[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47694-47696]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17039]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5431; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-044-AD;
Amendment 39-18593; AD 2016-15-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLC Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all M7
Aerospace LLC Models SA26-AT, SA26-T, SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B),
SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC,
SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes. This AD was prompted by
reports of multiple cracks in the steel horizontal tube of the cockpit
control column. This AD requires inspection of the cockpit control
column horizontal tube for cracks and repair or replacement of the
cockpit control column as necessary. We are issuing this AD to correct
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 26, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 26,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact M7 Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas
78216; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-
329-4148. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5431.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5431; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650,
San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all M7 Aerospace LLC Models
SA26-AT, SA26-T, SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-
26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and
SA227-TT airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April
1, 2016 (81 FR 18804). The NPRM was prompted by reports of multiple
cracks in the cockpit control column horizontal tube at the corners of
the access panel cutout, at the pulley bolt welds, and at the elevator
arm weld in the steel horizontal tube of the control column on M7
Aerospace SA26, SA226, and SA227 airplanes. The NPRM proposed to
require inspection of the cockpit control column horizontal tube for
cracks and repair or replacement of the cockpit control column as
necessary. This condition, if not corrected, could result in partial or
complete control column failure with partial or complete loss of pitch
and/or roll control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (81 FR
18804, April 1, 2016) and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request for Previously Done Credit

    Michael O'Brien at Bearskin Airlines commented they had been
complying with this AD by accomplishing the service bulletins that are
listed in the proposed AD. He asked if it would be acceptable to just
accomplish a technical records research to see when the required
actions were last done.
    We agree that credit should be given for actions previously done
with the service bulletins called out in the NPRM. The NPRM already
allows for this with the phrase ``unless already done'' in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of the NPRM.
    Because the requested change is already part of this AD, we have
not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:

     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (81 FR 18804, April 1, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 18804, April 1, 2016).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed M7 Aerospace LLC SA26 Series Service Bulletin (SB) 26-
27-002, M7 Aerospace LLC SA226 Series SB 226-27-078, M7 Aerospace LLC
SA227 Series SB 227-27-058, and M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series SB CC7-
27-030, all dated October 8, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for inspection of the cockpit control column horizontal tube
for cracks and repair or replacement of the cockpit control column as
necessary. All of the related service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 350 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
            Action                     Labor cost              Parts cost           product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...................  12 work-hours x $85 per    Not applicable......          $1,020         $357,000
                                hour = $1,020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs/
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that
might need these repairs/replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                Action                            Labor cost                    Parts cost            product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair cracks........................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour =     Not applicable.........            $170
                                        $170.
Replace parts........................  16 work-hours x $85 per hour =    $5,000.................           6,360
                                        $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-15-02 M7 Aerospace LLC: Amendment 39-18593; Docket No. FAA-
2016-5431; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-044-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 26, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA26-AT, SA26-T,
SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT,
SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 2700, Flight Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of multiple cracks in the steel
horizontal tube of the cockpit control column. We are requiring
repetitive inspections of the cockpit control column horizontal tube
with repair or replacement, as necessary, of the cockpit control
column. We are issuing this AD to

correct the unsafe condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with paragraphs (g)(1) through (2) of this AD using the
following service bulletins within the compliance times specified
below, unless already done:
    (1) For Models SA26-T and SA26-AT: M7 Aerospace LLC Service
Bulletin (SB) 26-27-002, dated October 8, 2015;
    (2) For Models SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), and SA226-TC: M7
Aerospace LLC SB 226-27-078, dated October 8, 2015;
    (3) For Models SA227-AC(C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC(C-26A), and
SA227-TT: M7 Aerospace LLC SB 227-27-058, dated October 8, 2015; or
    (4) For Models SA227-CC and SA227-DC (C-26B): M7 Aerospace LLC
SB CC7-27-030, dated October 8, 2015.

(g) Actions

    (1) For all airplanes: Within the next 2,000 hours time-in-
service (TIS) after [insert date 35 days after date of publication
in the Federal Register] (the effective date of this AD) or no later
than when the airplane accumulates 20,000 hours TIS, whichever
occurs later, do an initial inspection of the cockpit control column
horizontal tube for cracks following the Accomplishment Instructions
in section 2. of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs
(f)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this AD, as applicable; and repetitively
inspect as follows:
    (i) For airplanes with less than 35,000 hours TIS as of [insert
date 35 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] (the
effective date of this AD): Repetitively inspect the cockpit control
column horizontal tube for cracks every 5,000 hours TIS until the
airplane reaches 35,000 hours TIS at which time do the inspection
within 2,000 hours TIS from the last inspection or within the next
100 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, and then thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 2,000 hours TIS.
    (ii) For airplanes with 35,000 hours TIS or more as of [insert
date 35 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] (the
effective date of this AD): Repetitively inspect the cockpit control
column horizontal tube for cracks every 2,000 hours TIS.
    (2) For all airplanes: If any cracks are found following the
inspections required in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(1)(i), or (ii), as
applicable, before further flight, repair the control column
following the Accomplishment Instructions in section 2. of the
service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1), (2), (3), or (4),
as applicable, of this AD.
    Note to paragraph (g)(1) through (2) of this AD: The reporting
of information requested in paragraph 2.H. of the Accomplishment
Instructions in the service bulletins identified in paragraphs
(f)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of this AD is not a required action of
this AD.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (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.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Andrew McAnaul,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100
Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210)
308-3365; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) M7 Aerospace LLC Service Bulletin (SB) 26-27-002, dated
October 8, 2015;
    (ii) M7 Aerospace LLC SB 226-27-078, dated October 8, 2015;
    (iii) M7 Aerospace LLC SB 227-27-058, dated October 8, 2015; or
    (iv) M7 Aerospace LLC SB CC7-27-030, dated October 8, 2015.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact M7
Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 13, 2016.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-17039 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 85)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23589-23592]
[DOCID:fr04my10-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0290]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Blasting Operations and Movement of Explosives, St.
Marys River, Sault Sainte Marie, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing four temporary safety zones in
the vicinity of the downstream approach to the Sault Sainte Marie,
Michigan locks. All vessels are prohibited from transiting the zones to
ensure the safety of the maritime community during blasting and
dredging operations.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective in the CFR from May 4,
2010 until 10 p.m. August 31, 2010. This rule is effective with actual
notice for purposes of enforcement beginning 5 a.m. April 23, 2010
through 10 p.m. August 31, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0290 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0290 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail BMC Gregory Ford, Facility Inspection
Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Sault Sainte Marie; telephone 906-
635-3222, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the publishing of an NPRM would be
contrary to public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure
the public's safety during blasting and dredging operations. Delaying
the implementation of the safety zone would subject the public to the
hazards associated with blasting and dredging operations and the
movement of explosives for those operations. The danger posed by the
volume of marine traffic on the Saint Marys River makes safety zone
regulations necessary. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the
public interest to have these regulations in effect immediately and
without waiting for a comment period to run. The Coast Guard will issue
broadcast notice to mariners to advise vessel operators of navigational
restrictions. The regular presence of Coast Guard and

local law enforcement vessels will also provide actual notice to
mariners.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because to do otherwise, would be
contrary to the interest of the public by jeopardizing public safety
during blasting and dredging operations. Immediate action is necessary
to prevent possible loss of life and property.

Basis and Purpose

    As part of the Sault Sainte Marie replacement lock downstream
approach channel deepening project, the Army Corps of Engineers must
blast and dredge portions of the Saint Marys River downstream of the
Sabin and Davis Locks. Due to the inherent dangers associated with
blasting and dredging operations, a temporary safety zone is necessary
to help ensure the safety of the maritime public operating near the
work site. The worst case potential explosive arc for the work site of
this project has been calculated to be approximately 975 feet. The
blasting and dredging operations also require the movement of
explosives via barge from Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan to the work
site. Due to the inherent dangers associated with the movement of
explosives, a safety zone is necessary to help ensure the safety of the
maritime public operating near the barge when explosives are being
loaded and while the barge is in transit with explosives onboard. The
worst case potential explosive arc for safety zone has been calculated
to be approximately 500 feet. The project is also required to comply
with applicable state laws and local ordinances.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing four temporary safety zones. The
first temporary safety zone is a fixed zone on the western portion of
the area where the blasting and dredging operations will be taking
place. This temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters
downstream of the Sabin and Davis Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan,
with east and west boundaries starting approximately 250 feet due east
of the center of the Sabin Lock downstream gate, to approximately 1,750
feet due east of the center of the Davis Lock downstream gate. The zone
is further bound by the southern pier face of the Northeast Pier, and
the northern pier face of the East Center Pier. It also applies to a
portion of the Army Corps of Engineers hydroelectric power plant
effluence, and waters surrounding the eastern tip of the Northeast
Pier. This portion of the zone extends west approximately 1,100 feet
from the tip of the Northeast Pier, and out to the north, approximately
150 feet. The zone is bound by the following coordinates:
46[deg]30'22.50'' N/084[deg]20'40.81'' W; 46[deg]30'22.50'' N/
084[deg]20'29.35'' W; 46[deg]30'20.16'' N/084[deg]20'25.29'' W;
46[deg]30'18.81'' N/084[deg]20'25.29'' W; 46[deg]30'18.66'' N/
084[deg]20'28.36'' W; 46[deg]30'12.90'' N/084[deg]20'28.36'' W;
46[deg]30'13.18'' N/084[deg]20'39.17'' W; 46[deg]30'15.27'' N/
084[deg]20'48.17'' W; 46[deg]30'15.45'' N/084[deg]20'51.00'' W;
46[deg]30'16.41'' N/084[deg]20'51.00'' W; 46[deg]30'16.98'' N/
084[deg]20'40.81'' W; (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced continually
from 5 a.m. April 23, 2010 through 10 p.m. August 31, 2010.
    The second temporary safety zone is a fixed zone and applies to the
navigable waters within a radius of 1,100 feet centered on the test
blast location approximately 600 feet due east of the pier between the
Sabin and Davis locks, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan at
46[deg]30'15.46'' N/084[deg]20'39.12'' W; (NAD 83). This zone will be
effective from 5 a.m. April 23, 2010 through 10 p.m. May 9, 2010. The
public will be notified of enforcement of this zone by Broadcast Notice
to Mariners in accordance with the procedures outlined in this
regulation.
    The third temporary safety zone is a moving zone and applies to the
navigable waters within a radius of 500 feet from the barge ``M2'' at
any time the barge is involved in explosives loading operations or
while transiting with explosives on board. This zone will be effective
from 5 a.m. April 23, 2010 through 10 p.m. August 31, 2010. The public
will be notified of enforcement of this zone by Broadcast Notice to
Mariners in accordance with the procedures outlined in this regulation.
    The fourth temporary safety zone is a fixed zone on the eastern
portion of the area where the blasting and dredging operations will be
taking place. This temporary safety zone applies to the navigable
waters downstream of the Sabin and Davis Locks, Sault Sainte Marie,
Michigan, with east and west boundaries starting approximately 1,750
feet due east of the center of the Davis Lock downstream gate, to
approximately 2,850 feet due east of the center of the Davis Lock
downstream gate. The zone is bound to the south by the northern pier
face of the East Center Pier. The northern boundary of the zone is
approximately 600 feet north of the East Center Pier. The area is bound
by the following coordinates: 46[deg]30'18.66'' N/84[deg]20'28.36'' W;
46[deg]30'19.36'' N/84[deg]20'14.23'' W; 46[deg]30'19.20'' N/
84[deg]20'13.87'' W; 46[deg]30'11.59'' N/84[deg]20'12.96'' W;
46[deg]30'11.78'' N/84[deg]20'19.53'' W; 46[deg]30'12.69'' N/
84[deg]20'19.68'' W; 46[deg]30'12.90'' N/84[deg]20'28.36'' W; (NAD 83).
This zone will be effective from 5 a.m. April 23, 2010 through 10 p.m.
August 31, 2010. The public will be notified of enforcement of this
zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance with the procedures
outlined in this regulation.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this regulation will restrict access to the areas, the
effect of the rule will not be significant because maritime traffic
will be minimally impacted. The water area near the primary work, which
is protected by the first temporary safety zone, is blocked on three
sides and receives very little vessel traffic. The remaining zones will
be enforced as required by blasting and dredging operations, which will
typically be only during times of reduced vessel traffic.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    The following entities may be affected by this rule, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
operate, transit, or anchor in portions of the Saint Marys River from
April 23, 2010 through

August 31, 2010. The safety zones will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons:
Access to most of the primary work zone, which is protected by the
first temporary safety zone, is blocked on three sides and receives
very little vessel traffic. The remaining zones will be enforced as
required by blasting and dredging operations, which will typically be
only during times of reduced vessel traffic. Plus, the Coast Guard will
make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly. Overall, the Coast Guard expects the economic impact
of this rule to be minimal traffic.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves regulations establishing safety
zones to protect the public from the dangers associated with blasting
and dredging operations. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0290 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0290  Safety Zones; Blasting Operations and Movement of
Explosives, St. Marys River, Sault Sainte Marie, MI.

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones:
    (1) All U.S. navigable waters downstream of the Sabin and Davis
Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, with east and west boundaries
starting approximately 250 feet due east of the center of the Sabin
Lock downstream gate, to approximately 1,750 feet due east of the
center of the Davis Lock downstream gate. The zone is further bound by
the southern pier face of the Northeast Pier, and the northern pier
face of the East Center Pier. This zone also includes a portion of the
Army Corps of Engineers hydroelectric power plant effluence, and waters
surrounding the eastern tip of the Northeast Pier. This portion of the
zone extends west approximately 1,100 feet from the tip of the
Northeast Pier, and out to the north, approximately 150 feet. The zone
is bound by the following coordinates: 46[deg]30'22.50'' N/
084[deg]20'40.81'' W; 46[deg]30'22.50'' N/084[deg]20'29.35'' W;
46[deg]30'20.16'' N/084[deg]20'25.29'' W; 46[deg]30'18.81'' N/
084[deg]20'25.29'' W; 46[deg]30''18.66'' N/084[deg]20'28.36'' W;
46[deg]30'12.90'' N/084[deg]20'28.36'' W; 46[deg]30'13.18'' N/
084[deg]20'39.17'' W; 46[deg]30'15.27'' N/084[deg]20'48.17'' W;
46[deg]30'15.45'' N/084[deg]20'51.00'' W; 46[deg]30'16.41'' N/
084[deg]20'51.00'' W; 46[deg]30'16.98'' N/084[deg]20'40.81'' W; (NAD
83).
    (2) All U.S. navigable waters within a radius of 1,100 feet
centered on the test blast location approximately 600 feet due east of
the pier between the Sabin and Davis locks, Sault Sainte Marie,
Michigan at 46[deg]30'15.46'' N/084[deg]20'39.12'' W; (NAD 83).
    (3) All U.S. navigable waters within a radius of 500 feet from the
barge ``M2'' at any time the barge is involved in explosives loading
operations or while transiting with explosives on board.
    (4) All U.S. navigable waters downstream of the Sabin and Davis
Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, with east and west boundaries
starting approximately 1,750 feet due east of the center of the Davis
Lock downstream gate, to approximately 2,850 feet due east of the
center of the Davis Lock downstream gate. The zone is bound to the
south by the northern pier face of the East Center Pier. The northern
boundary of the zone is approximately 600 feet north of the East Center
Pier. The area is bound by the following coordinates: 46[deg]30'18.66''
N/84[deg]20'28.36'' W; 46[deg]30'19.36'' N/84[deg]20'14.23'' W;
    46[deg]30'19.20'' N/84[deg]20'13.87'' W; 46[deg]30'11.59'' N/
84[deg]20'12.96'' W;
    46[deg]30'11.78'' N/84[deg]20'19.53'' W; 46[deg]30'12.69'' N/
84[deg]20'19.68'' W;
    46[deg]30'12.90'' N/84[deg]20'28.36'' W; (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective period. This regulation is effective from 5 a.m.
April 23, 2010 through 10 p.m. August 31, 2010. The safety zones
established in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced as
follows:
    (1) The zone described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section will be
enforced continually from 5 a.m. April 23, 2010 through 10 p.m. August
31, 2010.
    (2) The zone described paragraph (a)(2) of this section will be
intermittently enforced from 5 a.m. April 23, 2010 through 10 p.m. May
14, 2010.
    (3) The zone described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section is
subject to enforcement from 5 a.m. April 23, 2010 through 10 p.m.
August 31, 2010, any time the barge ``M2'' is transiting with
explosives on board or involved in explosives loading operations.
    (4) The zone described paragraph (a)(4) of this section will be
intermittently enforced from 5 a.m. April 23, 2010 through 10 p.m.
August 31, 2010.
    (5) The Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie may suspend
at any time the enforcement of any safety zone established under this
section.
    (6) The Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, will notify
the public of the enforcement and suspension of enforcement of a safety
zone established by this section via any means that will provide as
much notice as possible to the public. These means might include some
or all of those listed in 33 CFR 165.7(a). The primary method of
notification, however, will be through Broadcast Notice to Mariners and
local Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within an enforced safety zone established by this section is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault
Sainte Marie, or his on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or
his on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Sault Sainte Marie, is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Sault Sainte Marie, to act on his behalf. The on-scene
representative of the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie,
will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within an
enforced safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector
Sault Sainte Marie, or his on-scene representative to obtain permission
to do so. The Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or his
on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel
operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must
comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: April 20, 2010.
M.J. Huebschman,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte
Marie.
[FR Doc. 2010-10316 Filed 5-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: June 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 34734]
[DOCID:fr25jn07-141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of American Teletronics, Inc., n/k/a: Shine
Holdings, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

June 21, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
American Teletronics, Inc., n/k/a Shine Holdings, Inc., because it has
not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30,
1996.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in American Teletronics,
Inc., n/k/a Shine Holdings, Inc., is suspended for the period from 9:30
a.m. EDT on June 21, 2007, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 5, 2007.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-3113 Filed 6-11-07; 11:30 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 109 (Thursday, June 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26734-26735]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11791]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

[Docket No. OST-2017-0057]

Transportation Infrastructure: Notice of Review of Policy,
Guidance, and Regulation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for input.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT) is reviewing its
existing policy statements, guidance documents, and regulations to
identify unnecessary obstacles to transportation infrastructure
projects. As part of this review, the Department invites affected
stakeholders and the public to identify non-statutory requirements that
the Department imposes and that should be removed or revised.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before July 24, 2017. Late-
filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-
OST-2017-0057 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: The Docket Management Facility
is located on the West Building, Ground Floor, of the U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Room W12-140, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name and the Docket
Number DOT-OST-2017-0057 at the beginning of your comment. All comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.
    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, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible
through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking
and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the
agency for alternate submission instructions.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, visit the Docket Management Facility described above
or go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Smith, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose

    The Department of Transportation recognizes that there are
regulatory and administrative burdens that impede transportation
infrastructure projects. The Department also recognizes that the
stakeholders who deliver projects have

direct experience with those burdens. Public and private project
sponsors, engineering and construction professionals, related
organizations, and other stakeholders encounter and overcome these
obstacles to project delivery on a daily basis. The purpose of this
notice is to solicit input from those affected stakeholders to help the
Department identify requirements that the Department imposes through
rules, or interpretations found in policy statements or guidance, that
unjustifiably delay or prevent completion of surface, maritime, and
aviation transportation infrastructure projects. The Department's
primary focus is on administrative items that it has the authority to
change, but if there are critical changes that are achievable only
through legislative action, please submit proposed legislative changes.
Commenters should make legislative suggestions only if all non-
statutory options have been exhausted.
    The DOT's mission is to serve the United States by ensuring a safe,
fast, efficient, accessible, and convenient transportation system that
meets the nation's vital interests and enhances the quality of life of
the American people, today and into the future. To advance that mission
through financial assistance and regulatory activity, the Department
imposes requirements that affect the delivery of transportation
infrastructure projects. Under its financial assistance programs, DOT
places conditions of the receipt and expenditure of Federal funds.
Under its safety authorities, DOT directly regulates State, local, and
individual activities. These assistance conditions and safety
regulations are intended to satisfy statutory mandates and, when
discretionary, properly balance public benefits against the burdens
that they impose. However, imbalances can arise. The current benefits
may not justify the current burdens due to changing circumstances,
incomplete analyses, or other factors.

Request for Input

    The Department is requesting that affected stakeholders and the
public submit comments identifying requirements that the Department
imposes through rules, or interpretations found in policy statements or
guidance documents, that unjustifiably delay or prevent completion of
surface, maritime, and aviation transportation infrastructure projects.
In some circumstances, Federal statute requires the Department, without
exercising discretion, to issue regulations implementing specific
statutory requirements. Because the Department lacks authority to
remove those requirements, the Department asks commenters responding to
this notice to focus their comments on requirements that either lack
statutory mandate or could be accomplished through reasonable
alternatives. However, if non-statutory changes are insufficient to
address a specific obstacle to transportation infrastructure projects,
commenters may submit legislative solutions.

Content of Comments

    The Department will review all comments submitted to the docket
associated with this notice, DOT-OST-2017-0057. To maximize the
usefulness of comments, the Department encourages commenters to provide
the following information:
    1. Specific reference. A specific reference to the policy
statement, guidance document, regulation, or statute that imposes the
burden that the comment discusses. This should be a citation to the
Code of Federal Regulations, a guidance document number, or an Internet
link. A specific reference will assist the Department identify the
requirement, the original source of the requirement, and relevant
documentation that may describe the history and effects of the
requirement.
    2. Description of burden. A description of the burden that the
identified policy statement, guidance document, regulation, or statute
imposes on the completion of transportation infrastructure projects. A
comment that describes how the policy statement, guidance document,
regulation, or statute impedes efficient project delivery is more
useful than a comment that merely asserts that it is burdensome.
Comments that reflect experience with the requirement and provide data
describing that experience are more credible than comments that are not
tied to direct experience. Verifiable, quantifiable data describing
burdens are more useful than anecdotal descriptions.
    3. Description of less burdensome alternatives. If the commenter
believes that the objective that motivated the policy statement,
guidance document, regulation, or statute may be achieved using a less
burdensome alternative, the commenter should describe that alternative
in detail. Likewise, if the commenter believes that there is not a less
burdensome alternative or there is not a legitimate objective
motivating the requirement, then that should be explained in the
comment.
    4. Examples of affected projects. Examples of projects that are,
have been, or will be negatively affected by the identified policy
statement, guidance document, regulation, or statute and examples of
projects that will benefit it the requirement is removed or revised. A
comment listing specific projects is more useful because it will assist
the Department in investigating the burden and how it may be most
effectively addressed.

Scope of Comments

    The Department is interested in comments on any DOT requirement
that unjustifiably delays or prevents surface, maritime, and aviation
transportation infrastructure projects, including requirements
contained regulations, or interpretations found in policy statements or
guidance documents, issued from the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation (OST) and the following Operating Administrations: The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA); the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA); the Maritime Administration
(MARAD); and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA).
    Under this notice, the Department is not soliciting petitions for
rulemaking.

Relationship to Other Review Activities

    Improvement of regulations is a continuous focus for the
Department. For that reason, DOT regularly and deliberately reviews its
rules in accordance with the Department's 1979 Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034), Executive Order (EO) 12866, EO 13563, and
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. That process is
summarized in Appendix D of the Department's semi-annual regulatory
agenda (e.g., 81 FR 94784). In EO 13771 and EO 13777, President Trump
directed agencies to further scrutinize their regulations. The review
described in this notice will supplement the Department's periodic
regulatory review and its activities under EO 13771 and EO 13777.
Unlike those activities, this request for input is narrowly focused on
identifying and addressing impediments to the completion of
transportation infrastructure projects. The comments that DOT receives
in response to this notice will inform those other, broader activities.

    Issued on May 30, 2017.
James Ray,
Senior Advisor for Infrastructure.
[FR Doc. 2017-11791 Filed 6-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76519-76523]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27052]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96468; File No. SR-LCH SA-2022-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing of
Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, Relating to Providing
Clearing Services for Additional Index and Single Name Credit Default
Swaps

December 8, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On August 29, 2022, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts
business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-
4,\2\ a proposed rule change to provide clearing services for the
iTraxx Asia ex Japan Index, the Markit CDX Emerging Markets
(``CDX.EM'') Index and the single name credit default swaps (``CDS'')
that comprise each index, as well as a list of additional sovereign
single name CDS which do not constitute an index (together, the ``New
Products''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on September 12, 2022.\3\ On October 25, 2022, the
Commission designated a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change, until December 11, 2022.\4\ The Commission
did not receive comments regarding the proposed rule change. On
December 2, 2022, LCH SA filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. On December 7, 2022, LCH SA filed Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded in their entirety
both the original filing and Amendment No. 1.\5\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 2 from
interested persons and is approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 2 (hereinafter, ``proposed rule change''), on
an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Providing Clearing Services for
Additional Index and Single Name CDS, Exchange Act Release No. 95674
(Sep. 6, 2022); 87 FR 55872 (Sep. 12, 2022) (SR-LCH SA-2022-007)
(``Notice'').
    \4\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Designation
of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Relating To
Providing Clearing Services for Additional Index and Single Name
CDS, Exchange Act Release No. 96148 (Oct. 25, 2022); 87 FR 65629
(Oct. 31, 2022) (SR-LCH SA-2022-007).
    \5\ Amendment No. 2 amends confidential Exhibit 5C, LCH SA
Methodology Services Reference Guide: CDS Margin Framework (V3.14),
to correct a non-substantive formatting error. Amendment No. 2 also
submits three exhibits to the proposed rule change, each as an
Exhibit 3. In a separate correspondence that accompanied Amendment
No. 2, LCH SA requested confidential treatment for these exhibits
(together, ``Confidential Exhibit 3''). Confidential Exhibit 3
reproduces certain information that LCH SA submitted to the
Commission in support of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    To accommodate clearing of the New Products, the proposed rule
change would amend (A) the CDS Clearing Supplement (the ``Clearing
Supplement''); (B) the Methodology Services Reference Guide: Credit
Default Swap Margin Framework (``CDSClear Risk Methodology''); and (C)
the CDS Default Fund Methodology (Guide Stress Testing) (``CDSClear
Default Fund Methodology'').
    Unrelated to clearing of the New Products, the proposed rule change
also would make two other amendments to the Clearing Supplement and
would make a correction to Section 2 of the LCH SA CDS Clearing
Procedures (Margin, NPV Payment and Price Alignment) (the ``CDS
Clearing Procedures'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This description is substantially excerpted from the Notice,
87 FR at 55872. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have
the meanings specified in the LCH SA CDS Clearing Rule Book,
Clearing Supplement, CDSClear Risk Methodology, CDSClear Default
Fund Methodology, or the CDS Clearing Procedures, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Clearing Supplement

    The proposed rule change would amend certain defined terms in the
Clearing Supplement and amend the Index Cleared Transaction
Confirmation to accommodate clearing of the New Products. The proposed
rule change also would amend Section 4, which relates to certain events
affecting reference entities, and Section 6, which relates to physical
settlement, to apply to the New Products.
    With respect to defined terms, the proposed amendments would take
into account the New Products. For example, the proposed rule change
would revise the definitions of ``Compression Cut-off Date'' and
``Novation Cut-off Date'' to include two additional credit events.
These credit events are the ``Obligation Acceleration Credit Event''
and the ``Repudiation/Moratorium Credit Event.'' While both of these
Credit Events are standard for the 2014 Credit Derivatives Definitions
published by the

International Swaps and Derivatives Association (``ISDA''), they do not
apply to any of the products that LCH SA currently clears. These Credit
Events do apply to certain sovereign CDS that are included in the New
Products, however, so the proposed rule change would add these Credit
Events to accommodate clearing of these products.
    For a similar reason, the proposed rule change would amend the term
``Transaction Business Day.'' Currently, ``Transaction Business Day''
means a Business Day, as defined in the Index Cleared Transaction
Confirmation or the Single Name Cleared Transaction Confirmation, as
applicable. The proposed rule change would add to this definition a
qualification. If the relevant Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation
or Single Name Cleared Transaction Confirmation defines such term
differently depending upon its use, then such distinction shall also
apply to the use of the term ``Transaction Business Day'' in the terms
of the cleared transaction. The proposed rule change would add this
provision to account for the situation where such confirmations could
include different definitions of the term ``Business Day'' depending on
the circumstances. This would apply, for example, when LCH SA clears
certain of the New Products related to the iTraxx Asia ex Japan index.
    The proposed rule change would amend the definition of ``Index
Cleared Transaction Confirmation'' as well as how LCH SA modifies the
Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation when it accepts a transaction
for clearing. The Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation is the
document that sets out the contractual terms that govern a transaction
in an index CDS. The Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation in turn
incorporates certain standard terms set out in a document known as a
standard terms supplement, and the content of the standard terms
supplement varies depending on the type of index involved and the
series number of the index.
    In LCH SA's Clearing Supplement, the defined term ``Index Cleared
Transaction Confirmation'' determines which standard terms supplement
applies to a transaction based on the index type and series number. For
example, for a transaction in Markit iTraxx[supreg] Europe Index Series
22 or above, the Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation is the form of
confirmation that incorporates the iTraxx[supreg] Europe Untranched
Standard Terms Supplement. The proposed rule change would amend the
definition of ``Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation'' to accommodate
clearing of the iTraxx Asia ex Japan Index and the CDX.EM Index. For
transactions in the iTraxx Asia ex Japan Index Series 27 or above, the
Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation would be the form of
confirmation that incorporates the iTraxx[supreg] Asia/Pacific
Untranched Standard Terms Supplement. For transactions in the CDX.EM
Index Series 27 or above, the Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation
would be the form of confirmation that incorporates the CDX Emerging
Markets Untranched Transactions Standard Terms Supplement.
    The Clearing Supplement also modifies the terms of the standard
terms supplement in certain minor respects. For example, Section 2.2 of
the Clearing Supplement replaces the standard names for parties to the
transaction (``Party A'' and ``Party B'') with ``LCH SA'' and
``Clearing Member.'' The proposed rule change would amend Section 2.2
to make it applicable to the clearing of the New Products. The proposed
rule change would do so by adding to Section 2.2 references to the
iTraxx Asia ex Japan Index and the CDX.EM Index.
    The proposed rule change would next amend Section 4. Section 4
applies to certain events that affect the reference entity covered by a
CDS, such as a credit event, a succession, or a rename. Section 4.1
prohibits LCH SA and a Clearing Member from sending certain notices
during restructurings following such events. Specifically, the proposed
rule change would add a ``Repudiation/Moratorium Extension Notice'' to
the types of notices that neither LCH SA nor a clearing member is
entitled to deliver with regard to an M(M)R Restructuring in accordance
with the terms of any Restructuring Cleared Transaction. While these
types of notices do not apply to any of the products that LCH SA
currently clears, they do apply to certain sovereign CDS that are
included in the New Products. Accordingly, the proposed rule change
would add these notices to accommodate clearing of these products.
    The proposed rule change also would amend Section 6. Section 6
describes how LCH SA would implement physical settlement, which could
apply as a fallback method to certain cleared transactions. Section 6.5
sets out details related to providing notices related to physical
settlement. The proposed rule change would add to Section 6.5 a
``Package Observable Bond'' to the types of asset packages that can be
identified in a Notice of Physical Settlement (``NOPS'') or a NOPS
Amendment Notice. While the Package Observable Bond does not apply to
any of the products that LCH SA currently clears, it does apply to
certain sovereign CDS that are included in the New Products.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change would add the Package Observable
Bond to Section 6.5 to accommodate clearing of these products.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For the same reason, the proposed rule change would make a
similar amendment to Section 5 of Appendix XIII of Part B of the
Clearing Supplement. Appendix XIII of Part B of the Clearing
Supplement sets out the terms of transactions between a Clearing
Member and its Client with respect to client clearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, and for a similar reason, the proposed rule would add to
Section 6.8 a new subsection (c). New Section 6.8(c) would clarify the
application of the ``60 Business Day Cap on Settlement'' under the ISDA
2014 Credit Derivatives Definitions. This provision would be relevant
to transactions in the CDX.EM Index. Accordingly, the proposed rule
change would add these notices to accommodate clearing of this
product.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For the same reason, the proposed rule change would make a
similar amendment to Sections 7.8 and 7.18 of Appendix XIII of Part
B of the Clearing Supplement. Appendix XIII of Part B of the
Clearing Supplement sets out the terms of transactions between a
Clearing Member and its Client with respect to client clearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. CDSClear Risk Methodology

    The CDSClear Risk Methodology describes LCH SA's pricing and margin
methodologies for single-name CDS, CDS indices, and CDS Index Options.
Section 3.4.5 of the CDSClear Risk Methodology describes portfolio
margining, which is a reduction in overall margin that results from a
Clearing Member holding offsetting positions in its portfolio. European
Union regulations applicable to LCH SA limit how much LCH SA can reduce
overall margin due to portfolio margining. There is an exception to
this limitation for an index basis package, which is a term that
describes a Clearing Member portfolio containing an index and a basket
of single-name constituents of the index that perfectly offsets the
position in the index. Section 3.4.5 lists various combinations of
products that together can constitute an index basis package. The
proposed rule change would update this list to include the iTraxx Asia
ex Japan Index and its single-name constituents, as well as the CDX.EM
Index and its single-name constituents.
    Section 3.5 of the CDSClear Risk Methodology describes the Short
Charge aspect of margin. The Short Charge covers the cost of
liquidating a defaulting Clearing Member's portfolio where one or more
of the reference entities in the portfolio has gone into default.
Section 3.5 begins with a

general description of the Short Charge and notes that in determining
the Short Charge, LCH SA considers the worst consecutive defaults
within the applicable holding periods for all eligible products across
Europe and the US. The proposed rule change would add ``Asia'', in
addition to Europe and the US, to account for the iTraxx Asia ex Japan
Index and related single-name constituents.
    As part of the Short Charge, LCH SA considers the recovery rate,
which is used to calculate an estimate of the amount that could be
recovered in a default. Section 3.5.1 lists recovery rates for
categories of reference entities, like insurers and banks. The proposed
rule change would add a recovery rate for state-owned enterprises. This
change would account for the additional sovereign single names that LCH
SA will clear as part of the new products. Relatedly, the proposed rule
change would add a new Section 3.5.2 \9\ to explain how LCH SA would
treat a Clearing Member's positions in a state-owned enterprise and its
sovereign entity. If those positions are not risk reducing, and the
sovereign entity owns more than 50% of the state-owned enterprise, then
LCH SA would default the two entities jointly. New Section 3.5.2 also
would explain that LCH SA would calculate exposures for state-owned
enterprises with a fixed 70% recovery rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ LCH would move the contents of current Section 3.5.2 to a
new Section 3.5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 3.8 of the CDSClear Risk Methodology describes the Wrong
Way Risk aspect of margin. Wrong Way Risk accounts for the risk that
exposure to a given counterparty increases when that counterparty
defaults. This could occur, for example, when a Clearing Member sells
protection on a CDS index of which it is a constituent. LCH SA
calculates Wrong Way Risk by, among other things, considering the risk
in certain geographic regions because historical data shows
correlations among defaults in these regions. The proposed rule change
would expand these regions to include Asia, to account for the iTraxx
Asia ex Japan Index and related single-name constituents.
    Section 4.1 of the CDSClear Risk Methodology describes the
Liquidity and Concentration Charge aspect of margin. The Liquidity and
Concentration Charge covers the cost of liquidating a defaulting
Clearing Member's portfolio that contains a very concentrated or
illiquid position. To estimate this cost, LCH SA mimics the liquidation
procedure used in its default management process. The first step in
this process is to macro-hedge a portfolio to reduce the impact of
market risk. As part of the macro-hedge, LCH SA divides portfolios into
separate indices and their components. Section 4.1.2 lists these
different indices, which are the indices that LCH SA clears. Thus, the
proposed rule change would add to this list in Section 4.1.2 the iTraxx
Asia ex Japan Index and CDX.EM Index. Moreover, the proposed rule
change would move from Section 4.1.2 to Section 4.1.1 language to note
that the liquidation cost of a sub-portfolio composed of a single year
position in the principal on the run index is simply the sum of the
macro hedging costs, and add to Section 4.1.1 a note that single names
without a parent index are considered a sub-portfolio for which LCH SA
charges the cost of unwinding a non-hedged sub-portfolio.
    Finally, in Section 4.1.7 the proposed rule change would make
certain updates related to clearing the New Products. Specifically, the
proposed rule change would update the existing thresholds and include
more cleared indexes in the table for volume thresholds. The proposed
rule change also would add a dedicated liquidity grid for sovereign
single names.

C. CDSClear Default Fund Methodology

    The CDSClear Default Fund Methodology describes how, during extreme
but plausible circumstances, LCH ensures its financial resources are
enough to cover the potential losses from a close-out of the largest
two groups of members' portfolios and all clients of both of these
groups of members. Section 2 of the CDSClear Default Fund Methodology
describes the stress-testing framework that LCH SA uses to assess the
potential impact of the default of one or more clearing members under
stressed market conditions in excess of the initial margin that LCH SA
has collected for those clearing members. This stress testing aims to
identify a total stress test loss over initial margin under extreme but
plausible scenarios. Section 2.2 provides an overview of how LCH treats
single-name CDS and CDS indices in these extreme but plausible
scenarios. The proposed rule change would amend this description to
include the iTraxx Asia ex Japan Index and CDX.EM Index, as well as the
iTraxx Australia Indices.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Although LCH SA added clearing of the iTraxx Australia
Indices in a prior rule change, that prior rule change did not add
the iTraxx Australia Indices to this description. Thus, the proposed
rule change would correct this error and add the iTraxx Australia
Indices to Section 2.2. See Notice, 87 FR at 55874; Self-Regulatory
Organizations; LCH SA; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating
to the Clearing of Markit iTraxx[supreg] Australia Indices and the
Associated Single-Name Constituents and Remediation of WWR Margin
Instability, Exchange Act Release No. 95503 (Aug. 16, 2022), 87 FR
51471 (Aug. 22, 2022) (SR-LCH SA-2022-004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, one component of the stress test loss over initial margin
is the stressed short charge, which considers the jump to default risk
under stress conditions. With respect to the sovereign single names
that LCH SA will clear, the proposed rule change would amend Sections
2.4.1 and 2.4.2 to describe how LCH SA would add State-Owned Entities'
exposures to the stressed short charge. The proposed rule change also
would amend Sections 2.4.3 and 2.7.2 to describe the same with
mathematical formulas instead of with plain text.
    Finally, in Section 2.6, which discusses how LCH SA treats index
options in default scenarios, the proposed rule change would add a
description of how LCH SA would consider the stressed short charge for
sovereigns.

D. Unrelated Changes

    Unrelated to clearing the New Products, the proposed rule change
would make two other amendments to the Clearing Supplement. First, the
proposed rule change would modify Section 2.2 to provide an additional
term for each Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation. This new term
would specify that the applicable Physical Settlement Matrix is the
version of the Physical Settlement Matrix that is in force on the
Clearing Day on which the Index Cleared Transaction is registered by
LCH SA. LCH explains that this amendment would ensure that the
Additional Provisions for Certain Russian Entities published by ISDA on
March 25, 2022 will apply to the relevant cleared trades.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, 87 FR at 55873. For additional detail on these
provisions and how compliance with them would facilitate the
clearance of transactions in CDS contracts (or components thereof)
for which the Russian Federation is a reference entity, see Self-
Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to the ICC Clearing Rules, Exchange Act Release No. 94784 (Apr. 22,
2022), 87 FR 25324 (Apr. 28, 2022) (SR-ICC-2022-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the proposed rule change would make a correction in Section 7
of Appendix XIII of Part B of the Clearing Supplement. Appendix XIII of
Part B sets out the terms of transactions between a Clearing Member and
its Client. The proposed rule change would remove from Section 7.15 and
Section 7.17 of Appendix XIII the phrase ``for the purposes of the
Matched Contracts of the related Settlement Matched Pair.'' This phrase
is applicable to transactions

between LCH SA and a Clearing Member. Because Appendix XIII applies to
transactions between a Clearing Member and its Client, this phrase is
unnecessary.
    Finally, the proposed rule change would make a correction to
Section 2.7 of the CDS Clearing Procedures. Specifically, the first
sentence of Section 2.7(c) currently states that, where a Clearing
Member is acting as a CDS Seller, Short Charge Margin will be required
to cover the risk that the Clearing Member is subject to an event of
default at the same time that a credit event occurs ``with respect to a
Reference Entity.'' To acknowledge that a credit event may occur with
respect to more than one Reference Entity, the proposed rule change
would revise this sentence to read ``one or more Reference Entities.''

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\12\ Based on its review of the record, including the
supporting information provided in Confidential Exhibit 3, and for the
reasons given below, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \13\ and Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(4)(ii) and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii) and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of LCH SA be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions.\15\
Based on its review of the record, including the supporting information
provided in Confidential Exhibit 3, and for the reasons discussed
below, the Commission believes the proposed changes are consistent with
the promotion of the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions at LCH SA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As discussed above, the proposed rule change would amend the
Clearing Supplement, the CDSClear Risk Methodology, and the CDSClear
Default Fund Methodology to accommodate clearing of the New Products.
For example, the proposed rule change would amend the Clearing
Supplement to, among other things, introduce new defined terms and
revise the Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation to accommodate
clearing of the New Products. The proposed rule change also would amend
the CDSClear Risk Methodology and the CDSClear Default Fund Methodology
to consider the New Products in calculating certain components of
margin and in calculating the stress test loss over initial margin. The
Commission believes that the amendments to the Clearing Supplement
would help to ensure that LCH SA has in place rules to appropriately
govern the clearing of the New Products. The Commission also believes
that the amendments to the CDSClear Risk Methodology and the CDSClear
Default Fund Methodology would help to ensure that LCH SA's risk
management system considers the risks of clearing the New Products. The
Commission believes that these changes, taken together in consideration
with the supporting information provided in Confidential Exhibit 3,
would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
transactions in the New Products at LCH SA.
    The Commission similarly believes that the unrelated changes
discussed in Part II.D above would promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of transactions at LCH SA. Specifically, the
Commission believes specifying that the Physical Settlement Matrix is
the version in force on the Clearing Day on which the Index Cleared
Transaction is registered would help to ensure the application of the
Additional Provisions for Certain Russian Entities published by ISDA on
March 25, 2022. In doing so, the Commission believes this change would
help facilitate LCH SA's clearance and settlement of transactions to
which these additional provisions would apply.\16\ Moreover, the
Commission believes that removing an inapplicable phrase from Appendix
XIII of Part B of the Clearing Supplement would correct a potential
error that could hinder the consistent application of Appendix XIII to
cleared transactions. Finally, the Commission believes that correcting
``Reference Entity'' to ``Reference Entities'' in Section 2 of the CDS
Clearing Procedures would help to ensure that LCH SA applies Section 2
to multiple Reference Entities, as intended, should ever a credit event
occur for more than one Reference Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For additional detail on these provisions and how
compliance with them would facilitate the clearance of transactions
in CDS contracts (or components thereof) for which the Russian
Federation is a reference entity, see Self-Regulatory Organizations;
ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC
Clearing Rules, Exchange Act Release No. 94784 (Apr. 22, 2022), 87
FR 25324 (Apr. 28, 2022) (SR-ICC-2022-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii) requires that LCH SA establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to maintain, to the extent not already maintained pursuant to
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i),\18\ additional financial resources at the
minimum to enable it to cover a wide range of foreseeable stress
scenarios that include, but are not limited to, the default of the two
participant families that would potentially cause the largest aggregate
credit exposure for LCH SA in extreme but plausible market
conditions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposed rule change would amend the
CDSClear Default Fund Methodology to accommodate clearing of the New
Products. Among other things, these changes would revise the
description of the stress scenarios and of the calculation of stress
test loss over initial margin to consider the New Products. LCH SA
sizes its default fund to cover the highest two exposures arising from
the stress test loss over initial margin calculation under extreme but
plausible stress scenarios. Considering the New Products in these
calculations would help to ensure that LCH SA, while clearing the New
Products, continues to maintain financial resources to cover the
default of the two participant families that would potentially cause
the largest aggregate credit exposure for LCH SA in extreme but
plausible market conditions.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that this aspect of the proposed
rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) requires that LCH SA establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposed rule change would amend the
CDSClear Risk Methodology to accommodate clearing of the New Products.
These changes would revise the descriptions of the Short Charge, Wrong
Way Risk, and Liquidity and Concentration Charge to cover clearing of
the New Products. Because LCH SA uses the Short Charge, Wrong Way Risk,
and Liquidity and Concentration Charge to calculate initial margin
along with the other components discussed in the CDSClear Risk
Methodology, and based on the Commission's review of the proposed rule
change, including the supporting information provided in Confidential
Exhibit 3, the Commission believes these changes will help to ensure
that LCH SA's margin system identifies the risks of clearing the New
Products.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that these aspects of the proposed
rule change are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-LCH SA-2022-007 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-2022-007. 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 website (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 website 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 website
at: https://www.lch.com/resources/rulebooks/proposed-rule-changes. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2022-007 and should
be submitted on or before January 4, 2023.

V. Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 2

    Under Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act,\23\ the Commission may
grant accelerated approval of a proposed rule change if the Commission
finds good cause for doing so. For the reasons discussed below, the
Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of
the Act,\24\ for approving the proposed rule change on an accelerated
basis prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of
Amendment No. 2 in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendment No. 2, which replaced and superseded in their entirety
both the original filing and Amendment No. 1, does not substantively
alter the proposed rule change. Rather, it corrects a non-substantive
formatting error and includes as Confidential Exhibit 3 certain
information that LCH SA submitted to the Commission in support of the
proposed rule change. By correcting a non-substantive formatting error
in the Confidential Exhibit 5C, Amendment No. 2 should help to ensure
that the LCH SA Methodology Services Reference Guide: CDS Margin
Framework (V3.14) is accurate, free from error, and therefore can be
used and applied consistently by LCH SA personnel. Because LCH SA uses
its CDS Margin Framework in clearing transactions, the Commission
believes correcting this error would be consistent with the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of transactions.
    Moreover, as noted above, Amendment No. 2 includes Confidential
Exhibit 3, which reproduces certain information that LCH SA submitted
to the Commission in support of the proposed rule change. The
Commission considered this information as part of its review of the
record for the proposed rule change and believes this information
supports the findings discussed in Part III above. The Commission
therefore believes that amending the proposed rule change to include
Confidential Exhibit 3 would be consistent with its findings discussed
above.
    The Commission therefore finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act,\25\ for approving the proposed rule change
on an accelerated basis prior to the 30th day after the date of
publication of notice of Amendment No. 2 in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \26\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii) and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii) and (e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\28\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2 (SR-
LCH SA-2022-007), be, and hereby is, approved.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \29\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27052 Filed 12-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P