DRAFT REPORT: A System for Identifying, Developing, and Implementing Incentives for Performance Track and State Programs. September, 2005 1 DRAFT REPORT:

A System for Identifying, Developing, and Implementing Incentives for Performance Track and State Programs DRAFT REPORT: A System for Identifying, Developing, and Implementing Incentives for Performance Track and State Programs. September, 2005 2 Contents A. Introduction and Background B. Incentives Process 1. Cycle 2. Accountability 3. Communications Strategy C. Incentives Framework 1. Incentives Identification and Prioritization i. Inventory ii. Establish selection criteria iii. Select Incentives 2. Incentives Development 3. Incentives Implementation 4. Potential Measures of an Effective Incentives System DRAFT REPORT: A System for Identifying, Developing, and Implementing Incentives for Performance Track and State Programs. September, 2005 3 A. Introduction and Background The following report proposes a revitalized incentives system for the National Environmental Performance Track and State performance based programs. The purpose of this document is to identify and address the anticipated outcomes from such an approach. This revitalized process is anticipated to:

  Promote federal and state performance based environmental leadership programs, including the recruitment of new members and reinforce collaborative nature of EPA and State efforts throughout the incentives process.   Provide members ( both existing and new members) of federal and state performancebased programs with more effective incentives that are developed and delivered faster.   Select and focus on administrative, policy, and regulatory incentives that improve environmental performance, change behavior, and encourage new approaches to achieving desired outcomes. In addition, support for financial incentives, including reduced permit fees, and work with green investment firms will be considered.   Build upon current activities to strengthen and integrate state and EPA incentives efforts as a means of leveraging collective resources and expediting the delivery of incentives.   Provide a structured framework for identifying, developing, and implementing incentives, with the capacity to assess the value of incentives throughout the process.   Solicit and engage public input at appropriate times during the process.   Develop a communications strategy to encourage participation and inform interested partners and stakeholders.

To provide some context for this EPA/ State effort, we provide background on the National Environmental Performance Track Program and State performance based programs. Announced in June 2000, the Performance Track Program is designed to recognize and support top environmental performers   those who go beyond compliance with regulatory requirements to attain levels of environmental performance and management that provide greater benefit to people, communities, and the environment. The Program is based upon the experiences of EPA, States, businesses, and community and environmental groups with new approaches that achieve high levels of environmental protection with greater efficiency.

State performance based programs are similarly designed to recognize and support strong and sustained environmental improvement. More than 25 states have active programs or programs under development, and eighteen states rank those performance based programs among their top ten priorities according to a January 2005 Environmental Council of States ( ECOS) survey of states. Nine states have signed Memoranda of Agreement with EPA to enhance coordination and alignment of state level efforts with EPA's program. States and EPA have held five conferences between May 2000 and February 2004, including specific sessions on potential incentives to be offered to members.

During the development of these performance based programs, meetings have been held with a wide array of stakeholders regarding incentive programs. Stakeholders have included state and local governments, non governmental organizations, businesses, associations, and others. Over DRAFT REPORT: A System for Identifying, Developing, and Implementing Incentives for Performance Track and State Programs. September, 2005 4 the course of these meetings, many incentives have been discussed that would motivate facilities to implement environmental improvements.

Beginning in 2004, a series of meetings have been held between EPA's media offices ( air, water and waste), states, and Performance Track members. The meetings have provided Performance Track members an opportunity for dialogue on mutual areas of interest and to explore creation of new incentives and commitments for the program that will help achieve improved measurable environmental outcomes. Minutes from these meetings can be found at www. epa. gov/ performancetrack.

This report is in response to an Environmental Council of States ( ECOS) report, prepared in January 2005 at the request of former EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt titled " Survey of State Support for Performance Based Environmental Programs and Recommendations for Improved Effectiveness." The ECOS report described the level of support among states for Performance Track and state performance based leadership programs and recommended actions states believe EPA should take to improve the effectiveness and value of these programs.

One of the recommendations of the ECOS report was to " develop and implement a revitalized system for identifying, developing and implementing incentives for Performance Track and state programs." As outlined in the ECOS report, a revitalized incentives system would:

  Develop incentives that have greater value to participants and align federal and state incentives to achieve maximum impacts;   Be more demand driven, drawing more actively on perspectives and ideas from current and potential program participants;   Include a process to more systematically identify and evaluate incentives that would be attractive to economic and industrial sectors;   Better align and coordinate incentive identification and development.

The goal of this report is to frame a system for the identification, development, and implementation of incentives that builds on the existing activities and partnerships between states and EPA. While specific recommendations and steps are set out, it is the intent of the workgroup that throughout this system flexibility and common sense should prevail, and not strict adherence to the process. The system and processes proposed in this report are a means to the ultimate end of providing incentives faster that will bring about greater environmental improvement. Many of its elements are in place in Performance Track and state performancebased programs, but perhaps not in as coordinated a manner.

Specifically, the revitalized system proposed creates a partnership between EPA and the states that is designed to be:   Systematic and purposeful   Evaluative, providing measures of an effective system   Coordinated, and improve communications with states DRAFT REPORT: A System for Identifying, Developing, and Implementing Incentives for Performance Track and State Programs. September, 2005 5 B. Incentives Process The goal of performance based programs is to achieve greater environmental results than those achieved in their absence. One way to encourage such results is to provide incentives to members of such programs ( whether Federal or state) that would allow them to operate in a more efficient manner, and thus bring about greater environmental improvement. The creation and delivery of incentives that seek to recruit and retain members is an ongoing process and one that builds on existing efforts. Federal and state agencies seek to continually improve this process and provide a range of incentives in administrative, policy, and regulatory areas.

As part of this ECOS Incentives Workgroup, states were surveyed to gather information regarding state based incentive processes and suggestions for improvements. Forty four states responded to a survey conducted in the summer of 2005 that asked for input on current incentives and ways to improve the process. To improve current processes for identifying, developing, and implementing incentives, seven states encouraged greater opportunities to convene state, federal, and facility stakeholders, five states urged that more organizational support for innovation is needed, and four states suggested the creation of a clearinghouse of incentives in use.

The following process is intended as a framework for the federal performance based program and as appropriate, for state performance based programs.

1. Cycle An incentive cycle includes identification, development, and implementation of incentives and should include assessment during the process. The cycle should provide for assessment and an evaluative feedback loop throughout the process to:   Assess the environmental impacts associated with the incentive to ensure that there will not be adverse or undesirable environmental or human health impacts.   Assess the benefits, costs, and cost savings to members and regulatory agencies associated with implementation of the incentive.   Assess the feasibility of implementing the incentive( s).   Identify and analyze any policy or legal drivers or barriers associated with the incentive( s). For example, there may be statutory or regulatory mechanisms at the federal or state levels that authorize, or impede, development and implementation of a particular incentive.   Consider stakeholder input as appropriate.

These assessments may apply at any stage in the process and are not specific to a particular step.

An effective incentives process necessitates managing and tracking the number of incentives that may be in development or implementation at any one time. An effective process should also allow for adjustments; for example, after being selected, work on a particular incentive, based on further analysis, could be discontinued if the anticipated value to members and environmental agencies is substantially less, or will not be worth the effort. DRAFT REPORT: A System for Identifying, Developing, and Implementing Incentives for Performance Track and State Programs. September, 2005 6 Figure 1.

2. Accountability Each incentive should have an associated plan to develop and make available the incentive within a reasonable timeframe. An EPA staff person should be assigned to track each Performance Track incentive and serve as point of contact for questions, communications and tracking. Similarly, for incentives developed at the state level, a state staff person should be assigned as a lead point of contact.

To ensure the incentives process is implemented in an expedient manner, an on going, active, and dedicated incentives workgroup, comprised of state and EPA representatives, will be established to provide input to the process. The workgroup will be co chaired by a state and federal representative. The workgroup will support the incentives process, including seeking ideas for possible incentives as appropriate, and reporting to EPA's Innovation Action Council ( IAC) periodically.

3. Communications Strategy Effective communications are key to the timely development and implementation of incentives. Performance Track and corresponding state programs have a strong history of soliciting stakeholder and public input. The revitalized system outlined in this report is designed to ensure that EPA and states will continue to communicate effectively with each other and with relevant stakeholders and the public at appropriate times during the incentives cycle. Communications include discussion of potential ideas with program members, briefing program office staff on the mechanics of specific incentives, and seeking public input at appropriate intervals during the cycle, including formal public comment on proposed Assessment of Incentives throughout Cycle INCENTIVES CYCLE Incentives Identification Incentives Implementation Incentives Development DRAFT REPORT: A System for Identifying, Developing, and Implementing Incentives for Performance Track and State Programs. September, 2005 7 regulatory based incentives. Particular attention will be focused on continuing communications with program office staff at the regional and state level who are the front line implementers of many incentives.

Specific modes of communication will include the following:

  Regularly scheduled meetings, conference calls, and newsletters ( e. g., Performance Track weekly regional updates and monthly State calls, ECOS meetings, Performance Track Annual Conference, PT newsletter, etc.).

  EPA's Performance Track incentives website with information on available incentives; appropriate Federal Register notices; adopted policies; and other reference documents.

  Communications materials appropriate for development and implementation of individual incentives.

  EPA national program office and state media association meetings and conferences.

  Targeted in reach to program office staff ( federal and state) involved in incentives delivery.

Section C., Incentives Framework, identifies specific points in the incentives cycle ( identification, development and implementation) where these communication activities will occur.

C. Incentives Framework The suggested framework below is offered as a more systematic process for development of incentives for performance based program members. Work on incentives already underway should continue, and to the extent possible, seek to align with the suggested process. This framework is intended to build on current efforts.

1. Incentives Identification and Prioritization i. Inventory There should be an on going process to inventory performance based incentive efforts underway at the federal and state levels. In addition, there should be a system to update the inventory of administrative, policy, and regulatory incentives periodically. Ideas for new incentives may come from a number of sources, including site visits, surveys, input from media offices, etc. To the greatest extent possible, ideas for new incentives should be sought from current and potential members and be " demand driven." Incentives should provide value to members and specific business sectors.

Some specific state suggestions from the state survey ( not in any order of preference) for incentives included: a) Expedited permitting, including streamlined permit renewals and modifications DRAFT REPORT: A System for Identifying, Developing, and Implementing Incentives for Performance Track and State Programs. September, 2005 8 b) Single point of contact c) Reduced ( or customized) reporting and monitoring d) Reduced inspection frequency e) Sector specific incentives f) Public recognition g) Electronic application and reporting h) Support for financial incentives, including reduced permit fees and work with green investment firms ii. Establish selection criteria Working from a list of possible incentives, there is a need to refine those for further attention. Possible criteria for selection of incentives include selecting an incentive that: a) Establishes continual environmental improvement as the performance paradigm aligned with sustainability. Continual improvement includes incremental and step wise environmental improvement. b) Creates unique benefits for members to enroll or remain enrolled in performance based programs. c) Creates agency value in achieving core program goals. d) Empowers collaboration and encourages innovation. e) Reduces burden and net transaction costs related to program participation for members. f) Assists leadership facilities to achieve improvement in core environmental programs.

iii. Select incentives Suggested steps for selecting incentives: a) Using the established criteria, develop ranking and/ or prioritization system for making selection among incentives. b) The state and federal staff workgroup collaboratively will conduct screening of incentives meeting the established criteria and rank eligible incentives accordingly. c) As appropriate, solicit input by engaging the public regarding the screening of incentives. Such input may comment on the process for ranking and prioritizing incentives, as well as the nature of specific incentives. d) Modify the selection process as needed, and select those priority incentives to initiate development of, and/ or re affirm continuing work on previously selected incentives. e) Identify the type or types of incentives selected ( i. e., whether administrative, regulatory, etc.).

2. Incentives Development Developing an incentive means generating the appropriate details that turn a good idea into a realistic feasible opportunity. The details are critical in the overall system because it can either continue that a good idea is developed, or terminate a good idea because it becomes infeasible. Specifically:

  As appropriate, engage interested federal and state participants in development of administrative, policy, and regulatory incentives and identify opportunities for soliciting public input. For example, the lead developer of an incentive ( such as a DRAFT REPORT: A System for Identifying, Developing, and Implementing Incentives for Performance Track and State Programs. September, 2005 9 policy) would go to the State Federal workgroup to assess interest in implementing the incentive during the development stage.

  Consider implementation issues in the course of development and how to accommodate, to the greatest extent possible, incentives implementation for Performance Track and state performance based leadership programs.

  Develop a plan with discrete steps that generates draft and final policies, rules, etc. in an expeditious manner and establishes responsibilities for meeting deadlines for feedback, and provides opportunities for public input as appropriate. The schedule will depend largely on what type of incentive is under development. For example, rules typically take longer to develop than policy or administrative incentives and will continue to be subject to the Administrative Procedures Act.

  Develop an implementation plan to identify technical needs and allocate appropriate resources.

  Request that States identify interest in implementing an incentive during the development of a rulemaking, or proposed guidance for administrative or policy incentives. EPA will work with ECOS and trade associations to encourage adoption of the incentive, and approaches for implementation in state performance based programs will be identified.

3. Incentives Implementation Comprehensive implementation plans will outline approaches to support implementation of the selected administrative, policy or regulatory incentives. Through the plans, alignment and coordination between EPA and States will help to ensure that barriers are identified and addressed early in the process. The plans will include the following specific actions:

  Development of program awareness and incentives communication packages for distribution to Regional Performance Track representatives, State representatives, and program members.

  Coordination with appropriate sector trade associations to encourage adoption of the incentive.

  Development of approaches for implementation in state performance based programs.

  Periodic communication with EPA programs, Regions and states in both media and compliance offices.

  Regular updates to IAC and ECOS.

  Development of processes for feedback to identify lessons learned from States implementing early on, in order to expedite the process for broader adoption by states or federal agencies later on. Ongoing feedback from states and the public regarding DRAFT REPORT: A System for Identifying, Developing, and Implementing Incentives for Performance Track and State Programs. September, 2005 10 longer term implementation issues will be sought at Performance Track annual meetings, monthly program calls with states, annual program reviews, and other means.

  Identification of an EPA Headquarters point of contact ensuring EPA Regional offices and states are fully briefed and are assisting with implementation efforts. A single point of contact in each Region may also be identified.

  Tracking of State implementation efforts, including state interest and questions regarding specific incentives, updated records of members in Performance Track and state programs eligible for each incentive, and records of members requesting and using the incentives. Specific state and EPA roles in the tracking program will be identified.

4. Potential Measures of an Effective Incentives System In order to help ensure that the revitalized system is effective and provides value, several measures are proposed that align with those stated in the introduction of this report. These measures are not comprehensive, but provide indicators for the effectiveness of the system.

  Length of time to develop an incentive ( Note: The length of time will vary depending on whether the incentive is administrative, policy or regulatory.)   Number of incentives available   Number of states implementing incentives   Number of facilities eligible for an incentive   Number of facilities using incentives   Number of incentives in the pipeline   Data from the bi annual Performance Track member survey. The State/ Federal workgroup should provide input into survey development. Also, with ECOS support, conduct a survey of state performance based program members on similar issues.   Quantified value to members, States, Federal Agencies such as cost savings, burden hour reductions, etc.   Survey EPA headquarters, regions, and States for input on continuous improvement of the incentives process including timeliness, communications, coordination, and other areas for how the system is working.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1450-1454]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00335]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76840; File No. SR-FICC-2015-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify the Government Securities Division Fee Schedule

January 6, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on December 30, 2015, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation
(``FICC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FICC. FICC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\ thereunder. The proposed rule change was effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Fee Schedule
in the Government Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook \5\ (the ``GSD
Rules''). The fee changes will be effective as of January 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The GSD Rulebook is available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC 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
    FICC is modifying the GSD fee structure to (1) change the fees for
the existing services that GSD provides to its Members \6\ and (2)
permit the pass-through of new and existing fees imposed on FICC by its
clearing banks and the Federal Reserve's Fedwire Service
(``Fedwire[supreg]'') (collectively, ``third party'') with respect to
the services that FICC provides to its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Member'' means a comparison-only member or a
Netting Member. The term ``Member'' shall include a sponsoring
member in its capacity as a sponsoring member and a sponsored
member, each to the extent specified in Rule 3A. GSD Rule 1,
Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Describe the Reasons for Adopting the Proposed Rule Change
    Based on the revenue that GSD generated in 2015, GSD requires fee
modifications in order to meet the budgeted expenses associated with
providing its services to Members. Thus, FICC is adopting the proposed
rule changes in order to ensure that FICC can achieve and maintain
GSD's operating margin.
B. Describe Any Problems the Proposed Rule Change Is Intended To
Address
    GSD's ability to achieve its operating margin has been negatively
impacted by (i) a decline in the dollar values of transactions; (ii)
increased infrastructure costs; (iii) increased risk management costs
and (iv) increased third party fees, which GSD has historically
absorbed. In addition, GSD also anticipates that the clearing banks
will impose new fees for the services that FICC provides to its
Members.
C. Describe the Manner in Which the Proposed Rule Change Will Operate
To Resolve Those Problems
    The proposed fee modifications to GSD's services and the pass
through of existing and new third party fees are expected to aide
FICC's ability to achieve and maintain its operating margin because all
of the fees will be aligned to FICC's cost of delivering its services
to Members.
D. Describe the Manner in Which the Proposed Rule Change Will Affect
Various Persons (e.g., Brokers, Dealers, Issuers, and Investors)
    The proposed rule changes will establish different trade submission
and netting fee structures for Broker Accounts and Dealer Accounts
because Members who utilize each of these accounts represent two
different types of functions that are performed in the market served by
the GSD. The Broker Accounts provide the marketplace with the blind-
brokered screens through which Dealer Accounts are matched as
counterparties (on a blind basis) to the transactions that are
submitted to GSD. The Broker Accounts submit two sets of transaction
details for every one set that the Dealer Account submits; for example,
if Broker A matches Dealer A and Dealer B in a transaction to be
submitted to the GSD, each Dealer will submit one transaction as
between the Dealer Account and the Broker Account. However, Broker A
will submit two transactions, one between the Broker and Dealer A and
one between the Broker and Dealer B. The Broker Account will net out
for purposes of GSD's processing of the transaction. However, as the
trade submission and netting fees are currently structured, the Broker
pays for the two sets of transactions (as opposed to the one set paid
by the Dealer Account). FICC is proposing to recognize this difference
between the Broker Accounts and the Dealer Accounts by charging the
Broker Accounts less with respect to the trade submission and netting
fees. This approach is consistent with the way in which GSD currently
applies its Repo Transaction Processing Fee which is contained in
Section III.E of the GSD Fee Structure; specifically, GSD charges Repo
Brokers less than other Netting Members. FICC's pass-through of fees
imposed on FICC by third parties will affect all Members based on their
activity.
E. Describe Any Significant Problems Known to the Self-Regulatory
Organization That Persons Affected Are Likely To Have in Complying With
the Proposed Rule Change
    FICC is not aware of any significant problems that the affected
Members are likely to have in complying with the proposed rule changes.
F. The Proposed Rule Changes Are Described Below
(1) Trade Submission
    Currently, the comparison fees for trade submissions are structured
to reflect a uniform fee structure based on a Member's total monthly
volume. FICC is proposing to change this approach to a structure
whereby each incremental number of trades is charged a different price
based on tiers with declining marginal rates. In addition, GSD is
proposing to establish different fees for Dealer Accounts and Broker
Accounts.
(2) Locked-In Trade Data
    In connection with the charge to Members for data received by FICC
from a Locked-In Trade Source,\7\ FICC is proposing to eliminate the
existing fee for the processing and reporting of this data and instead
charge Members in accordance with the proposed trade submission
schedule in the GSD Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Pursuant to the GSD Rules, the term ``Locked-In Trade
Source'' means a source of data on locked-in trades that the
Corporation has so designated, subject to such terms and conditions
as to which the Locked-In Trade Source and the Corporation may
agree. GSD Rule 1, Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the charge to non-Inter-Dealer Broker Netting
Members \8\ for FICC's processing and reporting of GCF Repo[supreg]
Transactions,\9\ FICC is proposing to increase the amount of the
onetime recording fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pursuant to the GSD Rules, the term ``Inter-Dealer Broker
Netting Member'' has the meaning set forth in Section 2 of GSD Rule
2A. GSD Rule 1, Definitions.
    \9\ Pursuant to the GSD Rules, the term ``GCF Repo Transaction''
means a Repo Transaction involving Generic CUSIP Numbers the data on
which are submitted to the Corporation on a locked-in-trade basis
pursuant to the provisions of GSD Rule 6C, for netting and
settlement by the Corporation pursuant to the provisions of GSD Rule
20. GSD Rule 1, Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Netting Fee
    (a) For each side of a Compared Trade, Start Leg of a Repo
Transaction, Close Leg of a Repo Transaction, Fail Deliver Obligation
and Fail Receive Obligation, other than a GCF Repo Transaction, that is
netted, the fee structure is currently based on a Member's total
monthly number of sides.\10\ FICC is proposing to change this

approach to a structure whereby each incremental number of sides is
charged a different price based on tiers with declining marginal rates.
In addition, GSD is proposing to establish different fees for Dealer
Accounts and Broker Accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pursuant to the GSD Rules, the terms used in the referenced
clause are defined below. GSD Rule 1, Definitions.
    The term ``Compared Trade'' means a trade, including a Repo
Transaction, the data on which has been compared or deemed compared
in the Comparison System pursuant to the GSD Rules, as the result of
any one of the following methods: (1) Bilateral comparison, which
requires the matching by the Corporation of data submitted by two
Members, (2) demand comparison, which requires that data to be
submitted to the Corporation by a demand trade source, or (3)
locked-in comparison, which requires the data to be submitted to the
Corporation by a locked-in trade source.
    The term ``Close Leg'' means, as regards a Repo Transaction
other than a GCF Repo Transaction, the concluding settlement aspects
of the transaction, involving the retransfer of the underlying
eligible netting securities by the Netting Member that is, or is
submitting data on behalf of, the funds lender (if netting eligible,
through satisfaction of the applicable Deliver Obligation generated
by the Corporation) and the taking back of such eligible securities
by the Netting Member that is, or is submitting data on behalf of,
the funds borrower (if netting eligible, through satisfaction of the
applicable Receive Obligation generated by the Corporation). The
term ``Close Leg'' means, as regards a GCF Repo Transaction, the
concluding settlement aspects of the transaction, involving the
retransfer of the underlying eligible netting securities by the
Netting Member that is in the GCF net funds lender position and the
taking back of such eligible netting securities by the Netting
Member that is in the GCF net funds borrower position.
    The term ``Fail Deliver Obligation'' means a Deliver Obligation
with respect to a fail net short position.
    The term ``Fail Receive Obligation'' means a Receive Obligation
with respect to a fail net long position.
    The term ``Repo Transaction'' means: (1) An agreement of a party
to transfer eligible securities to another party in exchange for the
receipt of cash, and the simultaneous agreement of the former party
to later take back the same eligible securities (or any subsequently
substituted eligible securities) from the latter party in exchange
for the payment of cash, or (2) an agreement of a party to take in
eligible securities from another party in exchange for the payment
of cash, and the simultaneous agreement of the former party to later
transfer back the same eligible securities (or any subsequently
substituted eligible securities) to the latter party in exchange for
the receipt of cash, as the context may indicate, the data on which
have been submitted to the Corporation pursuant to the GSD Rules. A
``Repo Transaction'' includes a GCF Repo Transaction, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
    The term ``Start Leg'' means, as regards a Repo Transaction
other than a GCF Repo Transaction, the initial settlement aspects of
the Transaction, involving the transfer of the underlying eligible
netting securities by the Netting Member that is, or is submitting
data on behalf of, the funds borrower (through satisfaction of the
applicable Deliver Obligation generated by the Corporation) and the
taking in of such eligible securities by the Netting Member that is,
or is submitting data on behalf of, the funds lender (if netting
eligible, through satisfaction of the applicable Receive Obligation
generated by the Corporation). The term ``Start Leg'' means, as
regards a GCF Repo Transaction, the initial settlement aspects of
the Transaction, involving the transfer of the underlying eligible
netting securities by the Netting Member that is in the GCF net
funds borrower position and the taking in of such eligible netting
securities by the Netting Member that is in the GCF net funds lender
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) For each one million par of a Compared Trade, Start Leg of a
Repo Transaction, Close Leg of a Repo Transaction, Fail Deliver
Obligation and Fail Receive Obligation, other than a GCF Repo
Transaction, the existing fee will be applicable to Broker Accounts and
a new fee will be established for Dealer Accounts.
    (c) For each one million par of Deliver Obligation \11\ and Receive
Obligation \12\ created as a result of the netting process, fees will
be increased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``Deliver Obligation'' means a Netting Member's
obligation to deliver eligible netting securities to the Corporation
at the appropriate settlement value either in satisfaction of all or
a part of a Net Short Position or to implement a collateral
substitution in connection with a Repo Transaction with a right of
substitution. GSD Rule 1, Definitions.
    \12\ The term ``Receive Obligation'' means a Netting Member's
obligation to receive eligible netting securities from the
Corporation at the appropriate settlement value either in
satisfaction of all or a part of a Net Long Position or to implement
a collateral substitution in connection with a Repo Transaction with
a right of substitution. GSD Rule 1, Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Auction Takedown Process
    In connection with the auction takedown Service, FICC is proposing
to eliminate the existing fee for locked-in trades and charge Members
in accordance with the proposed trade submission schedule in the GSD
Rules.
(5) Clearance Charges
    Currently, FICC charges a flat standard charge of $2.35, a portion
of which is used to cover the settlement fees of its Deliver
Obligations and Receive Obligations. These fees consist of the clearing
banks' fees and the Federal Reserve's Fedwire[supreg] fees that are
incurred by FICC for the services that it provides to Members related
to settling obligations at the clearing banks. At the time of this rule
filing, the fees are as follows:
    1. Fees for the settlement of each Receive Obligation and each
Deliver Obligation in the actual amount charged by the applicable
clearing bank.
    2. Fedwire[supreg] fee for the settlement of each treasury security
in an amount of $0.92 and for the settlement of each agency security in
an amount of $0.65.
    FICC is proposing to reduce the amount of this flat charge, which
is currently $2.35 and bill Netting Members as a separate item on their
billing statement for the applicable clearing bank fees and
Fedwire[supreg] fees listed above. In addition, FICC will pass-through
to Netting Members, new fees that will be imposed by the clearing banks
on FICC as well as other existing fees that the clearing banks have
imposed on FICC but which FICC has not historically passed through to
its Netting Members.
    These fees are as follows:
    1. The Bank of New York Mellon (``BNY'') fee of 1 basis point (1bp)
per annum on each GCF Repo Deliver Obligation that FICC creates from
its BNY account, inclusive of inter-bank.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This is a new fee that BNY intends to charge as of January
1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This fee will be allocated to Dealer Accounts at BNY and to Dealer
Accounts at JPMorgan Chase (``JPM''), as follows:
    a. For Dealer Accounts at BNY, a pass-through fee is calculated as
1bp per annum on a dollar amount of such Netting Member's \14\ GCF Repo
Receive Obligation from FICC in each Generic CUSIP Number.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The term ``Netting Member'' means a Member that is a Member
of the Comparison System and the Netting System. GSD Rule 1,
Definitions.
    \15\ The term ``Generic CUSIP Number'' means a Committee on
Uniform Securities Identification Procedures identifying number
established for a category of securities, as opposed to a specific
security. The Corporation shall use separate Generic CUSIP Numbers
for general collateral Repo Transactions and GCF Repo Transactions.
GSD Rule 1, Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. For Dealer Accounts at JPM, a pass-through charge is calculated
as 1bp per annum on a prorated dollar amount of FICC's interbank GCF
Repo Deliver Obligation from BNY to JPM in each Generic CUSIP Number.
The proration is calculated as follows:

(Dollar amount of such Netting Member's GCF Repo Receive Obligation in
a given Generic CUSIP Number at JPM)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Aggregate dollar amount of all GCF Repo Receive Obligations in a given
Generic CUSIP Number for all Netting Members at JPM)

    2. BNY fees for daylight over drafts for FICC's interbank GCF Repo
Deliver Obligations.
    This pass-through fee will be charged to Dealer Accounts at BNY and
will be calculated on a percentage of the total of all such costs
incurred by FICC. This percentage is calculated on a monthly basis as
follows:

(Total dollar value of GCF Repo Deliver Obligations of such Dealer
Account at BNY)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Total dollar value of GCF Repo Deliver Obligations of all Dealer
Accounts at BNY)

    3. BNY fees for daylight over drafts on securities settlement
obligations. This pass-through fee will be charged to Dealer Accounts
at BNY and will be calculated on a percentage of the total of all such
costs incurred by FICC. This percentage is calculated on a monthly
basis as follows:

(Total dollar value of Deliver and Receive Obligations of each Netting
Member at BNY)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Total dollar value of Deliver and Receive Obligations in all Dealer
Accounts at BNY)

    FICC will inform Members via Important Notice if there are any
changes to the referenced fees and charges imposed by the clearing
banks and/or Fedwire.

(6) Repo Transaction Processing Fee
    FICC is proposing to increase certain fees for its processing of
Repo Transactions.
    The above-referenced modifications to GSD's fees are noted below.

                                            Trade Submission Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Current charge                              Proposed fee per submission
 Current breakpoint schedule  (Charge         per       Proposed tiered schedule -------------------------------
   is applied to all submissions if     submission for    (Charge is applied to
        breakpoint is reached)            all netting    all submissions  within      Dealer          Broker
                                            members               tier)               account         account
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per submission for total monthly                $0.250  Per submission for the            $0.270          $0.250
 submissions up to 49,999.                               initial 49,999
                                                         submissions per month.
Per submission for total monthly                 0.200  Per submission for those           0.190           0.150
 submissions between 50,000 to 99,999.                   submissions between
                                                         50,000 to 99,999
                                                         submissions per month.
Per submission for total monthly                 0.150  Per submission for those           0.140           0.100
 submissions between 100,000 to                          submissions between
 249,999.                                                100,000 to 249,999
                                                         submissions per month.
Per submission for total monthly                 0.125  Per submission for those           0.100           0.075
 submissions between 250,000 to                          submissions between
 399,999.                                                250,000 to 399,999
                                                         submissions per month.
Per submission for total monthly                 0.100  Per submission for those           0.080           0.035
 submissions between 400,000 to                          submissions between
 499,999.                                                400,000 to 499,999
                                                         submissions per month.
Per submission for total monthly                 0.085  Per submission for those           0.010           0.025
 submissions between 500,000 and                         submissions between
 999,999.                                                500,000 to 999,999
                                                         submissions per month.
Per submission for total monthly                 0.085  Per submission for those           0.010           0.010
 submissions 1M and greater.                             submissions at 1M or
                                                         greater submissions per
                                                         month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Locked-In Trade Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Fee description             Current fee       Proposed fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-GCF Repo trade processing from         $0.16/M  In accordance with
 Locked-In Trade Data Source.                        the trade
                                                     submission fee
                                                     schedule.
GCF Repo trade comparison for non-          0.05/M  $0.07/M.
 Inter Dealer Broker Netting
 Members.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              Netting Fees Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Current charge                                 Proposed fee per side
 Current breakpoint schedule  (Charge    per side for   Proposed tiered schedule -------------------------------
 is applied to all sides if breakpoint    all netting     (Charge is applied to       Dealer          Broker
              is reached)                   members      all sides  within tier)      account         account
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per side for total monthly sides up to          $0.150  Per side for the initial          $0.170          $0.150
 49,999.                                                 49,999 sides per month.
Per side for total monthly sides                 0.125  Per side for those sides           0.120           0.110
 between 50,000 to 99,999.                               between 50,000 to
                                                         99,999 sides per month.
Per side for total monthly sides                 0.125  Per side for those sides           0.100           0.090
 between 100,000 to 249,999.                             between 100,000 to
                                                         249,999 sides per month.
Per side for total monthly sides                 0.100  Per side for those sides           0.070           0.040
 between 250,000 to 399,999.                             between 250,000 to
                                                         399,999 sides per month.
Per side for total monthly sides                 0.050  Per side for those sides           0.040           0.025
 between 400,000 to 499,999.                             between 400,000 to
                                                         499,999 sides per month.
Per side for total monthly sides                 0.050  Per side for those sides           0.030           0.010
 between 500,000 and 999,999.                            between 500,000 to
                                                         999,999 sides per month.
Per side for total monthly sides 1M              0.035  Per side for those sides           0.010           0.010
 and greater.                                            at 1M or greater sides
                                                         per month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Fee description                           Current fee                         Proposed fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Into-the-net par per month--Dealer        $0.015/M.............................  $0.016/M
 Account.
Clearance (out-of-the-net) par per month  0.17/M...............................  0.175/M
Auction takedown processing.............  0.50/50M.............................  In accordance with the trade
                                                                                submission fee schedule.
Clearance (out-of-the-net) items per      2.35/obligation......................  0.25/obligation
 month.
Clearance (non-GSD) items per month.....  2.35/obligation......................  0.25/obligation
DVP Repo Transaction Processing Fees      .....................................  ...............................
 (cost of carry):

    Fee for gross dollar amount.........  .....................................  ...............................
Other Netting Members and Repo Brokers    0.025bps.............................  0.04bps
 with respect to their non-brokered
 transactions.
Fee for net dollar amount...............  0.060bps.............................  0.08bps
GCF Repo Processing Fees (cost of         .....................................  ...............................
 carry):
    Fee for gross dollar amount.........  .....................................  ...............................
    Netting Members that are not Repo     0.025bps.............................  0.04bps
     Brokers.
    Fee for net dollar amount...........  0.060bps.............................  0.08bps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FICC believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because the
fees are correlated to each Member's use of GSD's services and will
allow FICC to recover the cost of providing its services to Members. In
addition, the proposed change will allow FICC to further recover the
cost of providing its services to its Members by passing through
certain third-party fees that FICC is incurring and/or will be
incurring to provide its services to its Members. Therefore, FICC
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act, as amended and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to FICC, in particular section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act,\16\
which requires that the GSD Rules provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members that use
those services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 5 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed filing could have an impact on competition based on
the fact that fees will increase for certain services, but because of
the following reasons, FICC believes that any burden on competition
would be necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. These reasons are as follows: The proposed change modifies the
fees for existing services provided by GSD in order to meet GSD's
budgeted expenses and allow GSD to achieve and maintain its operating
margin and recover the cost of providing its services. The proposed
change also allows FICC to recover the cost of providing its services
to Members by passing through certain third-party fees that FICC is
incurring and/or will be incurring to provide its services to its
Members. Finally, the proposed change also establishes different
comparison and netting fee structures for Brokers Accounts and Dealer
Accounts for the reasons more fully described above.

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

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

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)(ii) \17\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2015-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2015-005. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-2015-005 and
should be submitted on or before February 2, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00335 Filed 1-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 1114]
[FR Doc No: X10-910108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending December
19, 2009.

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of
Transportation under Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act,
as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21
days after the filing of the application.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0343.
    Date Filed: December 16, 2009.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

TC3 Special Passenger Amending Resolution 010k between Japan, Korea
(Rep. of) and China (excluding Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR), and
between Japan and Korea (Rep. of) (Memo 1342)
Intended effective date: 15 January 2010.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0346.
    Date Filed: December 16, 2009.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

TC3 Areawide Revalidating Resolution 002, (Memo 1343)
Intended effective date: 1 April 2010.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-133 Filed 1-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37243-37246]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0348; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-033-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, 777-200LR, 777-300ER, and
777F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report
indicating that sealant may not have been applied in production to the
wing skin panel gaps above certain underwing fittings. This proposed AD
would require an inspection for missing sealant, and applicable other
specified, related investigative, and corrective actions. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct missing sealant from the wing
skin panel gaps above the underwing fittings, which could result in
corrosion and fatigue cracking in the wing skin panel, and consequent
loss of limit load capability of the wing skin and potential subsequent
structural failure of the wings.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2014-
0348; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Haytham Alaidy, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-6573; phone: 425-
917-6422; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0348;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-033-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report that sealant may not have been applied in
production to the wing skin panel gaps above certain underwing
fittings, as required by type design before their installation.
Affected in-production airplanes have been inspected for proper sealant
application, and Boeing has addressed production installation
procedures for this sealant. Missing sealant from the wing skin panel
gaps above the underwing fittings could result in corrosion and fatigue
cracking in the wing skin panel, and consequent loss of limit load
capability of the wing skin and potential subsequent structural failure
of the wings.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, dated
January 10, 2014. For information on the procedures and compliance
times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for Docket No. FAA-2014-0348.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing an inspection for
missing sealant, and applicable other specified, related investigative,
and corrective actions, specified in the service information described
previously, except as discussed under ``Difference Between this
Proposed AD and the Service Information.''
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' is used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that (1) are related to the primary actions, and (2) further
investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative
actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or address any
condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for
example, repairs.
    The phrase ``other specified actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
Other specified actions in this proposed AD include restoring sealant.

Explanation of ``RC'' Steps in Service Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee,
to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for
annotating which steps in the service information are required for
compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in
the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's
understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent
judgment in AD compliance. The actions specified in the service
information described previously include steps that are labeled as RC
(required for compliance) because these steps have a direct effect on
detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe
condition.
    As noted in the specified service information, steps labeled as RC
must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, steps that are
not labeled as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not labeled as
RC may be deviated from, done as part of other actions, or done using
accepted methods different from those identified in the service
information without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the steps
labeled as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a
serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps labeled as
RC will require approval of an alternative method of compliance.

Difference Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, dated January 10, 2014,
specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair
certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those
conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 6 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                  Labor cost          Parts cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...................  Up to 104 work-hours              $0   Up to $8,840........  Up to $53,040.
                                x $85 per hour =
                                $8,840.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                          Labor cost             Parts cost          Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sealant restoration.................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =              $0  $85.
                                       $85.
Corrosion inspection................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour                0  $170 per side.
                                       = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition corrosion repair specified in this
proposed AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    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 proposed 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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0348; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-033-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 15, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, 777-200LR,
777-300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category,
as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, dated
January 10, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that sealant may not
have been applied in production to the wing skin panel gaps above
certain underwing fittings. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct missing sealant from the wing skin panel gaps above the
underwing fittings, which could result in corrosion and fatigue
cracking in the wing skin panel, and consequent loss of limit load
capability of the wing skin and potential subsequent structural
failure of the wings.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, dated
January 10, 2014, except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD:
Do a detailed inspection for missing sealant in the wing skin panel
gaps above the underwing fittings, and do all applicable other
specified, related investigative, and corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, dated January 10, 2014, except as
required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable other
specified, related investigative, and corrective actions before
further flight.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, dated
January 10, 2014, specifies a compliance time ``after the original
issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time after the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, dated
January 10, 2014,

specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Repair before
further flight using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (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. 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)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) If the service information contains steps that are labeled
as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps must be done to comply
with this AD; any steps that are not labeled as RC are recommended.
Those steps that are not labeled as RC may be deviated from, done as
part of other actions, or done using accepted methods different from
those identified in the specified service information without
obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the steps labeled as RC can
be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition.
Any substitutions or changes to steps labeled as RC require approval
of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Haytham Alaidy,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 24, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-15369 Filed 6-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 31, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24923-24924]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10918]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0217; FRL-9962-29-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: Air Emissions Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve changes to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan to
address requirements for the reporting of air emissions of criteria air
pollutants and their precursors. EPA is proposing to approve a SIP
revision submitted on June 14, 2010, by the State of South Carolina,
through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control, and portions of subsequent SIP revisions submitted on August
8, 2014 and November 4, 2016, which further revise the regulations
concerning the reporting of emissions. This proposed action is being
taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0217 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document.
Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at
this time.

    Dated: April 27, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-10918 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 53 (Thursday, March 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14402-14404]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06278]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0620]

An Interactive Discussion on the Clinical Considerations of Risk
in the Postmarket Environment; Public Workshop; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
workshop entitled ``Clinical Considerations of Risk in the Postmarket
Environment.'' The purpose of this workshop is to provide a forum for
an interactive discussion on assessing changes in medical device risk
as quality and safety situations arise in the postmarket setting when a
patient, operator, or member of the public uses the device. FDA is
interested in obtaining input from stakeholders about assessing risk
postmarket when new hazards develop in the postmarket setting that were
not present or not known at the time of clearance or approval or
hazards were anticipated, but harm occurs at an unexpected rate or in
unexpected populations or use environments. Comments and suggestions
generated through this workshop will facilitate the assessment of risk
in postmarket quality and safety situations.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on April 21, 2015,
from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the
Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the
public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1
where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking
and security information, please refer to: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.
    Contact Person: Jean M. Cooper, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
66, Rm. 5540, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: Registration is free and available on a first-come,
first-served basis. Persons interested in attending this public
workshop must register

online by 4 p.m., April 13, 2015. Early registration is recommended
because facilities are limited and, therefore, FDA may limit the number
of participants from each organization. If time and space permits,
onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided
beginning at 7:30 a.m.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5231,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than April 7, 2015.
    To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical
Devices News & Events--Workshops & Conferences calendar at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm.
(Select this meeting/public workshop from the posted events list.)
Please provide complete contact information for each attendee,
including name, title, affiliation, address, email, and telephone
number. Those without Internet access should contact Susan Monahan (see
Registration). Registrants will receive confirmation after they have
been accepted and will be notified if they are on a waiting list.
    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will
also be Web cast. Persons interested in viewing the Web cast must
register online by 4 p.m., April 13, 2015. Early registration is
recommended because Web cast connections are limited. Organizations are
requested to register all participants, but to view using one
connection per location. Web cast participants will be sent technical
system requirements after registration and will be sent connection
access information after April 14, 2015. If you have never attended a
Connect Pro event before, test your connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get a
quick overview of the Connect Pro program, visit http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses in
this document, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to
the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)
    Request to Speak: This public workshop includes a public comment
session and topic-focused sessions. During online registration, you may
indicate if you wish to speak during a public comment session and which
topic you wish to address. FDA has included general topics in this
document. FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to make public
comments. Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged
to consolidate or coordinate their presentations and request time for a
joint presentation. Following the close of registration, FDA will
determine the amount of time allotted to each speaker and will select
and notify speakers by April 16, 2015. All requests to speak must be
received by the close of registration on April 13, 2015. If selected to
speak, any presentation materials must be emailed to Jean Cooper (see
Contact Person) no later than April 13, 2015. No commercial or
promotional material will be permitted to be presented or distributed
at the public workshop.
    Comments: FDA is seeking input from FDA staff, medical device
industry, standards organizations, health care providers, academia,
patients, and other stakeholders. FDA is soliciting written or
electronic comments on all aspects of the workshop topics. The deadline
for submitting comments related to this public workshop is May 19,
2015.
    Regardless of attendance at the public workshop, interested persons
may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. In addition, when responding to specific
questions as outlined in section II of this document, please identify
the question you are addressing. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is
available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may
be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see Comments). A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029),
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg.,
Rockville, MD 20857. A link to the transcripts will also be available
approximately 45 days after the public workshop on the Internet at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this public workshop from the posted events list).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    There is a strong desire by FDA and industry to harmonize their
practices regarding assessment of risk in postmarket quality and safety
situations including, but not limited to, product defects, failures,
faults, or shortages, and any resulting harm. When postmarket safety or
quality issues arise, both the firm and FDA conduct risk analyses of
the device in order to decide what actions to take. During this
analysis, firms typically look for changes from their preproduction
risk analysis to their postmarket experience and apply or update their
risk management plan as appropriate. In contrast, FDA responds to the
same issue by assessing information submitted in the firm's premarket
submission and may consider other information such as information
collected during an inspection when it is available. The result is that
FDA and industry may base their decisions about postmarket quality and
safety on different information.
    Managing risk does not mean eliminating risk. The medical device
industry, FDA, doctors, and patients recognize that medical devices
cleared or approved for market may pose some inherent risk, even when
used appropriately according to labeling. Examples include, but are not
limited to, manufacturing problems, materials changes, unanticipated
design flaws, regional differences in clinical practice, measurement
inaccuracies, incomplete instructions, transport and storage factors,
and incorrect installation.
    FDA anticipates that principles and factors developed with public
input will help bridge differences in understanding when conducting
risk assessments.

II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    FDA held discussions in the Fall of 2014 with a working group of
the Association of Advancement of Medical Instrumentation to develop a
draft list of risk principles and factors to consider in analyzing
postmarket risk. The draft principles and factors will be presented for
discussion at the public meeting. The purpose of this workshop is to
provide a forum for a collaborative discussion on postmarket risk
principles and factors assessing risk when changes occur due to
postmarket quality and safety situations. The following questions are
provided to optimize the discussion.

     What factors are important to take into account when
conducting risk assessments of safety and quality issues that occur
with marketed medical devices? What principles best guide the risk
assessment process to assure timely, consistent, and optimal results?
     Are there improvements that FDA and stakeholders could
make to enhance risk assessments in recall and shortage situations with
medical devices?
     Are there specific activities or issues related to
postmarket quality, safety, or compliance activities where approaches
used by FDA and industry currently differ enough to create confusion or
delay or limit appropriate public health actions? Please identify them.
     In which activities and areas of postmarket quality,
compliance, and safety would more detailed policies or guidance be most
useful?
    At this public workshop, participants will engage in open dialogue
to discuss the responses to issues raised by the presenters and the
questions in this Federal Register notice.

III. Reference

    The following reference has been placed on display in the Division
of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. We have
verified all Web site addresses, but we are not responsible for
subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in
the Federal Register.

1. FDA, ``Quality System (QS) Regulation/Medical Device Good
Manufacturing Practices,'' 2014, available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/QualitySystemsRegulations/default.htm.

    Dated: March 13, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-06278 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: March 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 13104]
[DOCID:fr20mr07-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-501-000]

Birchwood Power Partners, L.P.; Notice of Issuance of Order

March 14, 2007.
    Birchwood Power Partners, L.P. (Birchwood) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed
market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy, capacity and
ancillary services at market-based rates. Birchwood also requested
waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Birchwood
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability
by Birchwood.
    On March 13, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests.
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket
approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by
Birchwood should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is April 12, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Birchwood is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
Birchwood, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Birchwood's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5012 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P