[Federal Register: August 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 152)]
[Notices]
[Page 45796-45797]
[DOCID:fr06au08-119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-28055]

Demonstration Project on NAFTA Trucking Provisions

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

ACTION: Notice of extension of demonstration project.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces the extension of the demonstration project
allowing up to 100 Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond
the U.S. border commercial zones, and the same number of U.S. carriers
to operate in Mexico, from one year to the full three years allowed by
statute, 49 U.S.C. 31315. Reciprocally, Mexico has agreed to allow
U.S.-domiciled motor carriers in the demonstration project to continue
to operate in Mexico for up to three years.

DATES: This notice is effective upon publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Milt Schmidt, Division Chief,
North American Borders Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters
and Mexico's Secretary of Communications and Transportation Luis Tollez
Kuenzler announced a demonstration project to implement certain
trucking provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
in February 2007. The project was expected to last one year. FMCSA's
notice inaugurating the project stated that ``[t]he demonstration
project has a one-year limit'' (72 FR 23883, 23884, May 1, 2007).
    Shortly thereafter Congress required the Department of
Transportation (DOT) to satisfy a series of new conditions before
starting the demonstration project. See section 6901 of the ``U.S.
Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007'' [hereafter: ``Iraq
Supplemental''], Pub. L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112, 183, May 25, 2007.
Section 6901 imposed limits on DOT's use of appropriated funds to grant
authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the
border commercial zones. In particular, section 6901(a) required that
the granting of such authority be tested as part of a pilot program
meeting the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31315(c) and that the pilot
program also comply with the requirements of section 350 of Public Law
107-87 (115 Stat. 833, 864, December 18, 2001). Section 350, enacted by
the 2002 DOT Appropriations Act and reenacted in every subsequent
annual DOT appropriations act, set forth additional requirements FMCSA
must meet as a condition of granting Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
authority to operate in the United States. A pilot program under Sec.
31315(c) must include, among other things, a ``scheduled life * * * of
not more than 3 years.''
    As demonstrated in the Federal Register notices of June 8 and
August 17, 2007 (72 FR 31877 and 72 FR 46263, respectively), FMCSA met
all of the conditions established by section 6901 of the Iraq
Supplemental, including compliance with section 350. The demonstration
project was initiated on September 6, 2007, after Secretary Peters
submitted to Congress the Department's response to the report by the
DOT Office of Inspector General verifying compliance with section 350,
as required by section 6901(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A). FMCSA issued
provisional operating authority to the first Mexico-domiciled motor
carrier the same day. However, uncertainties concerning the length and
viability of the demonstration project may have deterred a significant
number of carriers, both from Mexico and the United States, from
seeking to participate in the project. For example, many Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers who previously expressed an interest in
operating beyond the border commercial zones have not pursued such
authority through the demonstration project. Additionally, we have been
advised that other Mexico-domiciled carriers who received approval for
project participation are not participating because they are reluctant
to incur substantial costs related to obtaining insurance to operate in
the United States and developing a customer base for long-haul
operations, in the face of these uncertainties. The result is that the
number of Mexico-domiciled carriers operating under the

demonstration project is smaller than expected: currently, 27 carriers
are operating 107 trucks. Although these carriers have made 9,983 trips
into the United States, most of these carriers had destinations in the
commercial zones; they have performed 1,272 long-haul trips beyond the
border zones. Concurrently, many U.S.-domiciled motor carriers have
expressed concern at the high cost of maintaining an official legal
representative in Mexico, especially due to their belief that a minimum
of two years is needed to develop sustainable business relationships
with Mexican shippers. This has resulted in a limited number of U.S.
carriers participating in the demonstration project. At the moment,
only 10 U.S. carriers are participating and they are operating only 55
vehicles. They have made 2,245 trips across the Mexican border.
    In order to ensure the demonstration project can be reviewed and
evaluated on the basis of a more comprehensive body of data, FMCSA has
decided to extend the project from one year up to the full three years
allowed by statute. The U.S. and Mexico will continue to limit the
project to a maximum of 100 of each other's motor carriers and will
provide for reciprocal authority. In addition, the U.S. will require
participating Mexican carriers and drivers to comply with all
applicable U.S. laws and regulations. The extension will enable FMCSA
to collect and analyze a larger volume of safety and operational data,
which is the fundamental goal of the demonstration project. We believe
an extension will provide non-participating motor carriers, both in
Mexico and the United States, added incentives to join the project,
knowing that their investment in long-haul foreign operations will have
more time to mature and become profitable.

    Issued on: July 31, 2008.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-17946 Filed 8-4-08; 9:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: May 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 96)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23619-23622]
[DOCID:fr20my09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0450; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-182-AD;
Amendment 39-15908; AD 2009-10-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. The existing
AD currently requires modifying the inflation systems of the upper deck
escape slides; single-piece off-wing escape ramps/slides; two-piece
off-wing escape slides; and door 1, 2, 4, and 5 escape slides/rafts; as
applicable. This AD expands the applicability to include an additional
airplane. This AD results from a report of 30- to 60-second delays in
the inflation of escape slides/rafts. We are issuing this AD to prevent
actuation delays in the inflation systems of the escape slides/rafts,
which could result in delayed or failed deployment of escape slides/
rafts during emergency evacuation of an airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 4, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of June 4, 2009.
    On September 13, 2005 (70 FR 46067, August 9, 2005), the Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3279, Revision 1, dated July 11, 2002;
and Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3232, dated July 6, 2000.
    We must receive any comments on this AD by July 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. For Goodrich service
information identified in this AD, contact Goodrich Corporation,
Aircraft Interior Products, ATTN: Technical Publications, 3414 South
Fifth Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85040; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.goodrich.com/
TechPubs.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Guion, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On July 29, 2005, we issued AD 2005-16-06, amendment 39-14211 (70
FR 46067, August 9, 2005). That AD applies to certain Boeing Model 747
airplanes. That AD requires modifying the inflation systems of the
upper deck escape slides; single-piece off-wing escape ramps/slides;
two-piece off-wing escape slides; and door 1, 2, 4, and 5 escape
slides/rafts as applicable. That AD resulted from a report of 30- to
60-second delays in the inflation of escape slides/rafts. The actions
specified in that AD are intended to prevent actuation delays in the
inflation systems of the escape slides/rafts, which could result in
delayed or failed deployment of escape slides/rafts during emergency
evacuation of an airplane.

Actions Since AD Was Issued

    Since we issued that AD, we have been advised that one additional
airplane may be subject to the identified unsafe condition.

Relevant Service Information

    AD 2005-16-06 referred to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3279,
Revision 1, dated July 11, 2002, as the appropriate source of service
information for the modification required by paragraph (f) of that AD.
Since we issued that AD, Boeing has revised that service bulletin.
Revision 4, dated December 11, 2008, provides the same procedures as
those specified in Revision 1, but adds airplane RG162 to the
effectivity.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of this AD

    We are issuing this AD because the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the(se)
same type design(s) that could be registered in the United States in
the future. This AD retains the requirements of the AD 2005-16-06. This
AD supersedes AD 2005-16-06 to add one airplane.
    Since the added airplane is not on the U.S. Register, notice and
opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.

Differences Between the AD and Service Information

    Although Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3279, Revision 1, dated
July 11, 2002; Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3279, Revision 4, dated
December 11, 2008; and Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3232, dated July
6, 2000; recommend accomplishing the modification at ``the next
scheduled evacuation system overhaul,'' we have determined that this
imprecise compliance time does not address the identified unsafe
condition in a timely manner. In developing an appropriate compliance
time for this AD, we considered not only the manufacturer's
recommendation, but also the degree of urgency associated with
addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the
affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the modifications. In
light of all of these factors, we find a compliance time of 36 months
for completing the actions to be warranted, in that it represents an
appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to
operate without compromising safety. This compliance time has been
coordinated with the manufacturer.

Change to Existing AD

    This AD retains all requirements of AD 2005-16-06. Since AD 2005-
16-06 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain
paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed in the
following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Corresponding  requirement
       Requirement in AD 2005-16-06                  in this AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph (e).............................  paragraph (f).
paragraph (f).............................  paragraph (g).
paragraph (g).............................  paragraph (h).
paragraph (h).............................  paragraph (i).
paragraph (i).............................  paragraph (j).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Compliance

    The newly added airplane is not on the U.S. Register; therefore, it
is not directly affected by this AD action. However, we consider this
AD necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed if that
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future. For that airplane, the costs to comply with this AD would be
the same as the costs provided in the existing AD which are restated
below, with a revised average labor rate of $80 per work hour.

                                        Estimated Costs of AD 2005-16-06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
             Model                Work hours       Parts costs       Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                                                     airplane        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -                12  $34,832 (2 each:         $35,792              53      $1,896,976
 200B, and -200C series                          doors 1, 2, 4,
 airplanes, identified as                        5, upper deck,
 Group 1 in Boeing Service                       and two-piece
 Bulletin 747-25-3279.                           off-wing).
747-200B and -300 series                     8  $26,368 (2 each:          27,008               4         108,032
 airplanes, identified as                        doors 1, 2, 4,
 Group 2 in Boeing Service                       and 5).
 Bulletin 747-25-3279.
747-200B series airplanes,                  10  $30,600 (2 each:          31,400               1          31,400
 identified as Group 3 in                        doors 1, 2, 4,
 Boeing Service Bulletin 747-                    5, and two-
 25-3279.                                        piece off-wing).
747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -                10  $30,600 (2 each:          31,400              17         533,800
 200B, 747SP, and 747SR series                   doors 1, 2, 4,
 airplanes, identified as                        and 5, and
 Group 4 in Boeing Service                       upper deck).
 Bulletin 747-25-3279.
747-200F and -400F series                    2  $4,232 (2 upper            4,392              32         140,544
 airplanes, identified as                        deck doors).
 Group 5 in Boeing Service
 Bulletin 747-25-3279.
747-200B series airplanes,                   2  $4,232 (2 two-             4,392               0               0
 identified as Group 6 in                        piece off-wing
 Boeing Service Bulletin 747-                    doors).
 25-3279.
747-400 and -400D series                     2  $8,250 (2 single-          8,410              59         496,190
 airplanes, identified in                        piece off-wing
 Boeing Service Bulletin 747-                    doors).
 25-3232.
747-200B series airplanes,                  10  $30,600 (2 each:          31,400               3          94,200
 identified as Group 4 in                        doors 1, 2, 4,
 Boeing Service Bulletin 747-                    5, upper deck,
 25-3279 and also identified                     and single-
 in Boeing Service Bulletin                      piece off-wing).
 747-25-3232.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2009-0450; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-182-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 the regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-14211 (70 FR 46067, August 9, 2005) and adding
the following new AD:

2009-10-12 Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2009-0450; Directorate Identifier
2008-NM-182-AD; Amendment 39-15908.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective June 4, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2005-16-06.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes listed in Table 1 of this
AD, certificated in any category.

                         Table 1--Applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Boeing--                        As identified in--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B,  Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-
 -200C, -200F, -300, -400F, 747SP, and    3279, Revision 4, dated
 747SR series airplanes.                  December 11, 2008.
Model 747-200B, -200C, -300, -400, and - Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-
 400D series airplanes.                   3232, dated July 6, 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25:
Equipment/Furnishings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of 30- to 60-second delays in
the inflation of escape slides/rafts. We are issuing this AD to
prevent actuation delays in the inflation systems of the escape
slides/rafts, which could result in delayed or failed deployment of
escape slides/rafts during emergency evacuation of an airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2005-16-06

Modification for Upper Deck, Two-Piece Off-Wing, and Door 1, 2, 4, and
5 Slides and Slide/Rafts

    (g) For Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -200F, -
300, -400F, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-25-3279, Revision 1, dated July 11, 2002:
Within 36 months after September 13, 2005 (the effective date of AD
2005-16-06), do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-25-3279, Revision 1, dated July 11, 2002; or Revision
4, dated December 11, 2008. After the effective date of this AD,
only Revision 4 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3279 can be used
to accomplish the requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) Modify the inflation systems of the upper deck and two-piece
off-wing escape slides.
    (2) Modify the inflation systems of the door 1, 2, 4, and 5
escape slides/rafts, as applicable.

    Note 1: Boeing Service Bulletins 747-25-3279, Revision 1, dated
July 11, 2002, and 747-25-3279, Revision 4, dated December 11, 2008;
refer to Goodrich Service Bulletin 4A3037-25-327, dated November 30,
2001; Goodrich Service Bulletin 4A3056-25-331, dated December 21,
2001; and Goodrich Service Bulletin 4A3221-25-332, dated December
21, 2001; as additional sources of service information for doing the
modifications.

Modification for Single-Piece Off-Wing Ramp/Slides

    (h) For Model 747-200B, -200C, -300, -400, and -400D series
airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3232, dated
July 6, 2000: Within 36 months after September 13, 2005, modify the
inflation system of the single-piece off-wing escape ramps/slides,
in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3232, dated July
6, 2000.

    Note 2: Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3232, dated July 6, 2000,
refers to Goodrich Service Bulletin 4A3416-25-305, Revision 2, dated
October 15, 2001, as an additional source of service information for
doing the modification.

Parts Installation

    (i) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD:
As of September 13, 2005, unless the regulator assembly of the
inflation system has been modified in accordance with paragraph (g)
or (h) of this AD, as applicable, no person may install on any
airplane a regulator assembly with any of the following part numbers
(P/Ns): P/N 4A3047, -2, -3, -4, -5, -8, -9, or -10; P/N 4A3194-1, -
2, -3, or -4; or P/N 4A3474-3.

Credit for Previous Service Bulletin

    (j) Actions done before September 13, 2005, in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3279, dated May 16, 2002, are
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

Modification for Upper Deck, Two-Piece Off-Wing, and Door 1, 2, 4, and
5 Slides and Slide/Rafts

    (k) For Model 747SP airplane with the variable number RG162:
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD, in accordance
with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3279, Revision 4, dated December
11, 2008.
    (1) Modify the inflation systems of the upper deck and two-piece
off-wing escape slides.
    (2) Modify the inflation systems of the door 1, 2, 4, and 5
escape slides/rafts.

Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

    (l) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD
according to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3279, Revision 2, dated
July 26, 2006; or Revision 3, dated January 18, 2007; are considered
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified
in paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (m) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD
according to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3279, dated May 16,
2002; Revision 1, dated July 11, 2002; Revision 2, dated July 26,
2006; or Revision 3, dated January 18, 2007; are considered
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified
in paragraph (k) of this AD.

Parts Installation for RG162

    (n) For Model 747SP airplane with the variable number RG162: As
of the effective date of this AD, unless the regulator assembly of
the inflation system has been modified in accordance with paragraph
(k) of this AD, no person may install on that airplane a regulator
assembly with any of the following part numbers (P/Ns): P/N 4A3047,
-2, -3, -4, -5, -8, -9, or -10; P/N 4A3194-1, -2, -3, or -4; or P/N
4A3474-3.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (o)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Andrew Guion, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and
Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2005-16-06
are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (p) You must use the service information contained in Table 2 of
this AD, as applicable, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.

                                 Table 2--All Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Boeing Service Bulletin--                   Revision--                           Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
747-25-3232..............................  Original....................  July 6, 2000.
747-25-3279..............................  1...........................  July 11, 2002.
747-25-3279..............................  4...........................  December 11, 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information contained in
Table 3 of this AD under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

                                 Table 3--New Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Boeing Service Bulletin--                   Revision--                           Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
747-25-3279..............................  4...........................  December 11, 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved
the incorporation by reference of the service information contained
in Table 4 of this AD on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 46067, August 9,
2005).

                             Table 4--Material Previously Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Boeing Service Bulletin--                   Revision--                           Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
747-25-3232..............................  Original....................  July 6, 2000.
747-25-3279..............................  1...........................  July 11, 2002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. For
Goodrich service information identified in this AD, contact Goodrich
Corporation, Aircraft Interior Products, ATTN: Technical
Publications, 3414 South Fifth Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85040;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 6, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-11284 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 146)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44932-44933]
[DOCID:fr30jy10-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-9183-1]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Intent To Delete the SMS Instruments, Inc.
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2, is
issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the SMS Instruments, Inc.
Superfund Site (Site),

located in Deer Park, New York, from the National Priorities List (NPL)
and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, is an
Appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of New York, through the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, have
determined that all appropriate remedial actions under CERCLA have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
    Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax: To the attention of Mark Dannenberg at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: To the attention of Mark Dannenberg, Remedial Project
Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, NY
10007-1866.
    Hand Delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor,
New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Records Center's normal hours of operation
(Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1986-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the Docket without change and may be made available online at http:/
/www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider CBI
or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or via e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comments. If you
send comments to EPA via e-mail, your e-mail address will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the Docket and made available
on the Web site. If you submit electronic comments, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comments and with any disks or CD-ROMs that you submit. If EPA cannot
read your comments due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comments.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any
form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the Docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available Docket materials can be viewed electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or obtained in hard copy at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records
Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, Phone: 212-
637-4308, Hours: Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

and

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 1, SUNY
@ Stony Brook, 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, New York 11790, Phone: 631-
444-0240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Dannenberg, Remedial Project
Manager, by mail at Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th floor,
New York, NY 10007-1866; telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax at 212-637-
3966; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' Section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of
Deletion of the SMS Instruments, Inc. Superfund Site without prior
Notice of Intent to Delete because we view this as a noncontroversial
revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our
reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of
Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no
adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further
action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse
comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion and it
will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public
comments in a subsequent final Deletion Notice based on this Notice of
Intent to Delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this
Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must
do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion
which is located in the ``Rules'' section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

     Dated: July 20, 2010.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2010-18775 Filed 7-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14581-14586]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05502]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80253; File No. SR-FICC-2017-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Describe the Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge

March 15, 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 March 7, 2017, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Mortgage-
Backed

Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules (``MBSD Rules'') \3\ in
order to provide transparency in the MBSD Rules with respect to the
existing intraday Mark-to-Market charge by codifying FICC's current
practices with respect to the assessment and collection of the intraday
Mark-to-Market charge.\4\ This charge is imposed on certain Clearing
Members that experience an adverse intraday Mark-to-Market change that
meets certain criteria described below. The charge is designed to
mitigate FICC's exposure resulting from large intraday Mark-to-Market
fluctuations to Clearing Members' portfolios that are not otherwise
covered by Clearing Members' Required Fund Deposits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The MBSD Rules are available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures. Capitalized terms used herein and not
otherwise defined shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in
the MBSD Rules.
    \4\ The intraday Mark-to-Market charge is currently described in
Section 2(a) of Rule 4 of the MBSD Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to provide transparency with respect to the existing
intraday Mark-to-Market charge by codifying FICC's existing practices
with respect to the charge, FICC is proposing to amend MBSD Rule 1
(Definitions) to add the defined term ``Intraday Mark-to-Market
Charge'' and to amend Section 2(c) of MBSD Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and
Loss Allocation) to include the Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge.
    In addition, the proposed rule change would delete the term ``End
of Day Charge'' from the MBSD Rules because it is no longer used, as
further discussed below. To effectuate this change, the proposed rule
change would delete the definition of End of Day Charge from Rule 1
(Definitions) and would amend Section 2 of MBSD Rule 4 (Clearing Fund
and Loss Allocation) to delete the reference to the End of Day Charge.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change would provide transparency in the MBSD
Rules with respect to the assessment and collection of the existing
Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge, which FICC currently may impose on a
Clearing Member on an intraday basis under certain circumstances
described below. Once imposed, payment of this charge is due within one
hour after notice from FICC to an affected Clearing Member.\5\ The
proposed rule change would also eliminate references to the End of Day
Charge from the MBSD Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ MBSD Rule 4, Section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Background--The Required Fund Deposit and Mark-to-Market
    The Required Fund Deposit serves as each Clearing Member's margin.
The objective of the Required Fund Deposit is to mitigate potential
losses to FICC associated with liquidation of the Clearing Member's
portfolio in the event that FICC ceases to act for a Clearing Member
(hereinafter referred to as a ``default''). FICC determines Required
Fund Deposit amounts using a number of component charges calculated and
assessed daily, the largest of which is the VaR Charge that is a risk-
based margin methodology intended to capture market price risk. The
methodology uses historical market moves to project or forecast the
potential gains or losses on the liquidation of a defaulting Clearing
Member's portfolio, assuming that a portfolio would take three days to
liquidate or hedge in normal market conditions. The projected
liquidation gains or losses are used to determine the Clearing Member's
VaR Charge, which is calculated to cover projected liquidation losses
at a 99 percent confidence level. The aggregate of all Clearing
Members' Required Fund Deposits constitutes the Clearing Fund of MBSD,
which FICC would be able to access in the event a defaulting Clearing
Member's own Required Fund Deposit is insufficient to satisfy losses to
FICC caused by the liquidation of that Clearing Member's portfolio.
    MBSD calculates the full suite of components that comprise the
Required Fund Deposit and imposes the Required Fund Deposit once per
day, at the start of the day, based on a Clearing Member's prior end-
of-day positions. Generally, the second largest component of the daily
Required Fund Deposit is a start-of-day Mark-to-Market amount, which is
designed to mitigate the risk arising out of the value change between
the contract/settlement value of a Clearing Member's open positions and
the market value at the end of the prior day.
(ii) Overview--The Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge
    During each trading day, a Clearing Member's exposure may change
due to the settlement of existing transactions and new trade
activities. In addition, the value of the Clearing Member's portfolio
may change due to market influences. Normally, the start-of-day Mark-
to-Market component of the daily Required Fund Deposit covers FICC's
exposure to a Clearing Member due to market moves and/or trading and
settlement activity because it brings the portfolio of outstanding
positions up to the market value at the end of the prior day. However,
because the start-of-day Mark-to-Market component of the Required Fund
Deposit is calculated only once daily using the prior end-of-day
positions and prices, it does not cover a Clearing Member's exposure
arising out of intraday changes to position and market value in the
Clearing Member's portfolio that result in an adverse change to the
Clearing Member's Mark-to-Market (``MTM Exposure''). FICC manages this
intraday risk exposure by observing snapshots of Clearing Members'
portfolios and monitoring intraday changes to each Clearing Member's
Mark-to-Market versus the Mark-to-Market that was part of the Required
Fund Deposit at the start of the day or, if applicable, any
subsequently collected Mark-to-Market amount. FICC then collects an
Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge from Clearing Members to cover
significant risk exposures that warrant the collection of intraday
margin, as further described below.
(iii) The Parameter Breaks
    FICC's current practice with respect to the assessment of the
Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge entails tracking three criteria (each, a
``Parameter Break'') for each Clearing Member. The Parameter Breaks
help FICC determine whether a Clearing Member's MTM Exposure poses a
risk to FICC that is significant enough to warrant an Intraday Mark-to-
Market Charge. The objective of the Parameter Breaks is to ensure that
FICC is able to limit exposure to intraday Mark-to-Market fluctuations
that (a) are of a large dollar amount (the ``Dollar Threshold''), (b)
exhaust a significant portion of a Clearing Member's VaR Charge (the
``Percentage Threshold'') and (c) are experienced by Clearing Members
with backtesting deficiencies

that bring backtesting results for that Clearing Member below the 99
percent confidence target (the ``Coverage Target''), indicating that a
Clearing Member's activity was not sufficiently covered by margin.
1. The Dollar Threshold
    The purpose of the Dollar Threshold is to identify those Clearing
Members whose MTM Exposures represent a large portion of the Clearing
Fund. FICC believes that such Clearing Members pose an increased risk
of loss to FICC because the coverage provided by the Clearing Fund,
which is designed to cover the aggregate losses of all Clearing
Members' portfolios, would be substantially impacted by large MTM
Exposures. More specifically, if a Clearing Member were to default and
the Clearing Member's Required Fund Deposit was not sufficient to
satisfy losses to FICC caused by the liquidation of the Clearing
Member's portfolio, FICC would be able to access the funds held by it
in the Clearing Fund to satisfy such losses. However, because the
Clearing Fund must be available to satisfy potential losses to FICC
that may arise from any Clearing Member defaults, FICC would be exposed
to a significant risk of loss if Clearing Members' MTM Exposures
accounted for a substantial portion of the Clearing Fund. The Dollar
Threshold is set to an amount that would ensure that the aggregate MTM
Exposures of all of its Clearing Members at such threshold would not
exceed 5 percent of the Clearing Fund. FICC believes that the
availability of 95 percent of the Clearing Fund to satisfy all other
liquidation losses arising out of a Clearing Member's default is
sufficient to mitigate the risks posed to FICC by such losses. FICC
assesses the sufficiency of the Dollar Threshold on an annual basis and
may adjust the Dollar Threshold if it determines that such an
adjustment is necessary to provide reasonable coverage. Currently, the
Dollar Threshold is an adverse intraday Mark-to-Market change in a
Clearing Member's portfolio that equals or exceeds $1,000,000 when
compared to the Clearing Member's start-of-day Mark-to-Market
requirement including, if applicable, any subsequently collected Mark-
to-Market amount.
2. The Percentage Threshold
    The purpose of the Percentage Threshold is to identify those
Clearing Members whose MTM Exposures deplete a significant portion of
such Clearing Members' daily VaR Charge. FICC believes that Clearing
Members that experience such MTM Exposures pose an increased risk of
loss to FICC because the coverage provided by the VaR Charge, which is
designed to cover estimated losses to a portfolio over a specified time
period at least 99 percent of the time, would be depleted by a
significant MTM Exposure that could cause the Clearing Member's
Required Fund Deposit to be unable to absorb further intraday losses to
the Clearing Member's portfolio. The Percentage Threshold is designed
to provide FICC with a reasonable cushion to allow the VaR Charge
collected at the start of day to function as expected. More
specifically, the VaR Charge is designed to cover potential losses over
a three-day time period for a Clearing Member at least 99 percent of
the time, assuming normal market conditions. When a Clearing Member's
MTM Exposure meets or exceeds a certain percentage as compared to its
daily VaR Charge, the value of the Clearing Member's portfolio is
trending towards a loss outside of the expected value as determined by
such VaR Charge. The Percentage Threshold is calculated to equal a
percentage of the daily VaR Charge that FICC has determined would leave
it with a sufficient amount of a Clearing Member's remaining VaR Charge
after accounting for potential losses arising from the Clearing
Member's MTM Exposure. FICC assesses the sufficiency of the Percentage
Threshold on an annual basis and may adjust the Percentage Threshold if
it determines that such an adjustment is necessary to provide
reasonable coverage.\6\ Currently, the Percentage Threshold is an
adverse intraday Mark-to-Market change in a Clearing Member's portfolio
that equals or exceeds 30 percent of the VaR Charge collected as part
of the Clearing Member's daily Required Fund Deposit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In 2014, FICC lowered the Percentage Threshold from 40
percent to 30 percent of the VaR Charge after conducting a study
that determined that a Percentage Threshold of 40 percent did not
provide a sufficient cushion against potential losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Coverage Target
    The purpose of the Coverage Target is to identify those Clearing
Members that have experienced backtesting deficiencies that bring the
results for that Clearing Member below the 99 percent confidence target
(i.e., greater than two deficiency days in a rolling 12-month period)
as reported in the most current month. FICC believes that such Clearing
Members pose an increased risk of loss to FICC because such backtesting
deficiencies demonstrate that FICC's risk-based margin model did not
perform as expected for the Clearing Member. More specifically, FICC
employs daily backtesting to determine the adequacy of each Clearing
Member's Required Fund Deposit. FICC compares the Required Fund Deposit
for each Clearing Member with the simulated liquidation gains/losses
using the actual positions in the Clearing Member's portfolio and the
actual historical security returns. FICC investigates the cause(s) of
any deficiencies. As a part of this process, FICC pays particular
attention to deficiencies that cause a Clearing Member's backtesting
coverage to fall below the Coverage Target. Such deficiencies are
evidence that the model used to calculate the Clearing Member's
Required Fund Deposit did not calculate an amount sufficient to cover
the Clearing Member's risk to FICC, as would otherwise be expected of
the Required Fund Deposit. The Coverage Target is designed to provide
coverage to FICC for intraday Mark-to-Market fluctuations in the
portfolio of a Clearing Member for whom the Required Fund Deposit model
is not performing as expected. FICC believes that a MTM Exposure for
Clearing Members that fall below the Coverage Target may expose FICC to
heightened risk, requiring an Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge to cover
that risk.
(iv) Assessment and Collection of the Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge
    FICC's current practice is to review intraday snapshots of each
Clearing Member's portfolios to determine whether the Clearing Member
has experienced a MTM Exposure that warrants FICC assessing an Intraday
Mark-to-Market Charge. More specifically, if a Clearing Member's MTM
Exposure breaches all three Parameter Breaks, the Clearing Member will
be subject to the Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge and FICC will collect
the charge subject to waivers or changes to the amount of the
calculated charge, as described below. However, where FICC determines
that certain market conditions exist, including but not limited to (i)
sudden swings in an equity index in either direction that exceed
certain threshold amounts determined by FICC and (ii) moves in U.S.
Treasury yields and mortgage-backed security spreads outside of
historically observed market moves, FICC does not require that the
Coverage Target be breached; rather, FICC imposes the Intraday Mark-to-
Market Charge if only the Dollar Threshold and Percentage Threshold are
breached,\7\ subject to waivers and

changes to the amount of the calculated charge, as described below.
Moreover, during such market conditions, the Dollar Threshold and
Percentage Threshold may be reduced if FICC determines that such
reduction is appropriate in order to accelerate collection of
anticipated additional margin from Clearing Members whose portfolios
may present relatively greater risks to FICC on an overnight basis. Any
such reduction would not cause the Dollar Threshold to be less than
$250,000 and the Percentage Threshold to be less than 5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FICC has determined that, because a Clearing Member's
backtesting coverage may not accurately reflect the risks posed by a
Clearing Member under certain market conditions, Clearing Members
with backtesting coverage that meets or exceeds the Coverage Target
may nonetheless pose increased risk to FICC. Therefore, FICC imposes
the Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge on Clearing Members that breach
the Dollar Threshold and Percentage Threshold, despite the fact that
such Members may not have breached the Coverage Target during
certain market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Irrespective of market conditions, FICC may impose the Intraday
Mark-to-Market Charge on Clearing Members that (i) are approaching but
have not yet breached the Percentage Threshold (but are at 20 percent
or greater of the daily VaR Charge) and (ii) have a MTM Exposure that
exceeds a certain dollar amount (``Surveillance Threshold'') that is
set by FICC per Clearing Member based on the Clearing Member's internal
Credit Risk Rating Matrix (``CRRM'') rating and/or the Clearing
Member's Watch List status, if the Corporation determines that the size
of such Clearing Member's Mark-to-Market change exposes the Corporation
to increased risk. FICC links the Surveillance Thresholds to a Clearing
Member's CRRM rating and Watch List status because a Clearing Member
with a weaker internal rating is likely to pose a greater risk of
default. Clearing Members with weaker internal credit ratings are
assigned lower Surveillance Thresholds than Clearing Members with
stronger internal credit ratings. The Surveillance Thresholds are
intended as a tool to aid FICC in identifying Clearing Members whose
MTM Exposures may necessitate the collection of an Intraday Mark-to-
Market Charge. The current Surveillance Thresholds are: (a) $50 million
for Clearing Members with a CRRM rating of ``1'' or ``2'' and for non-
rated Clearing Members that are not on the Watch List; (b) $25 million
for Clearing Members with a CRRM rating of ``3''; (c) $15 million for
Clearing Members with a CRRM rating of ``4''; (d) $10 million for
Clearing Members with a CRRM rating of ``5'' or ``6'' and for non-rated
Clearing Members that are on the Watch List; and (e) $5 million for
Clearing Members with a CRRM rating of ``7.''
    Although FICC generally collects the Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge
under the conditions described above, FICC retains the discretion to
waive or alter such Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge in circumstances
where it determines that the MTM Exposure and/or the breaches of the
Parameter Breaks do not accurately reflect FICC's risk exposure to the
Clearing Member's intraday Mark-to-Market fluctuation (e.g., a Clearing
Member's breach of the Coverage Target Parameter Break is based on a
shortened backtesting look-back period and large Mark-to-Market
fluctuations arising out of trade errors). Based on FICC's assessment
of the impact of these circumstances and FICC's actual risk exposure to
a Clearing Member, FICC may, in its discretion, waive or alter
(decrease or increase) an Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge for a Clearing
Member. Given the variability of the factors that result in breaches of
the Parameter Breaks, FICC believes that it is important to maintain
such discretion in order to limit the imposition of the Intraday Mark-
to-Market Charge to those Clearing Members with MTM Exposures that pose
a significant level of risk to FICC. Such Intraday Mark-to-Market
Charge would not reduce a Clearing Member's Required Fund Deposit below
the amount reported at the start of day. Any increase to the Intraday
Mark-to-Market Charge would not cause the Intraday Mark-to-Market
Charge to be greater than two times its calculated amount.
(v) Communication With Clearing Members and Imposition of the Intraday
Mark-to-Market Charge
    If FICC determines that FICC should collect an Intraday Mark-to-
Market Charge from a Clearing Member, FICC notifies the Clearing Member
during the trading day of its requirement to pay the Intraday Mark-to-
Market Charge and the amount due. Affected Clearing Members are
required to pay the amount due within one hour after FICC has provided
the Clearing Member with notification that such payment is due (as long
as notification is provided at least one hour prior to the close of the
cash Fedwire operated by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York).
(vi) Proposal To Delete the End of Day Charge
    Currently, MBSD Rule 4 states that the Required Fund Deposit is
equal to the greater of: (i) The Minimum Charge, or (ii) the End of Day
Charge,\8\ plus the VaR Charge, the Deterministic Risk Component,\9\
and the special charge, if applicable. The End of Day Charge is
comprised of the VaR Charge plus components that are identical to the
components in the Deterministic Risk Component and is therefore
duplicative and unnecessary. Therefore, FICC is proposing to delete the
term and the reference to the End of Day Charge in order to help ensure
that the MBSD Rules are accurate and clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The ``End of Day Charge'' means with respect to each
Clearing Member, the calculation equaling: (i) The VaR Charge; plus
(ii) the Mark-to-Market Debit; minus (iii) the Mark-to-Market
Credit; plus (iv) a cash obligation item debit; minus (v) a cash
obligation item credit; plus or minus (vi) accrued principal and
interest. See MBSD Rule 1, supra note 3.
    \9\ The ``Deterministic Risk Component'' means with respect to
the margin portfolio of a Clearing Member, the calculation equaling:
(i) The Mark-to-Market Debit; minus (ii) the Mark-to-Market Credit;
plus (iii) a cash obligation item debit; minus (iv) a cash
obligation item credit; plus or minus (v) accrued principal and
interest. See MBSD Rule 1, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the ``Act''), requires, in part, that the MBSD Rules promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.\10\ The proposed rule changes with respect to the
Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge would provide transparency in the MBSD
Rules regarding the existing Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge by
codifying FICC's current practices with respect to the assessment and
collection of the charge. In addition, the proposed rule change
associated with the deletion of the End of Day Charge would delete
provisions that are not used to ensure that the MBSD Rules remain
accurate and clear. Collectively, the proposed changes would ensure
that the MBSD Rules remain transparent, accurate and clear, which would
enable all stakeholders to readily understand their rights and
obligations in connection with MBSD's clearance and settlement of
securities transactions. Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed
rule changes would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) under the Act requires a clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to measure its credit exposures to its
participants at least once a day and limit its exposures to potential
losses from defaults by its participants under normal market
conditions, so that the operations of the clearing agency would not be
disrupted and non-defaulting participants would not be exposed to
losses that they

cannot anticipate or control.\11\ FICC's Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge
is calculated and imposed to cover credit exposures estimated by FICC
based on significant intraday Mark-to-Market changes to a Clearing
Member's portfolio, as well as the Clearing Member's trailing 12-month
backtesting results, with the goal of ensuring that FICC is not exposed
to increased risk from large intraday Mark-to-Market changes to the
Clearing Member's portfolio. Therefore, FICC believes that management
of its credit exposures to Clearing Members through this charge is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Act requires a clearing agency to
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to
participants under normal market conditions.\12\ When applicable, the
Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge is a component of a Clearing Member's
Required Fund Deposit, or margin, and is intended to maintain coverage
of FICC's credit exposures to such Clearing Member at a confidence
level of at least 99 percent. The Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge
therefore limits FICC's exposures to Clearing Members under normal
market conditions. Moreover, by incorporating the Intraday Mark-to-
Market Charge into the MBSD Rules more clearly, the proposed change
demonstrates that FICC has rule provisions that are reasonably designed
to use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to its
Clearing Members under normal market conditions. Therefore, FICC
believes that the proposed rule change is also consistent with Rule
17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule changes with respect to the Intraday Mark-to-
Market Charge have also been designed to be consistent with Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(4) and (e)(6) under the Act, which were recently adopted by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').\13\ Rule
17Ad-22(e)(4) will require FICC to establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures
to participants and those exposures arising from its payment, clearing,
and settlement processes.\14\ The proposed rule change codifies MBSD's
practices associated with the Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge, which
address the identification, measurement, monitoring and management of
credit exposures that may arise from intraday changes that occur to a
Clearing Member's portfolio because of settlement of existing
transactions and new trade activities. Moreover, by incorporating the
Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge into the MBSD Rules more clearly, the
proposed change would enable FICC to have rule provisions that are
reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and
manage its credit exposures to Clearing Members and those exposures
arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, which
FICC believes is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4) and (6). The Commission adopted
amendments to Rule 17Ad-22, including the addition of new section
17Ad-22(e), on September 28, 2016. See Exchange Act Release No. 34-
78961 (September 28, 2016), 81 FR 70786 (October 13, 2016) (S7-03-
14). FICC is a ``covered clearing agency'' as defined in Rule 17Ad-
22(a)(5) and must comply with new section (e) of Rule 17Ad-22 by
April 11, 2017. Id.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) will require FICC to 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 is monitored by management
on an ongoing basis and regularly reviewed, tested, and verified.\15\
The Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge is a risk-based margining system
with parameters that are regularly reviewed by FICC. Therefore, FICC
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change associated with
the Intraday Mark-to-Market Charge would impact competition.\16\ The
proposed rule change would increase the transparency of the MBSD Rules
with respect to this existing charge by codifying FICC's current
practices with respect to the assessment and imposition of the charge.
As such, FICC believes that the proposed rule change will not impact
Clearing Members or have any impact on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change to delete the
End of Day Charge would impact competition. Changes to the applicable
provisions would not impact Clearing Members because the End of Day
Charge is not used by MBSD in the calculation of a Clearing Member's
Required Fund Deposit. As such, FICC believes that the deletion of
these provisions will not impact competition.

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

    FICC has not received any written comments relating to this
proposal. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-FICC-2017-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2017-004. 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 FICC and on DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-FICC-2017-004 and should be submitted on or before April 11, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05502 Filed 3-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITION PP 7E7273

EPA Registration Division contact: Susan Stanton;<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project No. 4.

PP 7E7273

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (7E7273) from Interregional
Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR
part 180.557 by establishing a tolerance for residues of tetraconazole
in or on the raw agricultural commodity grape at 0.15 parts per million
(ppm).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or
information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of
FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  The metabolism of tetraconazole is adequately
understood for the purposes of establishing the proposed tolerances.
Tetraconazole metabolites include 1,2,4-triazole, and two conjugates,
triazolylalanine and triazolyl acetic acid, which are common to most of
the triazole fungicides.  Based on the available metabolism and
toxicology data, parent tetraconazole is proposed to be considered as
the residue of concern in plant and animal matrices.  Tolerances have
previously been approved for many crop and animal matrices.

	2. Analytical method. Adequate enforcement methodology (capillary gas
chromatography with electron capture detector (GC/ECD)) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression.  The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350.

	3. Magnitude of residues. For grape, a total of twelve (12) residue
trials were conducted to evaluate the magnitude of the residues of
tetraconazole following two applications of METTLE 125ME at 0.04 lbs of
active ingredient (ai) per acre (a) with treatments 14 days apart and
harvest at 14 days after the last application.  The grape fruit raw
agricultural commodity (RAC) mean was 0.030 ppm with a minimum residue
level of 0.005 ppm and a maximum residue level of 0.091 ppm.  Both of
the two processed fractions grape juice and raisins did not concentrate
having residue levels less than their corresponding grape fruit (RAC).

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  For formulated product; Acute oral lethal dose
(LD50) = >5000 (combined) milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) (toxicity category
III); acute dermal LD50 < 2,000 mg/kg (toxicity category III); acute
inhalation lethal concentration (LC50) = 3.17 mg/liter (toxicity
category IV); primary eye irritation - clear by 72 hours - Minimal
irritant (toxicity category III); primary skin irritation – not an
irritant (toxicity category IV); and dermal sensitization – negative
– not a sensitizer.

	2. Genotoxicty. Numerous mutagenicity studies were conducted with
tetraconazole and no genotoxic effects were reported.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. A two-generation
reproduction study was conducted in rats at dietary concentrations of 0,
10, 70 or 490 ppm.  The LOAEL for parental toxicity = 70 ppm, equivalent
to 4.9/5.9 (male/female) mg/kg/day based on increased mortality in P
generation females. The NOAEL = 10 ppm, equivalent to 0.7/0.8 (M/F)
mg/kg/day. The LOAEL for off spring toxicity = 490 ppm (40.6 mg/kg/day
from the P generation female intake) based on decreased litter weight
and mean pup weight in litters of all generations before weaning and
increased relative liver weights at weaning in both sexes of all
litters. The NOAEL = 70 ppm (5.9 mg/kg/day). The LOAEL for reproductive
toxicity = 70 ppm, equivalent to 4.9/5.9 (M/F) mg/kg/day based on
increased mean gestation duration in P generation parental females and
related evidence of compound toxicity in the parturition process.  The
NOAEL was 10 ppm (0.7 mg/kg/day for males and 0.8 for females).

A developmental toxicity study was conducted using rats gavaged with
doses of 0, 5, 22.5, and 100 mg/kg/day from days 2 through 15 of
gestation. The maternal toxicity LOAEL is 100 mg/kg/day based on
decreased body weight gain, and food consumption and increased liver and
kidney weights. The maternal toxicity NOAEL is 22.5 mg/kg/day.
Developmental toxicity was noted at 100 mg/kg/day and consisted of an
increased incidence of small fetuses, and supernumerary ribs. The LOAEL
and NOAEL for developmental toxicity were 100 and 22.5 mg/kg/day,
respectively.

A developmental toxicity study was conducted using rabbits gavaged with
doses of 0, 7.5, 15, or 30 mg/kg/day.  The maternal toxicity NOAEL = 13
mg/kg/day and LOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day, based upon decreased body weight
gain.  The developmental toxicity NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was
not established.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Ninety-day feeding studies were conducted in
rats and mice.  The rat study was conduced at dietary concentrations of
0, 10, 60, or 360 ppm.  The NOAEL = 4.1/5.5 (M/F) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL
= 23.9/28.7 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based on single liver cell degeneration in
males, and increased SGPT and SGOT, decreased BUN levels, increased
absolute and relative liver weights and presence of hepatocellular
single cell necrosis in females.  The mouse study was conducted at
dietary concentrations of 0, 5, 25, 125, or 625 ppm.  The NOAEL = 4
(M/F) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL = 16/20 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based on single
liver cell degeneration in males, and increased SGPT and SGOT, decreased
BUN levels, increased absolute and relative liver weights and presence
of hepatocellular single cell necrosis in females.

	5. Chronic toxicity. A two year combined chronic
toxicity/carcinogenicity study was conducted in rats at dietary
concentrations of 0, 10, 80, 640 or 1280 ppm.  The NOAEL = 3.4/4.4 (M/F)
mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL = 27.7/39.4 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based upon
histopathology of the bone (osseous hypertrophy of the cranium/parietal
bone), pale and thickened incisors, and decreased absolute and relative
adrenal and pituitary weights in males; decreased body weight (at
terminal sacrifice) in females.  No treatment-related increases in tumor
incidence were observed.

A 52-week chronic toxicity study was conducted in dogs at dietary
concentrations of 0, 22.5, 90 or 360 ppm.  The NOAEL = 0.73/0.82 (M/F)
mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL = 27.7/39.4 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based upon increased
absolute and relative kidney weights and histopathological changes in
the male kidney.

Carcinogenicity;  An 80 week mouse oncogenicity study was conducted at
dietary concentrations of 0, 10, 90, 800, or 1250 ppm.  The NOAEL =
1.4/1.5 (M/F) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL = 12/14.5 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based
upon increased liver weights and hepatocellular vacuolation in both
sexes and increased kidney weights in males.  Treatment-related
increased incidences of combined benign and malignant liver tumors in
both sexes were observed.

	6. Animal metabolism. The nature of tetraconazole residues is
adequately understood.  Tetraconazole is extensively metabolized very
quickly and eliminated from the body by fecal and urinary routes.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. 1,2-4-Triazole is the major metabolite
identified in urine and feces with minor amounts of triazole acid and
alcohol.  The most conservative toxicology endpoint for 1,2,4-triazole
is 15 mg/kg/day, based on body weight decreases in male rats in the
reproductive study.

	8. Endocrine disruption. Tetraconazole did not have effects on
endocrine organs or tissues, nor were there any indications of effects
on fetal development in either rats or rabbits, or on reproductive
performance in rats.  Therefore, at doses likely to be encountered,
tetraconazole in not likely to be an endocrine disruptor.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. (food and drinking water combined):

a.  Acute risk: Using 100% crop treated, all existing RAC tolerances
plus the presently proposed grape RAC tolerance for residue exposure
assumptions; the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
tetraconazole will occupy < 1.0% of the aPAD for the population group
(females 13 to 49 years old) receiving the greatest exposure.  No acute
toxicity endpoint was identified for the remaining population subgroups.

b.  Chronic risk: Using 100% crop treated, empirical processing factors,
 average field trial residues for all crops, and average residues in
meat and meat by-products derived from feeding studies; the exposure to
tetraconazole from food and water will utilize 10.1% of the cPAD for the
population group all infants < 1 year old (the most sensitive
subpopulation).

c.  Cancer risk:  Using projected percent crop treated estimates for all
crops, empirical processing factors plus average field trial residues
for all crops,  and average residues in meat and meat by-products
derived from feeding studies;  the estimated cancer risk for the
proposed use of tetraconazole on grapes,  peanuts, pecans, soybeans and
sugarbeets  is 3x10-6.  This aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from
food and water and falls within the Agency's acceptable risk standard
for cancer.  Also, there is the intention to reduce the number of Pecan
applications from 8 to 4 per year that will lower the risk to 2.5 x
10-6.

	i. Food. given above

	ii. Drinking water. given above

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Tetraconazole is currently not registered for
use on any residential non-food site.  Therefore, residential exposure
to tetraconazole residues will be through dietary exposure only.

D. Cumulative Effects

	EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to
tetraconazole and any other substance.  However, the Agency does have
concern about potential toxicity to 1,2,4-triazole and two conjugates,
triazolylalanine and triazolyl acetic acid.  To support the extension of
existing parent triazole-derivative fungicide tolerances, EPA conduced
an interim human health assessment for aggregate exposure to
1,2,4-triazole.   Based on this assessment EPA concluded that for all
exposure durations and population subgroups, aggregate exposures to
1,2,4-triazole are not expected to exceed its level of concern.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Based on the exposure assumptions described above
and on the completeness of the toxicology database, it can be concluded
that total aggregate exposure from food and water to the U.S. population
and all evaluated population subgroups from tetraconazole exposure from
all proposed uses will be below 100% of the RfDs.  EPA generally has no
concerns for estimated exposures below 100% of the RfD, since the RfD
represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure will not
pose an appreciable risk to human health.  Thus, ISAGRO believes it can
be concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to tetraconazole residues for the registered and
proposed uses on grape.

	2. Infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional
sensitivity of infants and children to residues of tetraconazole, the
data from developmental toxicity studies in both the rat and rabbit and
a two generation reproduction study in rats have been considered.  These
toxicity studies indicate the offspring are not more sensitive and all
developmental and reproductive effects were secondary to severe maternal
toxicity. Thus, ISAGRO believes that infants and children are protected
and that an additional uncertainty factor for infants and children is
not warranted.

F. International Tolerances

	Maximum residue levels (MRL) have been established for tetraconazole in
the following countries (in ppm):

Belgium: sugar beet root, 0.05; wheat grain, 0.05; wheat straw, 2.0.

Brazil: apple, 0.4; banana, 0.2; coffee, 0.08; grape, 0.3; mango, 0.1;
soybean, 0.1.

France: apple, 0.2; barley grain, 0.02; grape, 0.2; wine, 0.01; sugar
beet root, 0.05; wheat grain, 0.02.

Italy: apple, 0.5; artichoke, 0.2; barley grain, 0.1; courgette, 0.2;
cucumber, 0.2; grape, 0.5; melon, 0.05; peach, 0.2; pear, 0.2; pepper,
0.2; tomato, 0.2, watermelon, 0.05; wheat grain, 0.05

Portugal: apple, 0.3; grape, 0.2; melon, 0.1; peach, 0.2; pear, 0.3;
strawberry, 0.2; sugar beet root, 0.05.

Spain: apple, 0.2; artichoke, 0.05; cucurbit fruit & edible peel, 0.2;
nectarine, 0.2; peach, 0.2; pear, 0.2; sugar beet leaves, 0.3; sugar
beet root; 0.05; tomato, 0.1.

United Kingdom: barley grain, 0.2; barley straw, 10; oat grain, 0.1; oat
straw, 2; wheat grain, 0.05; wheat straw, 5.

Czech Republic: apple, 0.5; grape, 0.05

Hungary: apple, 0.2; grape, 0.5; sugar beet root & leaves, 0.5; sugar
beet root, 0.1; wheat grain, 0.05; wheat straw, 3.

Poland: apple, 0.5; cereal grain, 0.05; cereal straw, 3; cucumber edible
peel, 0.2.

Japan: wheat, 0.05; barley; 0.2 other cereal grain, 0.1; sugar beet,
0.5; artichoke, 0.2; tomato, 1; cucumber, 0.5; pumpkin (including
squash), 1; oriental cucurbitaceous vegetables, 0.2; apple, 0.5,
Japanese pear, 0.5, pear, 0.5 quince, 0.5 peach, 0.3, nectarine, 0.2;
apricot, 0.2; Japanese plum (including prune); 0.2; cherry, 0.2;
strawberry, 2; watermelon, 0.2, melon, 0.2; makuwauri, 0.2; grape, 0.5;
tea, 20.

No CODEX maximum residue levels (MRL) have been established for residues
of tetraconazole on any crops at this time.

 PAGE

 PAGE   5