[Federal Register: July 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 133)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39804-39811]
[DOCID:fr13jy10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0274; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-038-AD;
Amendment 39-16367; AD 2010-15-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 757 Airplanes,
Model 767 Airplanes, and Model 777-200 and -300 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Model 757 airplanes, Model 767 airplanes, and Model 777-200 and -300
series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for damage of
the electrical terminal at the left and right flightdeck window 1, and
corrective actions if necessary. This AD also allows for replacing the
flightdeck window 1 with a new improved flightdeck window equipped with
different electrical connections, which terminates the repetitive
inspections for that flightdeck window 1. This AD results from several
reports of electrical arcs at the terminal blocks of the electrically
heated flightdeck window 1. We are issuing this AD to prevent smoke and
fire in the cockpit, which could lead to loss of visibility, and
injuries to or incapacitation of the flightcrew.

DATES: This AD is effective August 17, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of August 17,
2010.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louis Natsiopoulos, Aerospace
Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Model 757 airplanes, Model 767 airplanes, and Model 777-200 and
-300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register
on March 13, 2008 (73 FR 13483). That NPRM proposed to require
repetitive inspections for damage of the electrical terminal at the
left and right flightdeck window 1, and corrective actions if
necessary. That NPRM also proposed to allow for replacing the
flightdeck window 1 with a new improved flightdeck window equipped with
different electrical connections, which would terminate the repetitive
inspections for that flightdeck window 1.

Explanation of Revised Service Information

    After the NPRM was issued, Boeing issued the following service
bulletins:
     Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0019,
Revision 2, dated April 19, 2010, for Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF
series airplanes.
     Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0020,
Revision 2, dated March 31, 2010, for Model 757-300 series airplanes.
    We referred to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-
0019, and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0020, both
Revision 1, both dated December 19, 2007, as appropriate sources of
service information for doing the actions proposed in the NPRM.
    The actions specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins
757-30-0019 and 757-30-0020, both Revision 2, include an additional
inspection of the J1 and J4 (upper) terminals; however, the inspection
of the upper connections is not included in this AD. We find that to
delay this action to include the inspection of the J1 and J4 terminals
and to ensure that the public has sufficient time to consider and
comment on the additional actions, would be inappropriate in light of
the unsafe condition identified on the J5 terminal. We are considering
additional rulemaking to require the inspection of the J1 and J4
terminals.
    Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 757-30-0019 and 757-30-
0020, both Revision 2, include a reduced compliance time of 500 flight
hours or 150 days, whichever occurs first, for the detailed inspection
for damage specified in paragraph (f) of this AD (paragraph (g) of the
NPRM). We have not changed this AD to include the reduced compliance
time. We have determined that the compliance time, as proposed,
represents an appropriate interval of time in which the required
actions can be performed in a timely manner within the affected fleet,
while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. We find that to
delay this action to ensure that the public has sufficient time to
consider and comment on the reduced compliance time, would be
inappropriate in light of the identified unsafe condition.
    For Model 757 airplanes, Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins
757-30-0019 and 757-30-0020, both Revision 2, also include a revised
interval for repeating the detailed inspection for damage specified in
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD (paragraphs (g) and (h) of the NPRM).
We have determined that extending the repetitive intervals, as
recommended by the manufacturer, is consistent with data on in-service
failure reports and will not adversely affect safety for the affected
airplane models. Therefore, we have changed paragraphs (f) and (g) of
this AD (paragraphs (g) and (h) of the NPRM), to include the revised
interval. For windows manufactured by GKN Aerospace Transparency
Systems (GKN), the inspection is now specified at intervals not to
exceed 12,000 flight hours or 48 months, whichever occurs later. For
windows manufactured by PPG Aerospace (PPG), the inspection is now
specified at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months,
whichever occurs later. We have also revised this same repetitive
interval for Model 767 airplanes, and Model 777-200 and -300 series
airplanes, as explained under ``Requests to Extend Repetitive
Inspection Interval'' below.
    The Compliance paragraphs (1.E.) of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletins 757-30-0019 and 757-30-0020, both Revision 2, give
additional time for doing the corrective action if the screw is cross
threaded and the terminal lug is tight. We have added paragraph (h)(1)
to this AD to specify doing the corrective action within 150 days or
500 flight hours after the inspection, whichever occurs first, rather
than before further flight.
    We have changed Table 1 of this final rule to refer to Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0019, Revision 2, dated April
19, 2010; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0020,
Revision 2, dated March 31, 2010; as appropriate sources of service
information. We have also changed Table 2 of this final rule to state
that actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance
with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0019 or Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0020, both Revision 1, both
dated December 19, 2007, are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received from the 10 commenters.

Support for the NPRM

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) fully supports the
proposed action for the lower (J5) terminal.

Issue a Supplemental NPRM or Withdraw the NPRM

    Air Transport Association (ATA) agrees with the intent of the
proposal, but specifies that the NPRM, as written, has fundamental and
detailed flaws that may not resolve the unsafe condition; instead, the
NPRM focuses on electrical connections on another side of the terminal
block, which likely are not the cause of the unsafe condition. ATA
recommends that we instead issue a

supplemental NPRM that takes into consideration the comments of member
airlines.
    American Airlines (AAL) indicates that the proposed rule is
premature and should be withdrawn until the NTSB has completed its
investigation of an incident of window heat arcing on a Model 757
airplane at the J1 and J4 terminals. The NTSB also encourages amending
the NPRM (we infer by supplemental NPRM) to include inspections of the
J1 and J4 terminals on all of the affected flightdeck windows. The NTSB
states that in a small number of cases it determined that a loose or
inadequate connection at the J1 terminal or J4 terminal is the most
likely cause of the smoke and/or fire in the cockpit.
    AAL, Continental Airlines (CAL), Delta Airlines (DAL), and United
Airlines (UAL) request we withdraw the NPRM until we do further
investigation to identify the root cause of the window arcing events.
The commenters state that the proposed AD should mandate a
comprehensive and worthwhile solution; that a credible analysis
providing the true root cause of the failure must be completed first;
and that further investigation could alter or add to the solution, thus
rendering it more meaningful. Certain commenters suggest what the root
causes might be, including the following:
     AAL contends that material design choices contribute to
unintended cross threading and apparent lack of screw retention over
time; and that under-torque of the connector screw as the lone primary
failure is speculative and that a more likely source of heating is
arcing along the braided power wire downstream of the window heat
connector. In addition, AAL service history shows the primary cause of
failure to be arcing at the heat braided power wire at the lower window
along with delamination between the window heat layer and the outer
glass.
     CAL states that it appears the root cause attributed to
cross threading might actually be faulty solder joints, and that
stripping of the tapped brass block due to repetitive application of
current torque requirements could be a driving force behind in-service
failures.
     DAL notes that poor design/manufacture of the flightdeck
window 1 terminal contributes to arcing events and that the design does
not support a long-term robust connection to the screw.
    We disagree with the requests to withdraw the NPRM or issue a
supplemental NPRM.
    The incident of window heat arcing at the J1 and J4 terminals that
was investigated by the NTSB is related to the unsafe condition
addressed by the NPRM that preceded this final rule. We have reports of
four events involving arcing of the flightdeck window heat system at
the upper aft (J1) and upper forward (J4) terminals on the first
officer's flightdeck window that caused the inner pane of glass to
fracture. The events, which occurred between January 2001 and August
2008, all occurred on Model 757 airplanes. Withdrawing the NPRM to
include the upper terminals for Model 757 airplanes would be
inappropriate as it would delay this AD action, which addresses
failures of the lower (J5) terminal for Model 757 airplanes, Model 767
airplanes, and Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. However, we are
considering additional rulemaking to address arcing at the upper (J1
and J4) terminals on Model 757 airplanes only.
    Regarding the requests to determine the root causes, we disagree
with withdrawing the NPRM until a different root cause is identified.
Although we agree with the commenters that the failure mode that causes
a significant arcing event is the melting of solder or the de-soldering
of the terminal connection, we disagree as to the cause of the de-
soldering of the terminal connection and subsequent arcing.
    We have received reports that attribute the primary cause of the
overheating of the terminal to a cross-threaded screw, a loose screw,
or an incorrectly installed screw. We have also found that the majority
of the arcing events happened within 500 flight hours after the
flightdeck window was replaced or had undergone maintenance. The
unintended cross threading and apparent lack of screw retention over
time have been reported on flightdeck windows manufactured by both GKN
and PPG. The failure of the moisture seal and the delamination of the
flightdeck window plies are addressed by other ADs and other service
bulletins; but we point out that such failures are detectable.
    We find that the actions required by this AD will identify failures
of the electrical terminals, regardless of the root cause, and that the
corrective actions apply to all detected failures. However, if new
information becomes available to justify revising this AD, we will
consider further rulemaking.
    For the above reasons, no change has been made to the AD in
response to the requests to withdraw the NPRM or issue a supplemental
NPRM.

Requests To Extend Repetitive Inspection Interval

    Air France, ATA, and Northwest Airlines (NWA) request that we
extend the interval for the repetitive inspection from 6,000 flight
hours to 7,800 flight hours (Air France) or 8,000 flight hours (ATA and
NWA). Air France contends that the inspections should be matched with
the schedule for light maintenance checks. ATA recommends that we
extend the interval based on service experience. NWA indicates there
would not be an appreciable effect on safety in extending the
inspection to an interval where the task can be performed during a
scheduled ``C'' check in an environment more conducive to such
maintenance.
    We partially agree with the requests to extend the repetitive
inspection interval. We agree with the request to extend the interval
for GKN flightdeck windows. As explained previously under ``Explanation
of Revised Service Information,'' for windows manufactured by GKN, the
inspection is now specified in this AD at intervals not to exceed
12,000 flight hours or 48 months, whichever occurs later. According to
reports the failure rate of GKN flightdeck windows seems to be
substantially lower than the failure rate of the PPG flightdeck
windows, and the severity of events of the GKN flightdeck windows is
less.
    We disagree with extending the inspection interval for PPG
flightdeck windows from 6,000 flight hours; however, we have determined
that specifying the compliance time as 6,000 flight hours or 24 months,
whichever occurs later, will provide relief to operators. In
establishing the 6,000-flight-hour interval for those flightdeck
windows, we considered not only the frequency of occurrence of the
electrical connection failures, the time required to perform the
inspection, and the consequent risk of uncorrected unsafe conditions,
but also the scheduling of the inspections so they can be accomplished
during regular maintenance down time. We determined that an interval of
6,000 flight hours would give the operators ample time to schedule the
proposed actions at a routine scheduled maintenance and detect an
unsafe condition before an event.
    We have changed paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD (paragraphs (g)
and (h) of the NPRM) to include the revised intervals.

Requests To Clarify Intent of 500 Flight Hours for Inspection

    AAL, DAL, and UAL request that we clarify the intent of the initial
repetitive inspection that is proposed within 500 flight hours after
the corrective action for certain airplanes. DAL points out that as
written in the NPRM an operator

could accomplish the detailed inspection after one flight hour and be
in compliance with the proposed rule. UAL would like to know if the
intent is to perform a quality check (which could be performed shortly
after the replacement), or if the intent is to check for degradation of
the torque value over time. UAL states that if the intent is the
latter, the wording should be ``after 500 flight hours'' instead of
``within 500 flight hours.'' AAL also states that the inspection could
be done within an hour after the corrective action and asks if the
intent is simply to do a quality check.
    We agree that the 500-flight-hour compliance time for the initial
repetitive inspection for certain airplanes, as required by paragraph
(g) of this AD (paragraph (h) of the NPRM), should be clarified. The
intent of the inspection of certain airplanes ``within 500 flight hours
after the corrective action,'' as specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD, is a quality assurance check. The phrase ``within 500 flight hours
after the corrective action'' correctly allows for doing the initial
repetitive inspection before further flight following accomplishment of
the corrective action. According to the majority of the reported arcing
events, the result of an incorrectly assembled screw/lug electrical
connection (a heated terminal and the possibility of subsequent arcing)
occurred in-service after the assembly of the electrical connection.
Additionally, the phrase ``within 500 flight hours after the corrective
action'' would also provide sufficient time for operators of mixed or
large fleets to do the inspection without compromising safety. We have
not changed the AD in this regard.

Requests To Exclude Certain Window From Proposed Actions

    ATA, on behalf of its member AAL, requests that part number (P/N)
141T4800 flightdeck windows be excluded from the actions proposed in
the NPRM. AAL has data that confirm it has not experienced what they
deemed a ``catastrophic'' arcing or smoke event on a flightdeck window,
P/N 141T4800. All of the ``catastrophic'' arcing and smoke events AAL
has experienced have occurred on flightdeck window P/N 141T4801 with
lug and screw electrical connections. AAL states that the P/N 141T4800
terminal blocks might show minor damage; however, the damage is limited
and contained. AAL further asserts that the connection found in the
terminating action proposed in the NPRM is exactly the P/N 141T4800
connection; therefore, the AD should exclude flightdeck windows that
currently have P/N 141T4800.
    We partially agree with the commenters. We agree that the
performance of the P/N 141T4800 flightdeck window appears to be better
than the P/N 141T4801 flightdeck window with lug and screw electrical
connections; its failure rate is lower and the failures are not as
severe. We disagree with excluding the P/N 141T4800 flightdeck windows
from the AD because we have received reports of arcing events with the
P/N 141T4800 flightdeck windows that require corrective action.
However, we find that some mitigation is appropriate because the
failure rate of the screw/lug terminal equipped PPG windshields to
screw/lug equipped GKN flightdeck windows is about 2 to 1. Therefore,
we have changed paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD (paragraphs (g) and
(h) of the NPRM) to specify a repetitive interval of 12,000 flight
hours or 48 months, whichever occurs later, for screw/lug terminal
equipped GKN flightdeck windows.

Requests To Include Certain P/N as Terminating Action

    GKN and AAL state that flightdeck window P/N 141T800-13/-14 should
be included as a terminating action in the NPRM. The commenters state
that service information points to damaged solder joints as the primary
cause of the electrical arcs and point out that the P/N 141T800-13/-14
flightdeck windows do not incorporate the design feature that causes
extreme arcing, an ignition source, and melting of the glass; and that
the design does not incorporate features that are subject to assembly
error. Specifically, the commenters state that at the cockpit side, the
flightdeck window P/N 141T800-13/-14 uses a screw connector which is
seen as superior to the pin and socket connector used on the proposed
terminating action windshield; this superiority is due to the high
clamping pressure and ability to re-tighten or replace the screw in
addition to the excellent material choice for the threaded insert.
    We disagree with the request to include flightdeck window P/N
141T800-13/-14 as a terminating action. While we agree that damaged
solder joints are the primary cause for the electrical arcs, we point
out that the primary cause of loose connections is the incorrect torque
of the screw or an incorrectly installed screw. A loose connection
increases the heat at the terminal, which can cause damage to the
internal solder joint. A loose screw or an incorrectly installed screw
is due to limited access on the airplane. The pin/socket connector,
which is the design proposed as the optional terminating action in the
NPRM, is assembled in a controlled environment on a bench and with full
access. The screw/lug design proposed by the commenters does not
provide an equivalent level of safety to that of the pin/socket design,
which is not subject to the same assembly errors. Therefore, we have
not changed the AD in this regard.

Request for Further Analysis Before Terminating Action

    CAL, DAL, and ATA on behalf of its member AAL, request that we and
the manufacturer perform an engineering analysis to determine whether
pin and socket connections, proposed as an optional terminating action,
offer any advantage over screw and lug connections. AAL has had
considerable experience with pin and socket connections and states that
carrying any appreciable current through a pin and socket connection is
less reliable than a ring terminal and screw connection. CAL states
that it has had problems with pin and socket connections; however, it
applauds the mechanical joining at the mesh to block interface. CAL
considers that more time is needed to determine if the pin and socket
design is more reliable. DAL is unaware of any destructive testing that
has been performed to substantiate the use of the new design as the
corrective action for flightdeck window arcing events.
    We disagree with the need for further study. The pin and socket
connection of the electrical heat terminal was designed and
qualification tested for contact retention and current-carrying
capacity by the suppliers as part of the certification process of the
block. The testing verified the integrity of the design and showed it
not to have nuisance failures. Further, the pin and socket technology
is well-established and used in a significant number of electrical
applications on the airplane. The pin and socket connectors for the
flightdeck window heat terminal have been in service since 2004 without
any reported failures. The failures that the commenters referred to
were due to manufacturing error rather than a design defect. We have
not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Make Terminating Action Mandatory

    The NTSB asks that we make the installation of a new flightdeck
window mandatory rather than optional and states that the installation
would prevent similar events of smoke or fire in the cockpit. The NTSB
notes that the NPRM proposes installation of a new

flightdeck window that incorporates the pin and socket electrical
connection that provides a more secure connection and is less
susceptible to installation errors. This new flightdeck window design
also uses a crimped ring terminal that is internal to the terminal
block; the crimped ring terminal connects the flightdeck window heat
braid wire to the terminal, which addresses some of the solder issues
suspected in the NTSB's investigations around the J1 and J4 terminals.
    We partially agree. While we agree with the commenter that the
installation of the new flightdeck window with the pin and socket
electrical connection is more robust because it is not as susceptible
to assembly errors as is the flightdeck window with the screw/lug
connection, we disagree with the request to make the installation of
the flightdeck window with the new pin and socket electrical connection
mandatory. The repetitive inspections and corrective actions required
by this AD provide adequate means to maintain the safety of the screw/
lug flightdeck windows. Requiring the replacement of the flightdeck
windows is not necessary to address the unsafe condition. We have not
changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Improve Access to Terminal Block

    CAL notes that access to the terminal block on Boeing Model 757
airplanes is ``atrocious''; even with small hands it cannot be held.
CAL does not consider it a coincidence that this connection is the
``problem child'' because access is so poor. This limited access,
coupled with poor ``view-ability'' turns a simple installation into a
very complex installation. CAL requests that certain aircraft
improvements and modifications be addressed, as well as human factor
items such as special tooling to be developed.
    We infer that the commenter asks us to address this issue in the
AD. We partially agree with the request. The commenter is correct in
saying that access to the electrical terminal block makes it difficult
to achieve the torque limits outlined in the airplane maintenance
manual and that this could be the primary reason for incorrectly
assembled electrical terminations. We note that the optional
terminating action of this AD (pin and socket design) is much easier to
accomplish in the existing limited space. In addition, we find that to
delay this action to allow time for modifications and human factor
changes would be inappropriate in light of the identified unsafe
condition. The commenter should note that under the provisions of
paragraph (k) of the final rule, we will consider requests for approval
of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that the design change would provide an
acceptable level of safety.
    We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Service Bulletins

    AAL requests revisions to the service bulletins listed in the table
titled ``Requested revisions.''

                           Requested Revisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Boeing special attention
      service bulletin--          Revision--             Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
757-30-0019..................  1..............  December 19, 2007.
757-30-0020..................  1..............  December 19, 2007.
767-30-0041..................  Original.......  December 5, 2007.
777-30-0012..................  2..............  December 19, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAL lists several editorial changes in the service bulletins in its
comments, and specifies that revisions would reduce the burden of
processing numerous requests for AMOCs.
    UAL requests that we revise Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-30-0012, Revision 2, dated December 19, 2007, to clarify
the following statement: ``There is a time limit on how long the old
number 1 flightdeck window can be used.'' UAL would like to know if the
time limit refers to the serviceability limit of the old flightdeck
window, or the availability of the flightdeck window, or to future
spares.
    We have discussed AAL's concerns with Boeing. In addition, we agree
with UAL that the statement about the time limit is in error and should
not be included in the service bulletin. We have also referred this
concern to Boeing. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Add Reference to Table 1

    Boeing asks that we add a reference to Table 1 of the NPRM in the
paragraph titled ``Actions Accomplished Previously,'' for the latest
revision of the released service bulletins. Boeing points out that the
service bulletins listed in both Table 1 and Table 2 are acceptable
before the effective date of the AD.
    We disagree with the request to refer to Table 1 in the ``Credit
for Actions Accomplished Previously'' paragraph of this AD. The intent
of the ``Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously'' paragraph is to
list service bulletins that are acceptable for compliance before the
effective date of the AD, but not after the effective date of the AD.
The service bulletins listed in Table 1 of the AD are acceptable for
compliance both before and after the effective date of the AD. The
acceptable use of the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD
before the effective date is covered by the statement in paragraph (e)
of this AD that says, ``Comply with this AD within the compliance times
specified, unless already done.'' We have not changed the AD in this
regard.

Request To Add Statement to AD Regarding Window Manufacturer

    Boeing asks that we add the following statement to the
``Alternative Methods of Compliance'' paragraph of the NPRM: ``These
inspections are for the 1 flight deck windows regardless of
window manufacturer.'' Boeing explains that there are two different
suppliers for the flightdeck windows, but each flightdeck window is
connected to the airplane side wiring in the same manner and requires
the specified inspections.
    We disagree with the request to change this AD to add the
statement. The AD requires inspection of the flightdeck windows
according to the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
bulletin. The service bulletins listed in this AD apply to all
flightdeck windows, regardless of manufacturer. We have not changed the
AD in this regard.

Request To Take Similar Action for Model 747 Series Airplanes

    The NTSB believes that we should take similar action for Model 747
series airplanes because a similar condition exists on those airplanes.
    We agree with the NTSB and are considering rulemaking to address a
similar unsafe condition on Model 747 series airplanes. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Clarification of Service Bulletin Information

    The last column in the table in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0020, Revision 2,
dated March 31, 2010, specifies repeating the inspection for damage at
``intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months.'' The intent
of that column is to specify an interval ``not to exceed 6,000 flight
hours or 24 months, whichever occurs later.'' We have included the
correct interval in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD.
    In several places of the Compliance paragraph (1.E.) of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0020, Revision 2, dated March
31, 2010; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0019,
Revision 2, dated April 19, 2010; the ``Action'' column implies that
both the left and right windows must be replaced. For example, ``* * *
replace windshield in accordance with Work Package 1, step 3. and Work
Package 2, step 3.'' The intent is to state, ``* * * Work Package 1,
step 3. or Work Package 2, as applicable * * *.'' Operators are to use
one or the other (or both) work instruction, as applicable, to replace
the window(s) that need replacing. We have included this information in
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
    The Action column for Inspection Condition 4 in the table in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-30-0020, Revision 2, dated March 31, 2010, states ``3. If
terminal lug is still loose.'' That statement should be ``3. If
terminal lug is still loose then disassemble, inspect and reassemble
the electrical connection.''

Explanation of Additional Changes

    We have clarified paragraph (f) of this AD (paragraph (g) of the
NPRM) to specify that Work Packages 1 and 2 apply to the J5 terminal.
As stated previously, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0020, Revision 2, dated March 31,
2010, and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0019,
Revision 2, dated April 19, 2010, include an inspection of the J1 and
J4 (upper) electrical connections; however, the inspection of these
connections is not included in this AD.
    We have clarified paragraph (g) of this AD (paragraph (h) of the
NPRM) to remove the phrase ``or tightening a loose screw'' from the
description of corrective actions that requires additional inspection
within 500 flight hours. The only corrective action after which the
inspection is necessary is replacement.
    After the NPRM was issued, we reviewed the figures we have used
over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To
account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find
it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from
$80 per work hour to $85 per work hour. The cost impact information,
below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.
    We have removed the ``Service Bulletin Reference'' paragraph from
this AD. That paragraph was identified as paragraph (f) in the NPRM.
Instead, we have provided the full service bulletin citations
throughout this AD.
    We also have revised this final rule to identify the legal name of
the manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected airplane models.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,212 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work hour.

                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                  Work hours           Parts                Cost per product                          Fleet cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection..........................            1  None..................  $85, per inspection cycle..  $103,020, per inspection cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 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(f), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-15-01 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16367. Docket No. FAA-
2008-0274; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-038-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 17,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

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

                                     Table 1--Airplanes Affected by This AD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The Boeing Company Model-               As identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series     757-30-0019, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2010.
 airplanes.
757-300 series airplanes.............  757-30-0020, Revision 2, dated March 31, 2010.
767-200, -300, and -300F series        767-30-0039, dated December 5, 2007.
 airplanes.
767-400ER series airplanes...........  767-30-0041, dated December 5, 2007.
777-200 and -300 series airplanes....  777-30-0012, Revision 2, dated December 19, 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from several reports of electrical arcs at
the terminal blocks of the electrically heated flightdeck window 1.
We are issuing this AD to prevent smoke and fire in the cockpit,
which could lead to loss of visibility, and injuries to or
incapacitation of the flightcrew.

Compliance

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

Inspection and Corrective Actions

    (f) Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
do a detailed inspection for damage (including arcing, loose
terminal, or heat damage) of the electrical terminal (J5 terminal)
at the left and right flightdeck window 1, and do all applicable
corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions for the J5
terminal specified in Work Packages 1 and 2 of the applicable
service bulletin specified in Table 1 of this AD, except as provided
by paragraph (h) of this AD. Except as provided by paragraph (h) of
this AD, do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD, repeat the detailed
inspection at the applicable interval specified in paragraph (f)(1)
or (f)(2) of this AD. Doing the replacement specified in paragraph
(i) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of
this paragraph for the replaced flightdeck window 1.
    (1) For flightdeck windows manufactured by GKN with SCREW/LUG
electrical connections, repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight hours or 48 months, whichever
occurs later.
    (2) For flightdeck windows manufactured by PPG with SCREW/LUG
electrical connections, repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever
occurs later.
    (g) For airplanes on which replacement with a new window 1 that
uses screws and lugs for the electrical connections is done in
accordance with Work Package 1 or 2 of the applicable service
bulletin specified in Table 1 of this AD: Do the next detailed
inspection within 500 flight hours after the corrective action, and
repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval
specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. Doing the
replacement specified in paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the
repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph for the
replaced flightdeck window 1.
    (1) For flightdeck windows manufactured by GKN with SCREW/LUG
electrical connections, repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight hours or 48 months, whichever
occurs later.
    (2) For flightdeck windows manufactured by PPG with SCREW/LUG
electrical connections, repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever
occurs later.

Exceptions

    (h) Do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (f) of this
AD except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this
AD, the screw is cross threaded and the terminal lug is tight, do
the applicable corrective action within 150 days or 500 flight hours
after the inspection, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Where paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-30-0020, Revision 2, dated March 31, 2010, and Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0019, Revision 2, dated
April 19, 2010, states in the ``Action'' column to (for example) ``
* * * replace windshield in accordance with Work Package 1, step 3.
and Work Package 2, step 3,'' the intent of the applicable service
bulletin is to state, `` * * * Work Package 1, step 3. or Work
Package 2, as applicable * * *.'' Operators are to use one or the
other (or both) work instruction, as applicable, to replace the
window(s) that need replacing.

Optional Terminating Action

    (i) Replacing a flightdeck window 1 that uses screws and lugs
for the electrical connections with a flightdeck window that uses
pins and sockets for the electrical connections in accordance with
Work Packages 3 or 4 of the applicable service bulletin specified in
Table 1 of this AD ends the repetitive inspection requirements of
this AD for that window 1.

Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously

    (j) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the applicable service bulletin specified in Table 2
of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
requirements of this AD.

                  Table 2--Acceptable Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Boeing Special Attention
      Service Bulletin--          Revision--             Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
757-30-0019..................  Original.......  July 19, 2006.
757-30-0019..................  1..............  December 19, 2007.
757-30-0020..................  Original.......  July 19, 2006.
757-30-0020..................  1..............  December 19, 2007.
777-30-0012..................  Original.......  April 15, 2004.
777-30-0012..................  1..............  June 2, 2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Louis Natsiopoulos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment
Branch, ANM-130S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may
be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use the applicable service information contained in
Table 3 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the
AD specifies otherwise. If you accomplish the optional actions
specified by this AD, you must use the applicable service
information specified in Table 3 of this AD to perform those
actions, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

               Table 3--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Boeing Special Attention
      Service Bulletin--          Revision--             Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
757-30-0019..................  2..............  April 19, 2010.
757[dash]30[dash]0020........  2..............  March 31, 2010.
767[dash]30-0039.............  Original.......  December 5, 2007.
767-30-0041..................  Original.......  December 5, 2007.
777-30-0012..................  2..............  December 19, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 6, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-17046 Filed 7-9-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31337-31338]
[FR Doc No: E9-15319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance;
Rickenbacker International Airport, Columbus, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal to change a portion of the airport from aeronautical use to
non-aeronautical use and to authorize the release of 37.016 acres of
airport property for the proposed development bulk warehouse/
distribution facilities as a component of the Rickenbacker Global
Logistics Park. The land was acquired by the Rickenbacker Port
Authority through two Quitclaim Deeds dated March 30, 1984 from the
Administrator of General Services for the United States of America and
May 11, 1999 from the United States of America, acting by and through
the Secretary of the Air Force. There are no impacts to the airport by
allowing the airport to dispose of the property. Approval does not
constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the
disposal of the subject airport property nor a determination of
eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The disposition of
proceeds from the disposal of the airport property will be in
accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of
Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February 16,
1999.
    In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United States
Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal Register
30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires the
property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 30, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Swann, Program Manager,
Detroit Airports District Office, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107,
Romulus, Michigan 48174. Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/FAX Number:
(734)-229-2950. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at
this same location or at Rickenbacker International Airport, Columbus,
Ohio.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following is a legal description of the
property situated in the State of Ohio, County of Pickaway, Townships
of Harrison and Madison, lying in Section 13, Township 3, Range 22, and
Section 18, Township 10, Range 21, Congress Lands, being part of the
remainder of the original 2995.065 acre tract conveyed as Tract 1 to
Columbus Municipal Airport Authority by deed of record in Official
Record 514, Page 2561, (all references are to the records of the
Recorder's Office, Pickaway County, Ohio) and being more particularly
described as follows:

(Legal Description of Property)

    Beginning, for reference, at a 1 inch Iron Pin capped ``7159-ms
consultant,'' found at the intersection of the centerline of
Rickenbacker Parkway East (140 feet wide), as in Plat Cabinet 2,
Slide 127, with the line common to said Harrison Township and
Madison Township, said common line being a westerly line of the
remainder of said original 2995.065 acre tract;
    Thence North 03[deg]47'26'' East, a distance of 941.68 feet,
(passing a \5/8\ inch rebar capped ``7159-ms consultants'' found at
70.00 feet) across said Rickenbacker Parkway East, and said original
2995.065 acre tract, with said Township Line, to an iron pin set at
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
    Thence across said original 2995.065 acre tract, the following
courses and distances:
    North 86[deg]24'00'' West, a distance of 538.97 feet, to an iron
pin set;
    South 47[deg]50'49'' West, a distance of 31.68 feet, to an iron
pin set;
    With a curve to the left, having a central angle of
88[deg]05'50'', a radius of 80.00 feet, an arc length of 123.01
feet, and a chord which bears North 86[deg]12'06'' West, a chord
distance of 111.24 feet, to an iron pin set;
    North 40[deg]15'01'' West, a distance of 30.93 feet, to an iron
pin set;
    North 86[deg]24'00'' West, a distance of 1078.20 feet, to an
iron pin set;
    North 45[deg]42'45'' East, a distance of 1808.11 feet, to an
iron pin set;
    South 44[deg]30'28'' East, a distance of 1099.43 feet, to an
iron pin set;
    South 03[deg]24'05'' West, a distance of 607.19 feet, to an iron
pin set;
    North 86[deg]24'00'' West, a distance of 261.07 feet, to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 37.016 acres, more or less, of
which 30.287 acres lie within Parcel Number Dl2-0-003-00-250-00,
2.441 acres lie within Parcel Number Dl2-0-003-00-253-0l, 3.797
acres lie within Parcel Number F16-0-003-00-001-0l and 0.491 acre
lie within Parcel Number FiG-0-003-00-001-01.
    Iron pins set, where indicated, are iron pipes, thirteen
sixteenths (13/16) inch inside diameter, thirty (30) inches long
with a plastic plug placed in the top bearing the initials EMHT INC.
    The bearings herein are based on Ohio State Plane Coordinate
System-South Zone as per NAD 83 (1986 adjustment), Control for
bearings was North 21[deg]27'15'' East for a portion of the
centerline of Canal Road Between Franklin County Geodetic Survey
Monument 5164 and 5165, as established by the Franklin County
Engineering Department using Global Positioning System procedures

and equipment. Issued in Romulus, Michigan on May 29, 2009.

Matthew J. Thys,
Manager, Detroit Airports District Office FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. E9-15319 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 26953-26954]
[DOCID:fr09my06-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions
To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

May 2, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12663-000.
     c. Date filed: March 31, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Washington Tidal Energy Company.
    e. Name of Project: Deception Pass Tidal Energy Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located in Deception Pass,
between Whidbey Island and Fidalgo Island, in the Puget Sound in Skagit
and Island Counties, Washington.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Joseph A. Cannon, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, phone: (202)-
663-8000, and Charles B. Cooper, TRC Environmental, Boott Mills South,
116 John St., Lowell, MA 01852, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Chris Yeakel,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would consist of:
(1) 100 to 300 Tidal In Stream Energy Conversion (TISEC) devices
consisting of, (2) rotating propeller blades, (3) integrated generators
with a capacity of

0.5 to 2.0 MW, (4) anchoring systems, (5) mooring lines, and (6)
interconnection transmission lines. The project is estimated to have an
annual generation of 8.76 gigawatt-hours per-unit per-year, which would
be sold to a local utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing 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 field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    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 ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' ``PROTEST,'' ``COMPETING APPLICATION'' or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number
of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6946 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12449-12450]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04535]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-197-000]

Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Availability of
the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed; Delta
Lateral Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Delta Lateral Project, proposed by Kern River Gas Transmission
Company (Kern River) in the above-referenced docket. Kern River
requests authorization to construct, own, and operate an approximately
36 mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline; a delivery meter station; and
appurtenant facilities, all located in Millard County, Utah. According
to Kern River, the Project purpose is to provide firm transportation
service of 140,000 dekatherms of natural gas per day from Opal, Wyoming
to the Intermountain Power Project, an electrical generating facility
in Delta, Utah. Prior to filing its application, Kern River
participated in the Commission's Pre-filing Process for this Project
under Docket No. PF20-4-000.
    The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Delta Lateral Project in accordance
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and responds to comments that were received on the Commission's
November 4, 2021 draft EIS.\1\ As described in the final EIS, the FERC
staff concludes that approval of the Project would result in some
adverse environmental impacts; however, with the potential exception of
climate change impacts, these impacts would be reduced to less-than-
significant levels because of the impact avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation measures proposed by Kern River and those recommended by
staff in the EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The draft EIS is available on FERC's eLibrary under
Accession No. 20211104-3025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the
EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise
with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and
participate in the NEPA analysis. A portion of the Project would be
constructed on lands managed by the BLM Fillmore Field Office. The BLM
assisted in the preparation of this EIS and may adopt all or portions
of the document to satisfy its requirements under NEPA in response to
Kern River's application.
    The Project would consist of the following specific facilities:
     A 35.84-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;
     a delivery meter station;
     two mainline taps with automated lateral inlet valve
assemblies;
     an in-line inspection device launcher and receiver;
     an automated lateral block valve assembly; and
     ancillary facilities.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Delta Lateral
Project to federal, state, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other
interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the
project areas. The EIS is only available in electronic format. It may
be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
natural gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In
addition, the EIS may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the
FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search), select ``General Search,'' and enter the docket
number in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits
(i.e.,

CP21-197). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: February 25, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04535 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

                       Served: April 19, 2004

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

VILLAGE AVIATION, INC.

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

NOTICE OF REGISTRATION AND CHANGE OF TRADE NAME

On March 30, 2004, Village Aviation, Inc. d/b/a Camai Air requested that
the Department register the trade names “Village Air Cargo” and
“Safari Pacific Airways” for use in certain of its air
transportation operations.  In addition, the company requested that the
Department remove its existing trade name “Camai Air” from its
certificate.

Part 215 of the Department’s regulations provides that any carrier
wishing to use an alternative trade name must first register that name
with the Department.  The rule further states that the Department may
register such trade name after the carrier gives notification to
similarly named carriers of the proposed use of the trade name.  There
are no other similarly named air carriers.  However, it is our
understanding that Village intends to use the “Safari Pacific
Airways” trade name solely in its proposed operations in American
Samoa.  Given its certificate limitations, the company does not have the
appropriate authority to provide such service.  Therefore, we are, at
this time, deferring the registration of the “Safari Pacific
Airways” trade name.

Under these circumstances, on April 12, 2004, we orally acknowledged the
registration of the trade name “Village Air Cargo” by Village
Aviation for use in its operations.  In addition, we acknowledged that
it is no longer using the existing trade name “Camai Air.”  This
notice serves as written confirmation of our actions.

Dated April 14, 2004 at Washington, D.C.

RANDALL D. BENNETT

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at

http://dms.dot.gov

				Attachment A

SERVICE LIST FOR VILLAGE AVIATION, INC.

DON R KING

PRESIDENT

VILLAGE AVIATION INC

P O BOX 221188

ANCHORAGE ALASKA  99522	LORI AQUILINO FAA

CSET MANAGER

24215 MANNY MARSHALL DR

TWAIN HARTE CA  95383	TIMOTHY C TITUS

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL CNSL

ALASKAN REGION HDQ

222 WEST 7TH AVENUE #14

ANCHORAGE ALASKA  99513

JOHN S DUNCAN

MANAGER AAL-200

ALASKA REGION HDQ

222 WEST 7TH AVENUE #14

ANCHORAGE ALASKA  99513 	PETER LYNCH FAA

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL

FOR ENFORCEMENT AGC-300

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC  20591	DON BRIGHT K-25

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFO

DEPART OF TRANSPORTATION

400 7TH ST SW

WASHINGTON DC  20590

LARRY K PETERSON  POI

FAA ANCHORAGE FSDO

4510 W INTL AIRPORT RD

ANCHORAGE ALASKA  99502

 	By Order 95-5-1, served May 1, 1995, the Department granted Village
the authority to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation.
However, that authority limited Village to operations using aircraft
having no more than 30 passenger seats or a 7,500 pound payload, and to
operations within the State of Alaska.

 	By letter dated April 2, 2004, we notified Village of our intent to
defer the registration of the “Safari Pacific Airways” trade name
until it is able to obtain the necessary authority to conduct its
proposed operations.

 	Should we have occasion to reissue Village’s certificate, we will
remove the “Camai Air” trade name.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72522-72523]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23190]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4724-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Hawaii; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4724-DR), dated August 10, 2023,
and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued August 10, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 10, 2023, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in the State of Hawaii
resulting from wildfires beginning on August 8, 2023, and
continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a
major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of Hawaii.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds

available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for
Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and
assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures
(Categories A and B), including direct Federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation
throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the
Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of
Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs).
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
under section 408 will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Maona N. Ngwira, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Hawaii have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Maui County for Individual Assistance.
    Maui County for debris removal and emergency protective measures
(Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program.
    Hawaii County for emergency protective measures (Category B),
including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program.
    All areas within the State of Hawaii are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23190 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67325-67327]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26408]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87649; File No. SR-LCH SA-2019-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to CDS Clearing Supplement
To Reflect the ISDA NTCE Protocol and Supplement

December 3, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 21, 2019, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts
business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared
by LCH SA. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts business under the
name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), is proposing to amend its CDS Clearing
Supplement (``Supplement'') to incorporate new terms and to make
conforming, clarifying, and clean-up changes intended to: (1)
Incorporate the ISDA 2019 Narrowly Tailored Credit Event Protocol (the
``NTCE Protocol'') into the Supplement, allowing parties to amend their
legacy transactions to incorporate the 2019 Narrowly Tailored Credit
Event Supplement to the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions (the
``NTCE Supplement''); and (2) make certain clarifications as to the
notion of Outstanding Principal Balance, which shall always have the
meaning set out in the ISDA 2003 and ISDA 2014 Credit Derivatives
Definitions. Capitalized terms not defined or modified in this rule
proposal will have the same meaning as in LCH SA's existing Rule Book,
Supplement, or Procedures.
    The text of the proposed rule change has been annexed as Exhibit
5.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All capitalized terms not defined herein have the same
definition as the Rule Book, Supplement or Procedures, as
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    LCH SA is proposing to amend its Supplement to reflect the NTCE
Protocol, and the NTCE Supplement amending the 2014 ISDA Credit
Derivatives Definitions addressing narrowly tailored credit events
(``NTCEs''). NTCEs are arrangements with corporations that cause a
credit event leading to settlement of CDS contracts while minimizing
the impact on the corporation.
    ISDA published a statement from its Board of Directors in April
2018 noting concerns with the impact of such events on the efficiency,
reliability and fairness of the overall CDS market. The NTCE Protocol,
due for implementation on 27 January 2020, incorporates the terms of
the NTCE Supplement for legacy uncleared in-scope single name and index
transactions to match the new trading standard. Yet, CCPs are expected
to reflect the NTCE Protocol changes to the transactions they clear by
an amendment to their clearing rules, and the final implementation date
will be aligned so that the changes will go into effect for trades
cleared at different CCPs and for uncleared trades at the same time.
    As such, LCH SA has determined to file this proposed rule change in
order to, among other things, amend its CDS Clearing Supplement to
reflect the changes brought by the NTCE Protocol and NTCE Supplement.
Such changes will therefore be incorporated for new trades on corporate
and financial Reference Entities by updating the ISDA Credit
Derivatives Physical Settlement Matrix.
(a) Amendments To Reflect the NTCE Protocol for Cleared Transactions
    The updated CDS Clearing Rules will permit Clearing Members to
match the new trading standard for their Index Cleared Transactions and
their Single Name Cleared Transactions, without the need for LCH SA to
adhere to the NTCE Protocol. To implement the ISDA NTCE Protocol and
NTCE Supplement, the Supplement will be amended by adding new and
amending existing provisions as described below.
    In support of the above matter, LCH SA will add new provisions to
the Supplement in each of Part B & Part C. Each of these changes in
these two sections are substantially similar.
    For Index Cleared Transactions and Single Name Transactions
incorporating the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions:
    [ssquf] Part B, Section 1.2 Terms defined in the CDS Clearing
Supplement--the definition of Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation
will be updated with the date of the amended confirmation as published
by Markit Group Limited, both for references Markit iTraxx[supreg]
Europe Index Series 22 or above (a) and Markit CDXTM Index
Series 23 or above (b);
    [ssquf] Part B, Section 2.2 (g) and (h) will be added to the
Supplement--The Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation will be amended
for NTCE Protocol covered transactions by making the notions of Credit
Deterioration Requirement and Fallback Discounting applicable, in
accordance with the Relevant Physical Settlement Matrix and amended
confirmation as published by Markit Group Limited;
    [ssquf] Part B, Section 2.3 (h) and (i) will be added to the
Supplement--The Single Name Cleared Transaction Confirmation will be
amended for NTCE Protocol covered transactions by making the notions of
Credit Deterioration Requirement and Fallback Discounting applicable,
in accordance with the Relevant Physical Settlement Matrix and amended
confirmation as published by Markit Group Limited;
    [ssquf] Part B, Section 2.4 (e) will be added to the Supplement--
The amendments brought by the NTCE Protocol and subsequent NTCE
Supplement to the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions shall only
be applicable where the Protocol Effectiveness Condition, as defined in
the NTCE Protocol, is satisfied;
    [ssquf] Part B, APPENDIX XIII, Section 2.6 will be added to the
Supplement--

Mirroring the Part B, Section 2.4 (e) mentioned above, this addition
ensures that the amendments brought by the NTCE Protocol and subsequent
NTCE Supplement to the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions shall
only be applicable to CCM Client Transactions where the Protocol
Effectiveness Condition, as defined in the NTCE Protocol, is satisfied.
    For Credit Index Swaptions:
    [ssquf] Part C, Section 1.2 Terms defined in the CDS Clearing
Supplement--the definition of iTraxx[supreg] Europe Untranched
Transactions Swaption Standard Terms Supplement will be updated with
the date of the amended iTraxx[supreg] Europe Untranched Transactions
Swaption Standard Terms Supplement as published by Markit Indices
Limited;
    [ssquf] Part C, Section 2.2 (f) and (g) will be added to the
Supplement--The Index Swaption Cleared Transaction Confirmation will be
amended for NTCE Protocol covered transactions by making the notions of
Credit Deterioration Requirement and Fallback Discounting applicable,
in accordance with the Relevant Physical Settlement Matrix;
    [ssquf] Part C, Section 2.3 (b) will be added to the Supplement--
The amendments brought by the NTCE Protocol and subsequent NTCE
Supplement to the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions shall only
be applicable where the Protocol Effectiveness Condition, as defined in
the NTCE Protocol, is satisfied;
    [ssquf] Part C, APPENDIX VIII, Section 1 will be updated with the
date of the amended iTraxx[supreg] Europe Untranched Transactions
Swaption Standard Terms Supplement as published by Markit Indices
Limited;
    [ssquf] Part C, APPENDIX VIII, Section 2.4 will be added to the
Supplement--Mirroring the Part C, Section 2.3 (b) mentioned above, this
addition ensures that the amendments brought by the NTCE Protocol and
subsequent NTCE Supplement to the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives
Definitions shall only be applicable to CCM Client Transactions where
the Protocol Effectiveness Condition, as defined in the NTCE Protocol,
is satisfied
(b) Amendments To Harmonize the Use and Definition of Outstanding
Principal Balance
    LCH has noticed that the term ``Outstanding Principal Balance''
appears throughout the Supplement using both small and capitalized
letters. The entire Supplement will be harmonized in that sense that
any reference to an Outstanding Principal Balance shall be with
capitalized letters, so as to refer to the Outstanding Principal
Balance defined, for Part A of the Supplement, in the ISDA 2003 Credit
Derivatives Definitions, and for Parts B & C, in the ISDA 2014 Credit
Derivatives Definitions.
2. Statutory Basis
    LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change in connection with
the ISDA NTCE Protocol and NTCE Supplement is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \4\
(the ``Act'') and the regulations thereunder, including the standards
under Rule 17Ad-22 \5\. In particular, Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F)6 of the
Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency
be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions and derivatives agreements, contracts, and
transactions cleared and to assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for
which it is responsible and the protection of investors and the public
interest.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Further, Rule 17d-22(e)(1) requires a covered clearing agency to
provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent and enforceable legal
basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
Rule 17d-22(e)(iii) also requires to support the objectives of
participants.
    The ISDA 2019 NTCE Protocol and Supplement are a wide industry's
response to the concerns raised by both market participants and
regulators regarding NTCEs and their potential market on the CDS
markets.
    ISDA has expressed concern that ``narrowly tailored defaults . . .
could negatively impact the efficiency, reliability and fairness of the
overall CDS market.'' Regulators have also expressed concern with
narrowly tailored or manufactured credit events, including a joint
statement by the heads of the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission and the UK Financial Conduct Authority that such strategies
``may adversely affect the integrity, confidence and reputation of the
credit derivatives markets, as well as markets more generally. These
opportunistic strategies raise various issues under securities,
derivatives, conduct and antifraud laws, as well as policy concerns.''
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission and UK Financial Conduct Authority, Joint
Statement on Opportunistic Strategies in the Credit Derivatives
Markets (June 24, 2019); see also Update to June 2019 Joint CFTC-
SEC-FCA Statement on Opportunistic Strategies in the Credit
Derivatives Market (Sept. 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It was understood that the heads of the Commission, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission and the UK Financial Conduct Authority have
stated that they welcome the efforts to implement the amendments set
out in the NTCE Supplement and NTCE Protocol.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Update to June 2019 Joint CFTC-SEC-FCA Statement on
Opportunistic Strategies in the Credit Derivatives Markets (Sept.
19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So, as all CCPs, LCH SA is expected to modify its rules so that the
NTCE Supplement's terms will also apply to all cleared CDS transactions
entered into after the implementation date.
    The LCH SA CDSClear proposed rule change is fully consistent with
the amendments of the ISDA credit derivatives documentation and
incorporates changes to the standard terms of CDS Contracts widely
adopted by market participants.
    For all the reasons above, LCH SA believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \9\ (the ``Act'') and the regulations
thereunder, including the standards under Rule 17Ad-22\10\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition
    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, the LCH SA CDSClear proposed rule change is
reflecting the ISDA 2019 NTCE Protocol and Supplement that is an
industry response and initiative applicable to all CDS market
participants.
    The proposed rule change would apply equally to all Clearing
Members and their Clients and would not adversely affect the ability of
such members or other market participants generally to engage in
cleared transactions or to access LCH SA's clearing services.
    Therefore, LCH SA does not believe that the proposed rule change
would impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others
    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by LCH SA.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-LCH SA-2019-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2019-011. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of LCH SA and on LCH SA's website
at: https://www.lch.com/resources/rules-and-regulations/proposed-rule-changes-0. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2019-011 and should
be submitted on or before December 30, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26408 Filed 12-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P