patrick Pearson, European Commission, dated
August 21, 2013 (``Pearson Letter'').
 Letter from Lutz-Christian Funke, Senior Vice President,
and Frank Czichowski, Senior Vice President and Treasurer, KfW, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 21, 2013
(``KfW Letter'').
 Letter from Koichi lshikura, Executive Chief of Operations
for International Headquarters, Japan Securities Dealers
Association, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
August 21, 2013 (``JSDA Letter'').
 Letter from Bruce E. Stern, Chairman, Association of
Financial Guaranty Insurers, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated August 20, 2013 (``AFGI Letter'').
 Letter from Ernst-Albrecht Brockhaus, Member of the
Management Board, and Nico Zachert, Authorized Signatory, Legal/
Compliance, FMS Wertmanagement, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated August 2013 (``FMS Letter'').
 Letter from Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President &
Managing Director, General Counsel, Managed Funds Association
(``MFA''), and Adam Jacobs, Director, Head of Markets Regulation,
Alternative Investment Management Association, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 19, 2013 (``MFA/AIMA
Letter'').
 Letter from Jonathan B. Kindred and Shigesuke Kashiwagi,
Co-chairs, Japan Financial Markets Council, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated August 15, 2013 (``JFMC Letter'').
 Letter from Kevin Nixon, Managing Director, Institute of
International Finance, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated August 8, 2013 (``IIF Letter'').
 Letter from Larry E. Thompson, General Counsel, DTCC, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated July 22, 2013 (``DTCC
V'').
 Letter from Dennis Kelleher, President & CEO, and Stephen
W. Hall, Securities Specialist, Better Markets, Inc., to Elizabeth
M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated July 22, 2013 (``Better
Markets III'').
 Letter from Chris Barnard, to Commission, dated July 15,
2013 (``Barnard II'').
 Letter from Gregory Ugwi, Strategist, ThinkNum.com, dated
June 15, 2013 (``ThinkNum Letter'').
 Letter from FSR, FIA, IIB, International Swaps and
Derivatives Association (``ISDA''), ICI, and SIFMA, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated May 21, 2013 (``Six
Associations Letter'').

Comments on Proposed Rule: Regulation SBSR--Reporting and Dissemination
of Security-Based Swap Information

[Release No. 34-63346; File No. S7-34-10]

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-34-10/s73410.shtml

 Letter from Thomas G. McCabe, Chief Operating Officer,
OneChicago, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
March 1, 2013 (``OneChicago II'').
 Letter from Elizabeth K. King, Head of Regulatory Affairs,
GETCO, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated March
21, 2012 (``GETCO Letter'').
Letter from Michael Hisler, Co-Founder, Swaps & Derivatives Market
Association (``SDMA''), to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated October 19, 2011 (``SDMA II'').
 Letter from the ABA Securities Association, American
Council of Life Insurers, FSR, FIA, IIB, ISDA, and SIFMA to David A.
Stawick, Secretary, CFTC; Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Federal
Reserve Board; Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, FDIC; Gary K.
Van Meter, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit
Administration; Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission; Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency; and Alfred M. Pollard, General
Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency, dated September 8, 2011
(``Multiple Associations Letter'').
 Letter from Scott Pintoff, General Counsel, GFI Group, Inc.
(``GFI''), to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated July
12, 2011 (``GFI Letter).
 Letter from Larry E. Thompson, General Counsel, the
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC''), to the Honorable
Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman, Commission, and the Honorable Gary
Gensler, Chairman, CFTC, dated June 3, 2011 (``DTCC IV'').
 Letter from Stephen Merkel, Chairman, Wholesale Markets
Brokers' Association Americas (``WMBAA''), to the Honorable Mary L.
Schapiro, Chairman, Commission, and the Honorable Gary Gensler,
Chairman, CFTC, dated June 3, 2011 (``WMBAA III''). [Note: This
comment letter is in fact dated ``June 3, 2010,'' but the Commission
deems the true date to be June 3, 2011. The comment letter
references proposed Regulation SBSR, which the Commission issued in
November 2010, and thus the comment could not have been submitted in
June 2010.]
 Letter from John R. Gidman, Association of Institutional
Investors, to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated June 2, 2011 (``Institutional
Investors Letter''). [Note: This comment letter is in fact dated
``June 2, 2010,'' but the Commission deems the true date to be June
2, 2011. The comment letter references proposed Regulation SBSR,
which the Commission issued in November 2010, and thus the comment
could not have been submitted in June 2010.]
 Letter from Chris Koppenheffer, SDMA, to David A. Stawick,
Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated June 1, 2011 (``SDMA I'').
 Letter from Richard M. Whiting, Executive Director and
General Counsel, FSR, to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated May 12, 2011
(``Roundtable Letter'').
 Letter from Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP on behalf of The Bank
of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ. Ltd., Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd., and
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, to David A. Stawick, Secretary,
CFTC, Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, and Jennifer L.
Johnson, Secretary, Federal Reserve Board, dated May 6, 2011
(``Japanese Banks Letter'').
 Letter from Richard H. Baker, President and Chief Executive
Officer, MFA, to the Honorable Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman,
Commission, dated March 24, 2011 (``MFA II''), and attached ``MFA
Recommended Timeline for Adoption and Implementation of Final Rules
Pursuant to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act'' (``MFA Recommended
Timeline'').
 Letter from Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP on behalf of Barclays
Bank PLC, PNP Paribas S.A., Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG,
HSBS, Nomura Securities International, Inc., Rabobank Nederland,
Royal Bank of Canada, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC,
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale, The Toronto-Dominion
Bank, and UBS AG, to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, and Jennifer L. Johnson, Secretary,
Federal Reserve Board, dated February 17, 2011 (``Davis Polk II'').
 Letter from Robert Carpenter, President and Chief Executive
Officer, GS1 U.S., Miguel A. Lopera, Chief Executive Officer, GS1
Global, and Allan D. Grody, President, Financial Inter Group, to
Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated February 14, 2011
(``GS1 Letter'') and ``GS1 & Financial InterGroup Response to
Securities & Exchange Commission'' (``GS1 Proposal'').
 Letter from Edward J. Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, on behalf of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, BNP
Paribas, Citi, Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA), Deutsche Bank AG, Morgan Stanley, Nomura
Securities International, Inc., PNC Bank, Soci[eacute]t[eacute]
General, UBS Securities LLC, and Wells Fargo & Company, to Elizabeth
M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, and David A. Stawick, Secretary,
CFTC, dated February 14, 2011 (``Cleary II'').
 Letter from Charles Llewellyn, Regional Legal Counsel--
Americas, Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication SCRL (``SWIFT''), to the Commission, dated
February 14, 2011 (``SWIFT Letter'').
 Letter from Patrick Durkin, Managing Director, Barclays
Capital Inc. (``Barclays''), to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated February 11, 2010

(``Barclays Letter''). [Note: This comment letter is in fact dated
``February 11, 2010,'' but the Commission deems the true date to be
February 11, 2011. The comment letter references proposed Regulation
SBSR, which the Commission issued in November 2010, and thus the
comment could not have been submitted in February 2010.]
 Letter from Daniel G. Viola, Partner, Sadis & Goldberg LLP,
to the CFTC and the Commission, dated February 7, 2011 (``Viola
Letter'').
 Letter from Andrew Downes, Managing Director, UBS
Investment Bank, and James B. Fuqua, Managing Director, UBS
Securities LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
February 7, 2011 (``UBS Letter'').
 Letter from Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated February 6, 2011 (``Cravath
Letter'').
 Letter from Richard G. Ketchum, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA''), to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
January 27, 2011 (``FINRA Letter'').
 Letter from David G. Downey, Chief Executive Officer,
OneChicago, LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated January 26, 2011 (``OneChicago I'').
 Letter from Dennis M. Kelleher, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Stephen W. Hall, Securities Specialist, and
Wallace C. Turbeville, Derivatives Specialist, Better Markets, Inc.
(``Better Markets''), to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated January 24, 2011 (``Better Markets II'').
 Letter from Kevin Gould, President, Markit North America,
Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January
24, 2011 (``Markit I'').
 Letter from Jeff Gooch, Chief Executive Officer, MarkitSERV
LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January
24, 2011 (``MarkitSERV I'').
 Letter from Naphtali M. Hamlet, dated January 22, 2011
(``Hamlet Letter'').
 Letter from Dennis M. Kelleher, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Wallace C. Turbeville, Derivatives Specialist,
and Stephen W. Hall, Better Markets, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated January 18, 2011 (``Better Markets
I'').
 Letter from Craig S. Donohue, Chief Executive Officer, CME
Group, Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
January 18, 2011 (``CME I'').
 Letter from Larry E. Thompson, General Counsel, DTCC, dated
January 18, 2011 (``DTCC II'').
 Letter from Beckwith B. Miller, Chief Executive Officer,
Ethics Metrics LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated January 18, 2011 (``Ethics Metrics Letter'').
 Letter from Karrie McMillan, General Counsel, ICI, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January 18, 2011
(``ICI I'').
 Letter from Robert Pickel, Executive Vice Chairman, ISDA,
and Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., Executive Vice President, Public Policy
and Advocacy, SIFMA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated January 18, 2011 (``ISDA/SIFMA I''), and accompanying study,
``Block trade reporting for over-the-counter derivatives markets''
(``ISDA/SIFMA Block Trade Study'').
 Letter from Roger Liddell, Chief Executive, LCH.Clearnet
Group Limited, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
January 18, 2011 (``LCH.Clearnet Letter'').
 Letter from Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President,
Managing Director, and General Counsel, Managed Funds Association,
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January 18,
2011 (``MFA I'').
 Letter from Timothy W. Cameron, Managing Director, Asset
Management Group, SIFMA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated January 18, 2011 (``SIFMA I'').
 Letter from Lee H. Olesky, Chief Executive Officer, and
Douglas L. Friedman, General Counsel, Tradeweb Markets LLC, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January 18, 2011
(``Tradeweb Letter'').
 Letter from Gus Sauter, Managing Director and Chief
Investment Officer, and John Hollyer, Principal and Head of Risk
Management and Strategy Analysis, Vanguard, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated January 18, 2011 (``Vanguard Letter'').
 Letter from Julian Harding, Chairman, WMBAA, to Elizabeth
M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January 18, 2011 (``WMBAA
II'').
 Letter from R. Martin Chavez, Managing Director, Goldman,
Sachs & Co., David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January 18, 2011 (``Goldman
Sachs Letter'').
 Letter from R. Glenn Hubbard, Co-Chair, John L. Thornton,
Co-Chair, and Hal S. Scott, Director, Committee on Capital Markets
Regulation, David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January 18, 2011 (``CCMR I'').
 Letter from Adam Litke, Bloomberg L.P., to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January 14, 2011 (``Bloomberg
Letter'').
 Letter from Laurel Leitner, Senior Analyst, Council of
Institutional Investors, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated January 13, 2011 (``CII Letter'').
 Letter from Jeremy Barnum, Managing Director, and Don
Thompson, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, J.P.
Morgan, David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated January 12, 2011 (``J.P. Morgan
Letter'').
 Letter from Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP on behalf of Barclays
Bank PLC, PNP Paribas S.A., Deutsche Bank AG, Royal Bank of Canada,
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC, Soci[eacute]t[eacute]
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale, UBS AG, to David A. Stawick, Secretary,
CFTC, Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, and Jennifer L.
Johnson, Secretary, Federal Reserve Board, dated January 11, 2011
(``Davis Polk I'').
 Letter from Suzanne H. Shatto, dated January 1, 2011
(``Shatto Letter'').
 Letter from Spencer Bachus, Ranking Member, Committee on
Financial Services, and Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, Committee on
Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, to The Honorable Timothy
Geithner, Secretary, Department of Treasury, the Honorable Gary
Gensler, Chairman, CFTC, the Honorable Mary Schapiro, Chairman,
Commission, and the Honorable Ben Bernanke, Chairman, Federal
Reserve, dated December 16, 2010 (``Bachus/Lucas Letter'').
 Letter from Chris Barnard, dated December 3, 2010
(``Barnard I'').
 Letter from Laura J. Schisgall, Managing Director and
Senior Counsel, Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale, to
Ananda Radhakrishnan, Director, Division of Clearing and
Intermediary Oversight, CFTC, John M. Ramsay, Deputy Director,
Division of Trading and Markets, SEC, Mark E. Van Der Weide, Senior
Associate Director, Federal Reserve Board, dated November 23, 2010
(``Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale Letter'').
 Letter from Julian Harding, WMBAA, David A. Stawick,
Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated November 19, 2010 (``WMBAA I'').

Comments on Statement of General Policy on the Sequencing of the
Compliance Dates for Final Rules Applicable to Security-Based Swaps
Adopted Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

[Release No. 34-67177; File No. S7-05-12[

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-05-12/s70512.shtml

 Letter from Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., Executive Vice
President, Public Policy and Advocacy, SIFMA, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 13, 2012 (``SIFMA II'').

Comments on Cross-Border Security-Based Swap Activities; Re-Proposal of
Regulation SBSR and Certain Rules and Forms Relating to the
Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based
Swap Participants

[Release No. 34-69490; File No. S7-02-13]

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-02-13/s70213.shtml

 Letter from Karel Engelen, Senior Director, Head of Data,
Reporting & FpML, ISDA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated November 14, 2014 (``ISDA IV'').
 Letter from Catherine T. Dixon, Chair, Federal Regulation
of Securities Committee, American Bar Association, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated October 2, 2013 (``ABA
Letter'').
 Letter from Adam C. Cooper, Senior Managing Director and
Chief Legal Officer,

Citadel LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
August 21, 2013 (``Citadel Letter'').
 Letter from R. Glenn Hubbard, John L. Thornton, Co-Chairs,
and Hal S. Scott, Director, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation,
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, and Gary Barnett,
Director, CFTC, dated August 17, 2013 (``CCMR II'').
 Letter from Robert Pickel, ISDA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated August 14, 2013 (``ISDA II'').
 Letter from Masaaki Tanaka, Deputy President, Mitsubishi
UFJ Financial Group, Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated August 8, 2013 (``Mitsubishi Letter'').

Comments on Acceptance of Public Submissions for a Study on
International Swap Regulation Mandated by Section 719(c) of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

[Release No. 34-64926; File No. 4-635]

http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-635/4-635.shtml

 Letter from Ji[rcaron][iacute] Kr[oacute]l, Director of
Government and Regulatory Affairs, Alternative Investment Management
Association Limited to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated September 26, 2011
(``AIMA Letter'').

Comments on Product Definitions Contained in Title VII of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

[Release No. 33-9204; File No. S7-16-11]

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-11/s71611.shtml

 Letter from Jacques Mirante-P[eacute]r[eacute], Chief
Financial Officer, and Jan De Bel, General Counsel, Council of
Europe Development Bank, dated July 22, 2011 (``CEB Letter'').
 Letter from A. Querejeta, Secretary General and General
Counsel, and B. de Mazi[egrave]res, Director General, European
Investment Bank, to David A Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth
M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated July 22, 2011 (``EIB Letter'').
 Letter from G[uuml]nter Pleines, Head of Banking
Department, and Diego Devos, General Counsel, Bank for International
Settlements, to David A Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated July 20, 2011 (``BIS Letter'').

Real-Time Reporting: Title VII Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act

http://www.sec.gov/comments/df-title-vii/real-time-reporting/real-time-reporting.shtml

 Letter from FIA, the Financial Services Forum (``FSF''),
ISDA, and SIFMA to David A Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth
M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated May 4, 2011 (``FIA/FSF/ISDA/SIFMA
Letter'').
 Letter from Edward J. Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP on behalf of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Barclays
Capital, BNP Paribas, Citi, Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment
Bank, Credit Suisse Securities (USA), Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC, Morgan
Stanley, Nomura Securities International, Inc., PNC Bank, National
Association, UBS Securities LLC, and Wells Fargo & Company, to David
A Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC,
dated October 25, 2010 (``Cleary I'').
 Letter from James W. Toffey, Chief Executive Officer,
Benchmark Solutions, to David A Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, SEC, dated October 1, 2010
(``Benchmark Letter'').

Comments on Reporting of Security-Based Swap Transaction Data

[Release No. 34-63094; File No. s7-28-10]

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-28-10/s72810.shtml

 Letter from Larry E. Thompson, General Counsel, DTCC, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated December 20, 2010
(``DTCC I'').
 Letter from Robert Pickel, Executive Vice Chairman, ISDA,
to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated December 10, 2010
(``ISDA I'').
 Letter from Ernest C. Goodrich, Jr., Managing Director--
Legal Department, Deutsche Bank AG, and Marcel Riffaud, Managing
Director, Legal Department, Deutsche Bank AG, to David A. Stawick,
Secretary, CFTC, and to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated November 5, 2010 (``Deutsche Bank Letter'').

Comments on Proposed Rule: Registration and Regulation of Security-
Based Swap Execution Facilities

[Release No. 34-63825; File No. S7-06-11]

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s70611/s70611.shtml

 Letter from the American Benefits Council to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated April 8, 2011 (``ABC Letter'').
 Letter from Joanne Medero, Richard Prager, and Supurna
VedBrat, BlackRock, Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated April 4, 2011 (``BlackRock Letter'').
 Letter from Kevin Gould, President, Markit North America,
Inc., to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated April 4,
2011 (``Markit II'').
 Letter from Robert Pickel, Executive Vice Chairman, ISDA,
and Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr. Executive Vice President, Public Policy
and Advocacy, SIFMA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated April 4, 2011 (``ISDA/SIFMA II'').
 Letter from Jeff Gooch, Chief Executive Officer,
MarkitSERV, to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated April
4, 2011 (``MarkitSERV II'').
 Letter from Nancy C. Gardner, Executive Vice President and
General Counsel, Markets Division, Thomson Reuters, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated April 4, 2011 (``Thomson
Reuters Letter'').
 Letter from Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President and
Managing Director, General Counsel, MFA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated April 4, 2011 (``MFA III'').
 Letter from Nicholas J. Stephan, Chief Executive Officer,
Phoenix Partners Group LP to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated April 4, 2011 (``Phoenix Letter'').

Comments on Proposed Rule: Security-Based Swap Data Repository
Registration, Duties, and Core Principles

[Release No. 34-63347; File No. S7-35-10]

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s73510/s73510.shtml

 Letter from Larry E. Thompson, General Counsel, DTCC, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January 24, 2011
(``DTCC III'').

Comments on Joint Public Roundtable on International Issues Relating to
the Implementation of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act

[Release No. 34-64939; File No. 4-636]

http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-636/4-636.shtml

 Letter from Edward J. Rosen, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, on behalf of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Barclays
Capital, BNP Paribas, Citi, Cre[eacute]dit Agricole Corporate and
Investment Bank, Credit Suisse Securities (USA), Deutsche Bank AG,
HSBC, Morgan Stanley, Nomura Securities International, Inc.,
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] G[eacute]n[eacute]rale, UBS Securities LLC, to
David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC; Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
SEC; Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve Board (``Federal Reserve Board''); Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency; Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (``FDIC''); Alfred M. Pollard,
General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency; and Gary K. Van
Meter, Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit
Administration, dated September 20, 2011 (``Cleary III'').
 Letter from Kevin Gould, President, Markit North America,
Inc., to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated September 19, 2011 (``Markit III'').
 Letter from Jeff Gooch, Chief Executive Officer,
MarkitSERV, to David A. Stawick, Secretary, CFTC, and Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated September 19, 2011
(``MarkitSERV III'').

[FR Doc. 2015-03124 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9777-9778]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05017]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0098; FRL-9990-65-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Nine Metal Fabrication and
Finishing Sources (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Nine Metal Fabrication
and Finishing Sources (EPA ICR Number 2298.05, OMB Control Number 2060-
0622), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
March 31, 2019. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Federal Register, on May 30, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 17,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0098, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP), for Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area
Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX) apply to owners or operators
of any existing or new metal fabrication and finishing facility that is
an area source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions and uses or
has the potential to emit metal fabrication or finishing metal HAP
(MFHAP), defined to be the compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead,
manganese, and nickel, or any of these metals in the elemental form
with the exception of lead. The affected sources consist of several
types of metal

fabrication and finishing processes, including any abrasive blasting,
metalworking (which includes machining, and dry grinding and dry
polishing with machines), spray painting, and welding operations. New
facilities include those that commenced construction or reconstruction
after the date of proposal. In general, all NESHAP standards require
initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the
owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to
NESHAP. This information is being collected to assure compliance with
40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of facilities
in the nine metal fabrication and finishing source categories.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXXXXX).
    Estimated number of respondents: 5,800 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 39,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $4,440,000 (per year), which includes $0 for
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
labor hours and cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is
due to the addition of burden hours to more accurately account for the
time spent by existing facilities to re-familiarize themselves annually
with the rule requirements.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-05017 Filed 3-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 69321]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28935]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Intent To Rule On Request To Release Airport Property at the
Malden Regional Airport and Industrial Park (MAW), Malden, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of land at the Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW),
Malden, Missouri, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: Barbara Crayne, Airport Manager, Malden
Regional Airport & Industrial Park, 3077 Mitchell Dr., P.O. Box 411,
Malden, MO 63863-0411,<PHONE_NUMBER>

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The request to release property may be reviewed, by
appointment, in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release approximately 2.4 acres of airport property at the
Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Airport (MAW) under the provisions
of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). On December 20, 2010, the Mayor of the City
of Malden and the Airport Manager at the Malden Regional Airport
requested from the FAA that approximately 2.4 acres of property be
released for sale to Murphy Argo Investments. On Sept. 16, 2011, the
FAA determined that the request to release property at Malden Regional
Airport and Industrial Park (MAW) submitted by the Sponsor meets the
procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the
release of the property does not and will not impact future aviation
needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in
part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this Notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    Malden Regional Airport and Industrial Park (MAW) is proposing the
release of two parcels, one of 0.8 acres and another of 1.6 acres, for
a total of 2.4 acres. The release of land is necessary to comply with
Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow
federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation
purposes. The sale of the subject property will result in the land at
the Malden Regional Airport and Industrial Park (MAW) being changed
from aeronautical to nonaeronautical use and release the lands from the
conditions of the AIP Grant Agreement Grant Assurances. In accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive
fair market value for the property, which will be subsequently
reinvested in another eligible airport improvement project for general
aviation facilities at the Malden Regional Airport and Industrial Park.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Malden Regional Airport and
Industrial Park.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on October 31, 2011.
Jim A. Johnson,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-28935 Filed 11-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47919-47921]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17036]

========================================================================
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. 85, No. 153 / Friday, August 7, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0744; Project Identifier 2019-CE-056-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Pilatus Aircraft Ltd Model PC-24 airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify
and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI
describes the unsafe condition as the vinyl grommets on the upper panel
assembly on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) emergency exits
becoming rigid after exposure to low temperatures, which could result
in failure of the emergency exits to open during an evacuation. This
proposed AD would require replacing the grommets. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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 AD, contact
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992,
CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41
exception occurred on : 2020-17036.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-17036.htm
(0)41 619 67 73; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; internet:
https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0744.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0744; 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 NPRM, the MCAI, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch,
901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816)
329-4059; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites 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-2020-0744;
Product Identifier 2019-CE-056-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this proposed AD because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments we receive, without change, to
https://regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact it receives about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Doug
Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA AD No. 2019-0293, dated December 4, 2019 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all PC-24
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    After exposure to low temperatures, the vinyl grommets which
hold the upper panel assembly in position on the left-hand and
right-hand emergency exits were found to become rigid.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the
emergency exits to

open during an evacuation, possibly resulting in injury to
occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus issued the
[service bulletin] SB to provide modification instructions.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
replacement of affected parts with serviceable parts, as defined in
this AD, and prohibits (re-)installation of affected parts.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0744.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Pilatus Aircraft Ltd PC-24 Service Bulletin No.
25-005, dated August 12, 2019. The service information contains
procedures for replacing the grommets that are used to hold the upper
panel assembly in position on the LH and RH emergency exits with
different part-numbered grommets. 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, it has
notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because it 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

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 39 products of
U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it would take 1.0 work-hour
per product to comply with the requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $30 per product.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of the AD on
U.S. operators to be $4,485 or $115 per product.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all costs in this cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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:

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2020-0744; Project Identifier
2019-CE-056-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by August 27, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to Pilatus Aircraft
Ltd. Model PC-24 airplanes, all serial numbers, with an emergency
exit grommet part number (P/N) 9<IP_ADDRESS> installed, certificated
in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 52: Doors.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that after exposure to low
temperatures, the vinyl grommets that hold the upper panel assembly
in position on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) emergency
exits can become rigid. This unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could result in failure of the emergency exits to open during an
evacuation.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, replace
each grommet P/N 9<IP_ADDRESS> holding the upper panel assembly in
position on the LH and RH emergency exits with grommet P/N
5<IP_ADDRESS> in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions,
section 3.B., of Pilatus Aircraft Ltd PC-24 Service Bulletin No. 25-
005, dated August 12, 2019.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a
grommet P/N 9<IP_ADDRESS> on any airplane.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug
Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816)
329-4090; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved
AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD No. 2019-
0293, dated December 4, 2019. You may examine the MCAI on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0744. For service information related
to this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical
Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone:
+41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email:
exception occurred on : 2020-17036.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-17036.htm
aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; internet: https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en. You may review this referenced service information
at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety
Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on July 30, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-17036 Filed 8-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P