[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60927-60931]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25732]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84630; File No. SR-MSRB-2018-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB
Rule G-3, on Professional Qualification Requirements, To Require
Municipal Advisor Principals To Become Appropriately Qualified by
Passing the Municipal Advisor Principal Qualification Examination

November 20, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On September 19, 2018, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(the ``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule to amend Rule G-3, on professional
qualification requirements, to (i) require persons who meet the
definition of a municipal advisor principal, as defined under Rule G-
3(e)(i), to pass the Municipal Advisor Principal Qualification
Examination (``Series 54 examination'') in order to become
appropriately qualified as a municipal advisor principal; (ii) specify
that such persons who cease to be associated with a municipal advisor
for two or more years at any time after having qualified as a municipal
advisor principal must requalify by examination unless a waiver is
granted; (iii) add the Series 54 examination to the list of
qualification examinations for which a waiver can be sought; (iv)
provide that municipal advisor representatives may function as a
principal for 120 calendar days without being qualified with the Series
54 examination; and (v) make a

technical amendment to Rule G-3(e) to clarify that a municipal advisor
principal must pass the Municipal Advisor Representative Qualification
Examination (``Series 50 examination'') as a prerequisite to becoming
qualified as a municipal advisor principal (collectively the ``proposed
rule change''). The MSRB requested that the proposed rule change become
effective 30 days from the date of SEC approval. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 9,
2018.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84341 (October 2, 2018)
(the ``Notice of Filing''), 83 FR 50708 (October 9, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule
change.\4\ On November 16, 2018, the MSRB responded to the comments
received by the Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letter to Gail Marshall, Chief Compliance Officer,
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, from Elaine M. Philbrick,
Principal, Derivative Advisors, dated October 23, 2018 (the
``Derivative Advisors Letter''). This letter was delivered to the
MSRB, who then filed the letter with the Commission.
    \5\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Gail Marshall,
Chief Compliance Officer, MSRB, dated November 16, 2018 (the ``MSRB
Response Letter''), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2018-07/srmsrb201807-4654464-176503.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would adopt MSRB Rule G-3(e)(ii)(A) to
establish additional qualification requirements for municipal advisor
principals. Specifically, the proposed rule change would require those
who meet the definition of a municipal advisor principal, as defined
under MSRB Rule G-3(e)(i), (i.e., persons engaged in the management,
direction or supervision of the municipal advisory activities of the
municipal advisor and its associated persons) to pass both the Series
50 examination and Series 54 examination prior to becoming qualified as
a municipal advisor principal. Additionally, the proposed amendments to
MSRB Rule G-3(e)(ii) would also prescribe that the passing score shall
be determined by the Board. The MSRB stated that the establishment of
qualification requirements for municipal advisor principals would
assist in ensuring that such persons have a specified level of
competency that is appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors, and municipal entities and obligated
persons.\6\ Additionally, the MSRB stated that the establishment of the
Series 54 examination is consistent with the intent of the
establishment of the Series 50 examination ``to mitigate problems
associated with advice provided by those individuals without adequate
training or qualifications,'' in that municipal advisor principals
should be appropriately qualified to supervise such activities of
municipal advisor representatives.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice of Filing.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed MSRB Rule G-3(e)(ii)(B) would require any person qualified
as a municipal advisor principal who ceases to be associated with a
municipal advisor for two or more years at any time after having
qualified as a municipal advisor principal to requalify by examination
by passing both the Series 50 examination and Series 54 examination
prior to becoming qualified as a municipal advisor principal, unless a
waiver is granted pursuant to MSRB Rule G-3(h)(ii), on waiver of
qualification requirements.\8\ The MSRB also proposed to amend MSRB
Rule G-3(h)(ii) and Supplementary Material .02 to provide that the MSRB
will consider waiving the qualification requirements of a municipal
advisor principal in extraordinary cases where the applicant was
previously qualified as a municipal advisor principal by passing both
the Series 50 examination and Series 54 examination and the person's
qualification lapsed. The MSRB stated that Proposed Rule G-3(e)(ii)(C)
would allow a municipal advisor principal to be designated a municipal
advisor principal and to function in that capacity for a period of 120
calendar days without having passed the Series 54 examination.\9\ The
MSRB noted that on June 8, 2018, the MSRB filed a proposed rule change
with the SEC for immediate effectiveness, which, in part, extended the
period from 90 calendar days to 120 calendar days for municipal
securities representatives to function in a principal capacity without
passing a principal examination as long as the municipal securities
representative has at least 18 months of experience within the five-
year period immediately preceding the designation as a principal.\10\
The MSRB stated that it is not extending this experience requirement to
a municipal advisor representative in order to function as a municipal
advisor principal for 120 calendar days because, given the typical size
of a municipal advisor firm, coupled with the newness of the
qualification classifications and development of professional
qualification requirements for municipal advisor professionals, such a
requirement could pose an undue burden on a municipal advisor's
operational needs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Board stated that it will review waiver requests on
their individual merits, taking into consideration relevant facts
presented by an applicant. See Notice of Filing.
    \9\ See Notice of Filing.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB proposed a technical amendment to Rule G-3(e)(i), on
definitions, to establish as a separate rule provision, and to clarify,
that qualification as a municipal advisor representative is a
prerequisite to obtaining qualification as a municipal advisor
principal.\12\ The MSRB is also proposing a technical amendment to
renumber the rule provisions under Rule G-3(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated that it believes that professional qualification
examinations, such as the Series 50 examination and Series 54
examination, are established means for determining the competency of
individuals in a particular qualification classification.\13\ The MSRB
stated that it has, in consultation with the MSRB's Professional
Qualification Advisory Committee, developed the Series 54 examination
to ensure that a person seeking to qualify as a municipal advisor
principal satisfies a specified level of competency and knowledge by
measuring a candidate's ability to apply the applicable federal
securities laws, including MSRB rules to the municipal advisory
activities of a municipal advisor.\14\ The MSRB stated that it has
adhered to recognized test development standards by performing a job
study to determine the appropriate topics to be covered and weighting
of such topics on the Series 54 examination.\15\ The MSRB noted that
from October 17, 2017 through November 7, 2017, it conducted a job
study of municipal advisor principals via a web-based survey.\16\ The
MSRB stated that the job study was sent to the primary and optional
regulatory contacts at over 500 municipal advisors, representing every
municipal advisor with at least one person qualified with the Series 50
examination. The MSRB stated that it received 212 responses to the job
study, representing data from municipal advisor principals from
different-sized municipal advisors in different areas of the
country.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice of Filing.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Notice of Filing, MSRB stated that it will announce the
effective date of the permanent Series 54 examination at a later date
in an MSRB Notice published on MSRB.org.\18\ The MSRB stated that the
effective date of the

Series 54 examination will be the date the Series 54 examination
becomes permanently available.\19\ However, the MSRB stated that in
advance of the permanent version of the Series 54 examination, the MSRB
anticipates conducting a pilot of the Series 54 examination, the
results of which will be used to determine the passing score for the
permanent Series 54 examination.\20\ The MSRB also stated that prior to
the launch of the pilot version of the Series 54 examination, it will
file a content outline with the SEC describing: the topics on the
examination; the percentage of the examination devoted to each topic
area; and the number of questions that will appear on the
examination.\21\ In the Notice of Filing, the MSRB stated that the
content outline will also contain sample examination questions and a
list of reference materials to assist individuals in preparation for
the examination.\22\ The MSRB stated that to provide persons who
function as municipal advisor principals with sufficient time to
satisfy the new qualification requirement, consistent with the
implementation process for the Series 50 examination, the MSRB is
proposing a one-year grace period from the effective date of the Series
54 examination for such persons to pass the examination and become
appropriately qualified as municipal advisor principals.\23\ According
to the MSRB, during this one-year grace period, a person functioning as
a municipal advisor principal would be permitted to continue to engage
in the management, direction or supervision of the municipal advisory
activities of the municipal advisor and its associated persons so long
as such person is qualified with the Series 50 examination.\24\ The
MSRB stated that this one-year grace period is designed to ensure that
those persons functioning as a municipal advisor principal can prepare
for and pass the Series 54 examination without causing considerable
disruption to the business of the municipal advisor.\25\ The MSRB also
stated that after the one-year grace period, a municipal advisor
representative would only be permitted to function in the capacity of a
municipal advisor principal, after being so designated, for a period of
120 days without being a qualified municipal advisor principal.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB requested in the Notice of Filing that the proposed rule
change become effective 30 days from the date of SEC approval.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments Received and MSRB's Responses to Comments

    As noted previously, the Commission received one comment letter on
the proposed rule change, as well as the MSRB Response Letter. The
commenter, Derivative Advisors (``Derivative Advisors''), stated that
it is an interest rate swap broker who is a registered municipal
advisor. The commenter believes that a firm that is principally an
interest rate swap broker that is also registered as a municipal
advisor should not have to take a qualification examination that is not
specifically targeted to their business model.\28\ The commenter
suggested that only 5% of the questions on the Series 50 examination
were related to swaps, and the rest had nothing to do with the firm's
services.\29\ The commenter also stated that ``the proposed amendment
to Rule G-3 requires yet an additional exam that is completely
unrelated to our firm,'' and that in order to pass the Series 54
examination, each principal will need to spend hundreds of hours to
learn and master unfamiliar new material that does not serve the firm's
customers or business.\30\ The commenter also suggested that it may
consider exiting the business of advising municipalities due to the
investment of time and effort required by the proposed rule change.\31\
Lastly, the commenter stated that requiring the Series 54 examination
for municipal advisors that are strictly swap brokers is not in the
public interest and does not benefit investors, municipal entities or
obligated persons. Therefore the commenter believes that swap brokers
should be exempt from the proposed requirement that each municipal
advisor principal take and pass the Series 54 examination.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Derivative Advisors Letter.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB responded by stating that the MSRB is charged with setting
professional qualification standards for municipal advisors under
Section 15B(b)(2)(A) \33\ of the Act.\34\ The MSRB stated that it
believes that the establishment of the Series 54 examination is
consistent with the intent of the establishment of the Series 50
examination to mitigate problems associated with advice by those
individuals without adequate training or qualification, in that
municipal advisor principals should be appropriately qualified to
supervise such activities of municipal advisor representatives.\35\ The
MSRB also stated that the creation of a principal-level examination
furthers the stated objective of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) \36\ of the Act
to foster the prevention of fraudulent practices by enhancing the
overall professional qualification standards of municipal advisor
principals--recognizing that proper supervision of a municipal
advisor's activities and that of its associated persons play a role in
the protection of the municipal securities market.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
    \34\ See MSRB Response Letter.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \37\ See MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In further response to the Derivative Advisors Letter, the MSRB
stated that it believes that a municipal advisor principal should
demonstrate knowledge of the rules and regulations governing municipal
advisors.\38\ The MSRB noted that as a principal qualification
examination, the Series 54 examination is designed to measure a
candidate's knowledge of the regulatory requirements under the federal
securities laws, including MSRB rules, applicable to municipal
advisors.\39\ The MSRB stated that these rules and regulations
generally apply to all municipal advisors and the range of activities
that a municipal advisor is permitted to engage in, regardless of the
niche business a municipal advisor firm may opt to engage in.\40\ The
MSRB further noted that all municipal advisors are required to adhere
to the federal securities laws, including the MSRB rules applicable to
municipal advisors, including, but not limited to, those governing the
registration requirements, recordkeeping requirements and pay-to-play
prohibitions.\41\ Accordingly, the MSRB stated that it does not believe
it is prudent to establish an exemption from the qualification
requirements for those municipal advisors that opt to limit the scope
of their municipal advisory activities.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the MSRB stated that it does not believe that the
proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition not
necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\43\ The MSRB
stated that it considered whether it is possible that the costs
associated with preparing for and taking the Series 54 examination,
relative to the baseline of no principal-level examination, may affect
the competitive landscape by leading some municipal advisors to exit
the market rather than incur the burden of meeting the qualification
requirements.\44\ The MSRB stated that it recognizes that meeting
professional qualification requirements results in municipal advisors
incurring programmatic costs, including costs to study for and take the
applicable examinations. The MSRB also stated that it believes the
benefit of having associated persons of municipal advisors who engage
in the management, direction or supervision of the municipal advisory
activities of the municipal advisor and its associated persons to
demonstrate specified level of competency necessary to supervise
municipal advisory activities, outweighs the potential burden
imposed.\45\ The MSRB stated that, as noted in the filing, to minimize
disruption to a municipal advisor's operation, the MSRB proposed a one-
year grace period from the effective date of the Series 54 examination
to afford time for associated persons of a municipal advisor who are
directly engaged in the management, direction or supervision of the
municipal advisory activities of the municipal advisor and its
associated persons to take and pass the Series 54 examination and
become appropriately qualified as municipal advisor principals.\46\ The
MSRB stated that during this one-year grace period, a person
functioning as a municipal advisor principal would be permitted to
continue to engage in the management, direction or supervision of the
municipal advisory activities of the municipal advisor and its
associated persons so long as such person is qualified with the Series
50 examination.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ See Notice of Filing and MSRB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
the comment letter received, and the MSRB Response Letter. The
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to the MSRB.
    In particular, the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections
15B(b)(2)(A), 15B(b)(2)(C), and 15B(b)(2)(L) of the Act.\48\ Section
15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act provides that the MSRB's rules shall provide
that no municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer
shall effect any transaction in, or induce or attempt to induce the
purchase or sale of, any municipal security, and no broker, dealer,
municipal securities dealer, or municipal advisor shall provide advice
to or on behalf of a municipal entity or obligated person with respect
to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal
securities, unless . . . such municipal securities broker or municipal
securities dealer and every natural person associated with such
municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer meet such
standards of training, experience, competence, and such other
qualifications as the Board finds necessary or appropriate in the
public interest or for the protection of investors and municipal
entities or obligated persons.\49\ Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act also
provides that, in connection with the definition and application of
such standards, the MSRB may appropriately classify municipal advisors
and their associated persons, specify that all or any portion of such
standards shall be applicable to any such class, and require persons in
any such class to pass an examination regarding such standards of
competence.\50\ The Commission believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act because the proposed
rule change requires individuals who supervise municipal advisory
activities to pass a professional qualification examination which is an
established means for determining the basic competency of individuals
in a particular class. The Commission believes that requiring
prospective municipal advisor principals to pass a basic qualification
examination will protect investors, municipal entities, and obligated
persons by ensuring such principals have a basic understanding of the
role of a municipal advisor principal and the rules and regulations
governing such individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A), 78o-4(b)(2)(C), 78o-4(b)(2)(L).
    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \51\ provides in part that MSRB
rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to
protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the
public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change
will bolster the protection of municipal entities and obligated persons
who employ municipal advisors to engage in municipal advisory
activities on their behalf by helping to ensure that individuals
engaged in the management, direction or supervision of the municipal
advisory activities of a municipal advisor and its associated persons
demonstrate a specified level of competence of the rules and
regulations governing such municipal advisory activities. The
Commission also believes that the proposed rule change will, through
the establishment of professional qualification standards, effectively
serve to benefit municipal advisors as such standards for municipal
advisor principals are designed to ensure that any person that
supervises, manages or directs the municipal advisory activities of a
municipal advisor and its associated persons understands the
application of the federal securities laws to a municipal advisor's
municipal advisory activities in order to safeguard the municipal
advisor from conduct that would violate the federal securities laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iii) of the Act provides that
the MSRB's rules shall provide professional standards with respect to
municipal advisors.\52\ The Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iii) of the Act because
it would establish professional standards for those individuals
supervising municipal advisory activities by requiring such individuals
to demonstrate a basic competency regarding the role of municipal
advisor principals and the rules and regulations governing the conduct
of such persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act requires that MSRB rules not
impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors that is not
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection
of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons, provided that
there is robust protection of investors against fraud.\53\ The
Commission believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the
Act. While the proposed rule change would affect all municipal
advisors, including small municipal advisors, it is a necessary and
appropriate regulatory burden in order to establish the baseline
competence of those supervising individuals engaged in municipal
advisory activities. Establishing a baseline competence standard is
necessary for the protection of investors, municipal entities, and
obligated persons. The Commission also believes such baseline
competence standard is in the public interest because it promotes
compliance with the rules and regulations governing the conduct of
municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.\54\ Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act
\55\ requires that MSRB rules not be designed to impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. The Commission does not believe that the proposed rule
change would impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act since it would
apply equally to all municipal advisor principals who supervise
municipal advisory activities. Furthermore, the Commission believes
that the potential burdens created by the proposed rule change are to
be likely outweighed by the benefits of establishing baseline
professional qualification standards and promoting compliance with the
rules and regulations governing the conduct of municipal advisors. The
Commission has reviewed the record for the proposed rule change and
notes that the record does not contain any information to indicate that
the proposed rule change would have a negative effect on capital
formation. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change
includes accommodations that help promote efficiency. Specifically, the
MSRB has provided a one-year grace period for passing the examination.
As noted by the MSRB, the grace period provides municipal advisor
principals with sufficient time to study and take the examination
without causing an undue disruption to the business of the municipal
advisor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission received one comment letter on the
proposed rule change. The Commission believes that the MSRB considered
carefully and responded adequately to the comments and concerns
regarding the proposed rule change. For the reasons noted above, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\56\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2018-07) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \57\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\57\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25732 Filed 11-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23592-23594]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0215]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Right-A-Way LLC.; Application for
Exemptions

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received an application from
Right-A-Way, LLC (Right-A-Way) requesting an exemption from the
requirement that its short-haul drivers use electronic logging devices
(ELDs) when they are required to prepare records of duty status (RODS)
more than eight days in a 30 consecutive day period. FMCSA requests
public comment on Right-A-Way's application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2019-0215 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket Operations, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Docket Operations.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Docket
Operations, Room W12-140, on the ground level of the West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone
is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting Docket Operations.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2019-0215), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2019-0215'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) to grant exemptions
from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

    Currently, 49 CFR 395.1(e) provides exceptions from the requirement
to prepare records of duty status (RODS) for drivers operating in
short-haul operations, provided certain conditions are satisfied.
Section 395.8(a)(1)(iii)(A)(1) allows motor carriers to require drivers
to record drivers' duty status mannually rather than use an ELD, if the
drivers are operating commercial motor vehicles ``in a manner requiring
completion of a record of duty status on not more than 8 days within
any 30-day period.'' Taken together, drivers operating in short-haul
operations are not required to prepare RODS, except for the days when
they do not satisfy all the criteria provided in 49 CFR 395.1(e). They
may prepare paper RODS for those occasions as long as RODS are not used
more than eight days in a 30-day period. For operations where the
short-haul drivers fail to satisfy the applicable criteria more than
eight days in a 30-day period, the carrier and its drivers would be
required to use ELDs.
    Right-A-Way is requesting an exemption from the requirement to use
ELDs when its drivers do not satisfy all the criteria for the short-
haul exception to the RODS requirement, more than eight days in a 30-
day period. The exemption would enable the company's short-haul drivers
to use paper RODS rather than ELDs for more than eight days in a 30
consecutive day period. A copy of the exemption application is included
in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), FMCSA requests public
comment from all interested persons on Right-A-Way's application for an
exemption. All comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be
considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the
location listed under the ``Addresses'' section of this notice.
Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the
public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In
addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the
public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the
comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the
public docket for new material.

Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-09013 Filed 4-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22699-22702]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09935]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80666; File No. SR-LCH SA-2017-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Proposed Rule
Change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Add Rules Related to
the Clearing of CDX.NA.HY CDS

May 11, 2017
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 28, 2017, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts
business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by LCH SA. On May 5, 2017, LCH SA filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposal.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ LCH SA filed Amendment No. 1 to replace the initial filing
in its entirety for the purpose of clarifying various changes to its
CDS Margin Framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    LCH SA is proposing to amend its (i) CDS Margin Framework and (ii)
CDSClear Default Fund Methodology to incorporate terms and make
conforming changes to provide for credit default swaps (``CDS'') on the
CDX.NA.HY index to be cleared by LCH SA.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

A. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify LCH SA's CDS
Margin Framework and CDSClear Default Fund Methodology to allow LCH SA
to clear additional CDS contracts on the CDX.NA.HY index consisting of
North America high-yield reference entities. Specifically, LCH SA
proposes to amend Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 of its CDS Margin
Framework and Section 2 and 3 of the CDSClear Default Fund Methodology.
Each of these changes is described in further detail below.
    With respect to the CDS Margin Framework, the heading in Section 3
and the fourth column in the table in Section 3.1.1 will be amended to
clarify that the summary of the margin framework also applies to CDX HY
contracts.
    Section 4.1 of the CDS Margin Framework, setting forth the short
charge component of LCH SA's margin methodology, will be amended to
describe the purpose of the short charge component within LCH SA's
margin methodology and to adjust the calculation to account for
CDX.NA.HY index contracts. The purpose of the short charge component is
to address the probability of a credit event occurring during the
period from the default of a Clearing Member to liquidation of the
defaulting Clearing Member's portfolio, i.e., the so-called ``jump to
default'' risk. Under the proposed rule change, the short charge
component of the margin methodology will take into account the risk of
clearing CDS contracts on high yield indices. Currently, with respect
to a Clearing Member's portfolio, the short charge in the margin
methodology considers the greater of (x) a ``Global Short Charge,''
derived from the Clearing Member's largest, or ``top,'' net short
exposure (in respect of any CDS contracts) and its top net short
exposure amongst the three ``riskiest'' reference entities (in respect
of any entity type) that are most probable to default in its portfolio
and (y) the top two net short exposures in respect of CDS contracts on
senior financial entities. Because high yield entities are riskier than
senior financial entities by nature and historically defaults of high
yield entities appeared more clustered than investment grade or
European entities, LCH SA proposes to introduce a ``High Yield Short
Charge'' to replace the top two net short exposures in respect of CDS
on senior financial entities in the short charge calculation. Based
upon historical data and the maximum number of defaults that have been
observed in respect of reference entities in all CDSClear eligible
contracts within a 5 business day period, LCH SA believes that the
``High Yield Short Charge'' should consider not only a Clearing
member's top net short exposure in respect of the high yield CDS
contracts in its portfolio but also the top two net short exposures
among the three ``riskiest'' high yield reference entities to reflect
the possibility of defaults of multiple, or clustered, high yield
entities. As a result, the new short charge under the proposed rule
change will be the greater of (x) the ``Global Short Charge,'' as
described above and (y) a ``High Yield Short Charge,'' derived from a
member's top net short exposure (in respect of high yield CDS) and its
top two net short exposures amongst the three ``riskiest'' reference
entities (in the high yield category) in its portfolio.
    Conforming changes will be made throughout Section 4.1.1, which
describes the ``net short exposure'' calculation, to accommodate
CDX.NA.HY contracts and to clarify that to obtain margin in Euros all
USD denominated variables are converted to Euros utilizing the current
USD/Euro foreign exchange rate and calibrated haircut based upon
historical data. Similarly, conforming changes will be made in Section
4.1.2 of the CDS Margin Framework, which describes the ``top exposure''
component of the short charge and Section 4.1.3 of the CDS Margin
Framework, which describes the process by which LCH SA identifies the
``riskiest'' entities in determining the short charge, to incorporate
terms for CDX.NA.HY index contracts and to clarify the calculation as
it applies to high yield indices. Clarification changes will be made in
Section 4.1.4 of the CDS Margin Framework to summarize the calculation
for the short charge amount.
    Section 4.3 of the CDS Margin Framework will be deleted in its
entirety because the substance of that section will be contained in
Section 4.1, as described above.
    In addition, LCH SA also proposes to amend Section 5.1 of the CDS
Margin Framework, which sets forth the wrong way risk (``WWR'')
component of LCH SA's methodology. Currently, LCH SA considers the
correlation between the default of a Clearing Member and the default(s)
of one or more other financial institutions as part of its WWR
management. Specifically, the current approach leverages on the Short
Charge framework by calculating the top two net short exposures of
financial entities in a Clearing Member's portfolio following the
algorithm described above for the Short Charge margin. LCH SA then
compares these top two net short exposures of financial entities to the
short charge margin and imposes the greater of those two as the
adjusted jump-to-default charge, to address the WWR arising from the
correlation between a Clearing Member default and the default(s) of one
or more financial entities in the Clearing Member's portfolio. The
proposed rule change does not substantively change this approach but
amends Section 5.1 of the CDS Margin Framework to clarify that, when
the top two net short exposures in respect of financial entities
exceeds the short charge margin, as described above, LCH SA will impose
a charge equal to such excess to address the jump-to-default WWR.
    Other conforming changes in the CDS Margin Framework will be made
in Sections 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 to clarify that the those sections also
apply to high yield indices.
    With respect to the CDSClear Default Fund Methodology, Section 2.3
will be amended to facilitate clearing of CDS contracts on the CDX High
Yield index and to modify the existing stressed short charge component
of the CDSClear Default Fund Methodology. Currently, the stressed short
charge covers the greater of (x) the top net short exposure plus the
top two net short exposures amongst the three entities most likely to
default in the Clearing Member's portfolio and (y) the top two net
short exposures which are senior financial entities plus the top net
short exposures amongst the three senior financial entities most likely
to default in the Clearing Member's portfolio. The proposed rule change
will take the default of high yield entities into account and add a
third prong to the stressed short charge calculation, which will take
the greater of (x) and (y), each as described above, and (z) the top
two net short exposure which are high yield entities plus the top two
net short exposures amongst the three high yield entities most likely
to default in the Clearing Member's portfolio.
    Finally, Section 3.8 of the CDSClear Default Fund Methodology,
which describes the correlation between index families and series, will
be updated to reflect additional data.
2. Statutory Basis
    LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change and the clearing of
CDX.NA.HY contracts is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A
of the

Act \4\ and the regulations thereunder, including the standards under
Rule 17Ad-22.\5\ Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among
other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions and
to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible. As noted above, the proposed rule change is designed to
provide for the clearing of CDX.NA.HY contracts. CDX.NA.HY contracts
are similar to the contracts currently cleared by LCH SA and will be
cleared in the same manner as other index contracts, consistent with
LCH SA's existing operational arrangements. Clearing of the additional
contracts will allow market participants to manage additional risk and
ensure the safeguarding of margin and assets pursuant to LCH SA's
rules. Therefore, LCH SA believes that the clearing of CDX.NA.HY and
the related changes described herein are consistent with the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
derivative agreements, contracts and transactions, in accordance with
17(A)(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed amendments to LCH SA's CDS Margin
Framework and CDSClear Default Fund Methodology also satisfy the
relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22, including Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2),
(b)(3), (e)(4) and (e)(6).\8\ Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) requires a clearing
agency to use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to
participants under normal market conditions and use risk-based models
and parameters to set margin requirements.\9\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i)
requires a covered clearing agency to maintain sufficient financial
resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a
high degree of confidence,\10\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) requires a
covered clearing agency that provides central counterparty services to
cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-
based margin system that, at a minimum, considers and produces margin
levels commensurate with the risks and particular attributes of each
relevant product, portfolio, and market.\11\ The proposed rule change
to LCH SA's CDS Margin Framework will take into account the risk
particular to clearing CDS on high yield entities as part of LCH SA's
jump-to-default risk management and wrong way risk management and
produce margin levels commensurate with the risks and attributes of CDS
on high yield entities and maintain margin sufficient to cover its
credit exposure to its participants fully in normal market conditions,
consistent with requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2), (e)(4)(i) and
(e)(6)(i).\12\ Moreover, Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) requires a clearing agency
acting as a central counterparty for security-based swaps to establish
policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain sufficient
financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the two
participant families to which it has the largest exposures in extreme
but plausible market conditions (the ``cover two standard'').\13\
Similarly, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii) requires a covered clearing agency
that provides central counterparty services for security-based swaps to
maintain financial resources additional to margin to enable it to cover
a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that include, but are not
limited to, meeting the cover two standard.\14\ LCH SA believes that
its CDSClear Default Fund Methodology, with the modifications described
herein, will provide a stress short charge appropriately incorporating
the risk of clearing CDS on high yield entities, which, together with
its margin methodology, will ensure that LCH SA maintains sufficient
financial resources to meet the cover two standard, in accordance with
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) and (e)(4)(ii).\15\ LCH SA also believes that the
clearing of CDX.NA.HY contracts is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4)
and (e)(17),\16\ in that clearing the additional contracts will be
substantially the same from an operational perspective as clearing
existing contracts and LCH SA believes that its existing systems are
adequately scalable to facilitate the clearing of additional contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(22).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2), (e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(i).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3) and (e)(4)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4) and (e)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\17\ LCH SA does
not believe that its clearing of CDX.NA.HY contracts will adversely
affect the trading market for those contracts or CDS generally. By
allowing LCH SA to clear CDX.NA.HY contracts, market participants will
have additional choices on where to clear CDX.NA.HY contracts, which,
in turn, will promote competition and further the development of
CDX.NA.HY contracts for risk management. Further, LCH SA will apply its
existing fair and open access criteria to the clearing of CDX.NA.HY
contracts. Accordingly LCH SA does not believe that the proposed rule
change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by LCH SA.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-005. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of LCH SA and on LCH
SA's Web site at http://www.lch.com/asset-classes/cdsclear.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-
005 and should be submitted on or before June 7, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09935 Filed 5-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20059-20062]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07003]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1405; Project Identifier AD-2022-01070-E;
Amendment 39-22374; AD 2023-05-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM International, S.A. Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-10-09
for certain CFM International, S.A. (CFM) CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B model
turbofan engines with a certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) inner
stationary seal installed. AD 2021-10-09 required removal, inspection,
and replacement of the affected HPT inner stationary seal and,
depending on the findings, replacement of the rotating air HPT front
seal, HPT rotor blades, and No. 3 ball bearing. This AD was prompted by
cracks found in the rotating air HPT front seal. After the FAA issued
AD 2021-10-09, the manufacturer notified the FAA that the service
information incorrectly lists the year of certain honeycomb repairs and
that affected HPT inner stationary seals could potentially be installed
on CFM CFM56-5C model turbofan engines. This AD requires removal,
inspection, and replacement of the affected HPT inner stationary seal
and, depending on the findings, replacement of the rotating air HPT
front seal, HPT rotor blades, and No. 3 ball bearing. This AD also
revises the applicability to add CFM CFM56-5C model turbofan engines.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 10, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1405; 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 final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For CFM service information identified in this final rule,
contact CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann
Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2022-1405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Clark, Aviation Safety Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
(781) 238-7088; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-10-09, Amendment 39-21542 (86 FR
27264, May 20, 2021) (AD 2021-10-09). AD 2021-10-09 applied to certain
CFM CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B model turbofan engines with an HPT inner
stationary seal, part number 1808M56G01, installed. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on December 1, 2022 (87 FR 73683). The NPRM was
prompted by cracks found in the rotating air HPT front seal. After the
FAA issued AD 2021-10-09, the manufacturer notified the FAA that the
service information referenced in AD 2021-10-09 incorrectly listed the
year of certain honeycomb repairs. Additionally, the manufacturer
notified the FAA that affected HPT inner stationary seals could
potentially be installed on CFM CFM56-5C model turbofan engines. In the
NPRM, the FAA proposed to require removal, inspection, and replacement
of the affected HPT inner stationary seal and, depending on the
findings, replacement of the rotating air HPT front seal, HPT rotor
blades, and No. 3 ball bearing. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to
revise the applicability to add CFM CFM56-5C model turbofan engines.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from three commenters. The commenters
were Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), American
Airlines (AA), and The Boeing Company (Boeing). The following presents
the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each
comment.

Support for the AD

    ALPA and Boeing supported the NPRM without change.

Request To Specify Service Bulletins and Revision Numbers

    AA requested that the FAA specify service bulletins and their
respective revision numbers throughout this AD. AA stated that
paragraph (c), Applicability, references the service bulletins as
follows, CFM Service Bulletin (SB) CFM56-5B S/B 72-0952, Revision 02,
dated August 10, 2022 (CFM SB CFM56-5B S/B 72-0952); CFM SB CFM56-5C S/
B 72-0796, Revision 02, dated August 10, 2022 (CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-
0796); CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1054, Revision 02, dated August 10, 2022
(CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1054). AA noted that the SB format within the
parentheses abridges the complete description of the service bulletins
and is used in proposed paragraphs (g)(2), (h)(2)(i), and (2)(ii). AA
reasoned that this SB format could be interpreted as the original
(basic) service bulletin, which provides outdated accomplishment
instructions and could contribute to errors during the accomplishment
of this AD.
    The FAA established a shorthand notation in paragraph (c),
Applicability,

of the NPRM for each service bulletin, which contained the full
citation, including the manufacturer name, SB number, revision number,
and date, followed by the shorthand notation. The FAA then used the
established shorthand notation to reference the service bulletins in
paragraphs (g)(2), (h)(2)(i), and (2)(ii), as applicable, of the NPRM.
Avoiding the use of the shorthand notation and including the revision
numbers and dates for each SB reference is unnecessary, as the
referenced service information is defined in both the preamble and the
AD body. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Request To Revise Paragraph (c) of This AD

    AA requested that the FAA revise paragraph (c), Applicability, of
this AD to include the following, ``This AD does not apply to affected
CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B model turbofan engines with the affected HPT
inner stationary seal installed if the seal has been repaired as
specified in CFM56 Engine Shop Manual (ESM), 72-41-03, REPAIR 003 after
December 31, 2012 and prior to the effective date, June 24, 2021, of
FAA AD 2021-10-09.'' AA reasoned that this language was part of AD
2021-10-09, paragraph (c), Applicability. The exclusion of this text
from the final rule would make the population of HPT inner stationary
seals, within the previously identified time frame, applicable to the
proposed AD.
    In response to this comment, the FAA has revised paragraph (c),
Applicability, of this AD to include: ``This AD does not apply to
affected CFM CFM56-5B, CFM56-5C, and CFM56-7B model turbofan engines
with the affected HPT inner stationary seal installed if the seal has
been repaired as specified in CFM56-5B ESM, 72-41-03, REPAIR 003;
CFM56-5C ESM, 72-41-03, REPAIR 003; or CFM56-7B ESM, 72-41-03, REPAIR
003, after December 31, 2012.''

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and
any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on
any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed the following service information:
     CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0796, Revision 02, dated August 10,
2022.
     CFM SB CFM56-5B S/B 72-0952, Revision 02, dated August 10,
2022.
     CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1054, Revision 02, dated August 10,
2022.
    This service information, differentiated by engine model, specifies
procedures for inspecting the HPT inner stationary seal honeycomb. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 210 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. Operators have the option to replace or
repair the affected HPT inner stationary seal. The parts cost includes
the estimated costs for replacement with a repaired HPT inner
stationary seal.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace HPT inner stationary seal.....  1 work-hour x $85 per             $7,910          $7,995      $1,678,950
                                         hour = $85.
Inspect HPT inner stationary seal.....  1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85          17,850
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of engines
that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace rotating air HPT front seal........  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85...        $344,600        $344,685
Replace HPT rotor blades (pair)............  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85...          31,000          31,085
Replace No. 3 ball bearing.................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85...          30,000          30,085
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 has determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (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 Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2021-10-09, Amendment 39-21542 (86
FR 27264, May 20, 2021); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2023-05-05 CFM International, S.A.: Amendment 39-22374; Docket No.
FAA-2022-1405; Project Identifier AD-2022-01070-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 10, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2021-10-09, Amendment 39-21542 (86 FR 27264,
May 20, 2021) (AD 2021-10-09).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to CFM International, S.A. (CFM) model turbofan
engines identified in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD with an
installed high-pressure turbine (HPT) inner stationary seal, part
number (P/N) 1808M56G01, that has a serial number (S/N) listed in
Table 1 of CFM Service Bulletin (SB) CFM56-5B S/B 72-0952, Revision
02, dated August 10, 2022 (CFM SB CFM56-5B S/B 72-0952); Table 1 of
CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0796, Revision 02, dated August 10, 2022 (CFM
SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0796); or Table 1 of CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1054,
Revision 02, dated August 10, 2022 (CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1054).
This AD does not apply to affected CFM CFM56-5B, CFM56-5C, and
CFM56-7B model turbofan engines with the affected HPT inner
stationary seal installed if the seal has been repaired as specified
in CFM56-5B Engine Shop Manual (ESM), 72-41-03, REPAIR 003; CFM56-5C
ESM, 72-41-03, REPAIR 003; or CFM56-7B ESM, 72-41-03, REPAIR 003,
after December 31, 2012.

          Table 1 to Paragraph (c)--CFM Model Turbofan Engines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Make                                Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFM..........................  CFM56-5B1, CFM56-5B1/2P, CFM56-5B1/3,
                                CFM56-5B1/P, CFM56-5B2, CFM56-5B2/2P,
                                CFM56-5B2/3, CFM56-5B2/P, CFM56-5B3/2P,
                                CFM56-5B3/2P1, CFM56-5B3/3, CFM56-5B3/
                                3B1, CFM56-5B3/P, CFM56-5B3/P1, CFM56-
                                5B4, CFM56-5B4/2P, CFM56-5B4/2P1, CFM56-
                                5B4/3, CFM56-5B4/3B1, CFM56-5B4/P, CFM56-
                                5B4/P1, CFM56-5B5, CFM56-5B5/3, CFM56-
                                5B5/P, CFM56-5B6, CFM56-5B6/2P, CFM56-
                                5B6/3, CFM56-5B6/P, CFM56-5B7, CFM56-5B7/
                                3, CFM56-5B7/P, CFM56-5B8/3, CFM56-5B8/
                                P, CFM56-5B9/2P, CFM56-5B9/3, CFM56-5B9/
                                P.
CFM..........................  CFM56-5C2, CFM56-5C2/4, CFM56-5C2/F,
                                CFM56-5C2/F4, CFM56-5C2/G, CFM56-5C2/G4,
                                CFM56-5C2/P, CFM56-5C3/F, CFM56-5C3/F4,
                                CFM56-5C3/G, CFM56-5C3/G4, CFM56-5C3/P,
                                CFM56-5C4, CFM56-5C4/1, CFM56-5C4/1P,
                                CFM56-5C4/P.
CFM..........................  CFM56-7B20, CFM56-7B20/2, CFM56-7B20/3,
                                CFM56-7B20E, CFM56-7B22, CFM56-7B22/2,
                                CFM56-7B22/3, CFM56-7B22/3B1, CFM56-7B22/
                                B1, CFM56-7B22E, CFM56-7B22E/B1, CFM56-
                                7B24, CFM56-7B24/2, CFM56-7B24/3, CFM56-
                                7B24/3B1, CFM56-7B24/B1, CFM56-7B24E,
                                CFM56-7B24E/B1, CFM56-7B26, CFM56-7B26/
                                2, CFM56-7B26/3, CFM56-7B26/3B1, CFM56-
                                7B26/3B2, CFM56-7B26/3B2F, CFM56-7B26/
                                3F, CFM56-7B26/B1, CFM56-7B26/B2, CFM56-
                                7B26E, CFM56-7B26E/B1, CFM56-7B26E/B2,
                                CFM56-7B26E/B2F, CFM56-7B26E/F, CFM56-
                                7B27, CFM56-7B27/2, CFM56-7B27/3, CFM56-
                                7B27/3B1, CFM56-7B27/3B1F, CFM56-7B27/
                                3B3, CFM56-7B27/3F, CFM56-7B27/B1, CFM56-
                                B27/B3, CFM56-7B27A, CFM56-7B27A/3,
                                CFM56-7B27AE, CFM56-7B27E, CFM56-7B27E/
                                B1, CFM56-7B27E/B1F, CFM56-7B27E/B3,
                                CFM56-7B27E/F.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by cracks found in the rotating air HPT
front seal. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT
inner stationary seal and the rotating air HPT front seal. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained
release of the rotating air HPT front seal, damage to the engine,
and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    (1) At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of
this AD, remove the affected HPT inner stationary seal and replace
with an HPT inner stationary seal that is eligible for installation.
    (2) After removing the affected HPT inner stationary seal
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, inspect the removed HPT
inner stationary seal for honeycomb separation in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(1), of CFM SB CFM56-
5B S/B 72-0952; CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0796; or CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B
72-1054, as applicable by engine model.
    (3) If honeycomb separation is found during the inspection
required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, before further flight:
    (i) Remove the rotating air HPT front seal from service and
replace with a rotating air HPT front seal that is eligible for
installation.
    (ii) Remove the HPT rotor blades and replace with HPT rotor
blades eligible for installation.
    (iii) Remove the No. 3 ball bearing from service and replace
with a No. 3 ball bearing eligible for installation.

(h) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges, except for
the following situations, which do not constitute an engine shop
visit.
    (i) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of
transportation of the engine without subsequent maintenance.
    (ii) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of
replacing the fan or propulsor without subsequent maintenance.

    (2) For the purpose of this AD, an ``HPT inner stationary seal
that is eligible for installation'' is an HPT inner stationary seal:
    (i) That is not listed in Table 1 of CFM SB CFM56-5B S/B 72-
0952; Table 1 of CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0796; or Table 1 CFM SB
CFM56-7B S/B 72-1054; or
    (ii) With a P/N 1808M56G01 and an S/N listed in Table 1 of CFM
SB CFM56-5B S/B 72-0952; Table 1 of CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0796; or
Table 1 of CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1054, that has been repaired as
specified in CFM56-5B ESM, 72-41-03, REPAIR 003; CFM56-5C ESM, 72-
41-03, REPAIR 003; or CFM56-7B ESM, 72-41-03, REPAIR 003, as
applicable by engine model, after December 31, 2012.
    (3) For the purpose of this AD, a ``rotating air HPT front seal
that is eligible for installation'' is any rotating air HPT front
seal that was not removed from service as a result of the inspection
of the HPT inner stationary seal required by paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD in which there was a finding of honeycomb separation.
    (4) For the purpose of this AD, ``HPT rotor blades eligible for
installation'' are new HPT rotor blades with zero flight hours since
new or HPT rotor blades that have been inspected and returned to a
serviceable condition using FAA-approved maintenance procedures.
    (5) For the purpose of this AD, a ``No. 3 ball bearing eligible
for installation'' is any No. 3 ball bearing that was not removed
from service as a result of the inspection of the HPT inner
stationary seal required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD in which
there was a finding of honeycomb separation.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (3) of this AD, if you performed those actions before
the effective date of this AD using CFM SB CFM56-5B S/B 72-0952,
Revision 01, dated January 15, 2020, CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1054,
Revision 01, dated January 15, 2020, or CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0796
Revision 01, dated January 15, 2020.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (2) 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.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 2021-10-09 (86 FR 27264, May 20, 2021)
are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Clark,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) CFM Service Bulletin CFM56-5C S/B 72-0796, Revision 02,
dated August 10, 2022.
    (ii) CFM Service Bulletin CFM56-5B S/B 72-0952, Revision 02,
dated August 10, 2022.
    (iii) CFM Service Bulletin CFM56-7B S/B 72-1054, Revision 02,
dated August 10, 2022.
    (3) For CFM service information identified in this AD, contact
CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way,
M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 5, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-07003 Filed 4-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 64829]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2206-082]

Duke Energy Progress, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Non-capacity amendment of license.
    b. Project No.: 2206-082.
    c. Date Filed: November 20, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Yadkin Pee-Dee Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Yadkin and Pee-Dee
rivers in Anson, Montgomery, Richmond, and Stanly counties, North
Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-
825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeffery G. Lineberger, P.E., Director,
Water Strategy and Hydro Licensing, 526 South Church Street, Mail
Code EC12Y, Charlotte, NC,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Steven Sachs,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the
Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2206-082.
    k. Description of Request: In conjunction with necessary
spillway stabilization work, the applicant intends to replace the
existing wooden flashboards at the Blewett Falls development with a
pneumatic crest gate system. The proposed crest gate would consist
of 9 sections of various height, but would have the same maximum
elevation as the existing flashboards. The applicant also proposes
to construct a 21-foot-wide, 24-foot-long concrete control building
near the spillway as part of the crest gate system. The applicant
intends to install the system beginning in November 2020, and
complete construction in November 2021. Additionally, the applicant
proposes changes to the conceptual designs for fish passage
structure referenced in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's fishway
prescriptions, which would provide downstream American Shad and
upstream American eel passage at the Blewett Falls dam. The
applicant now proposes to operate three sections of the pneumatic
crest gate system for downstream shad passage, and to use the
existing pool and weir fish ladder for upstream eel passage.
    l. Locations of the Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. The filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's
mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the
Commission.
    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may
submit comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take,
the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed,
but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must
(1) bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'', or ``PROTEST'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the
heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or
intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18
CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene,
or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works
which are the subject of the temporary variance request. Agencies
may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A
copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each
representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also
serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all
other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list
prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18
CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: December 11, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27293 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

Date: November 24, 2009

SUBJECT:	Updated Review of Chlorpyrifos Methyl Incident Reports

PC Code:  059102	DP Barcode:   D370451

Decision No.: N/A	Registration No.: N/A

Petition No.: N/A	Regulatory Action: N/A

Risk Assessment Type: N/A	Case No.: N/A

TXR No.: N/A	CAS No.: 5598-13-0

MRID No.: N/A	40 CFR: N/A

		              									Ver.Apr.08

FROM:	Monica Hawkins, Ph.D., M.P.H., Environmental Health Scientist

		Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch

		Health Effect Division (7509P)  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

THROUGH:	Mary Manibusan, Branch Chief

		Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

Sarah Winfield, Chair

		HED Incident Team

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO: 	            Danette Drew, Risk Assessor

		Risk Assessment Branch V

		Health Effects Division (7509P)			  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1

BACKGROUND

The EPA is supplying the following incident report to fulfill our
requirement to docket summaries of incident data that were reported to
the Agency, as well as to ensure human incident data are part of the
problem formulation phase of registration review.  Reports of adverse
health effects allegedly due to a specific pesticide exposure (an
“incident”) are largely self-reported and therefore, generally
speaking, neither exposure to a pesticide or reported symptom (or the
connection between the two) is validated.  Typically, causation cannot
be determined based on incident data. However, incident information can
be an important feedback loop to the Agency – incidents of severe
outcome, or a suggested pattern or trend among less severe incidents can
signal the Agency to further investigate a particular chemical or
product.

The OPP Incident Data System (IDS) was consulted for poisoning incident
data on the active ingredient chlorpyrifos methyl. The purpose of the
database search is to screen for potential patterns on the extent and
severity of the health effects attributed to chlorpyrifos methyl
exposure.  The IDS includes reports of alleged human health incidents
from various sources, including mandatory Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 6 (a) (2) reports from registrants,
other federal and state health and environmental agencies and individual
consumers. Since 1992, OPP compiles these reports in IDS.  Reports
submitted to the IDS represent anecdotal reports or allegations only,
unless otherwise stated in this report.

The evaluation of incident data for chlorpyrifos methyl has reported 0
incidents occurring in the United States from 2002 to the present for
the single chemical only.  Because there are no incident cases
identified, there does not appear to be a risk concern at this time that
would warrant further investigation.  The Agency will continue to
monitor the incident information and if a concern is triggered,
additional analysis will be included in the risk assessment.

Cc:  Veronique LaCapra, CRM, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  2