[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43475-43479]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15355]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-8131; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-073-AD;
Amendment 39-18575; AD 2016-13-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-05-06 for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. AD 2008-05-06 required repetitive inspections for
fatigue cracking in the longitudinal floor beam web, upper chord, and
lower chord located at certain body stations, and repair if necessary.
This new AD requires, for certain airplanes, an inspection to determine
if tapered fillers are installed, and related investigative and
corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by reports of
cracks in the center wing box longitudinal floor beams, upper chord,
and lower chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking of the upper and lower chords and web of the longitudinal
floor beams, which could result in rapid loss of cabin pressure.

DATES: This AD is effective August 9, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 9,
2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of April
8, 2008 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
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>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
8131.

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-2015-
8131; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket 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: Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
562-627-5324; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538,
March 4, 2008) (``AD 2008-05-06''). AD 2008-05-06 applied to certain
The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 12,
2016 (81 FR 1345) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by reports of
cracks in the center wing box longitudinal floor beams, upper chord,
and lower chord. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive
inspections for fatigue cracking in the longitudinal floor beam web,
upper chord, and lower chord located at certain body stations, and
repair if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require, for certain
airplanes, an inspection to determine if tapered fillers are installed,
and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper and
lower chords and web of the longitudinal floor beams, which could
result in rapid loss of cabin pressure.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Boeing stated that it has reviewed the NPRM and concurs with the
contents.
    Ms. Kathleen Whitworth stated that the NPRM is a good idea because
the safety of airline passengers outweighs the extra cost of the added
inspection and that she is in full support of the NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/
Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/
ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect
accomplishment of the actions specified in the NPRM.
    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) and added a new paragraph (c)(2) to
this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE (http://
rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/
ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect
the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore,
for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a ``change in
product'' alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is
not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously, and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2,
dated April 1, 2015. The service information describes procedures for
various inspections for fatigue cracks in the longitudinal floor beam
web, upper chord, and lower chord, located at the applicable body
stations, repairs (including related investigative and corrective
actions), and preventive modifications (including related investigative
and corrective actions) that terminate the repetitive inspections. The
service information also describes procedures for an inspection to
determine if tapered fillers are installed, and related investigative
and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 652 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections [retained actions    Up to 25 work-hours x                $0  $2,125 per          $1,385,500 per
 from AD 2008-05-06].             $85 per hour = $2,125                    inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                  per inspection cycle.
Tapered filler inspection [new   4 work-hours x $85 per               $0  $340..............  $221,680.
 action].                         hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                          Labor cost             Parts cost          Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor beam repair and optional        Up to 198 work-hours x $85             (\1\)  Up to $16,830
 preventative modification.            per hour = $16,830.
Tapered filler repair...............  174 work-hours x $85 per               (\1\)  $14,790
                                       hour = $14,790.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide parts cost estimates for the actions
  specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008), and adding
the following new AD:

2016-13-11 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18575; Docket No. FAA-
2015-8131; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-073-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 9, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2008-05-06, Amendment 39-15400 (73 FR 11538,
March 4, 2008) (``AD 2008-05-06'').

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; certificated in any category;
as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision
2, dated April 1, 2015.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgstc.nsf/0/ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is
installed, a ''change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

 (d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the center wing box
longitudinal floor beams, upper chord, and lower chord. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper
and lower chords and web of the longitudinal floor beams, which
could result in rapid loss of cabin pressure.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspections, With Revised Service Information and Revised
Affected Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2008-05-06, with revised service information and revised affected
airplanes. For Groups 1 through 4 airplanes identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015,
do the various inspections for fatigue cracks in the longitudinal
floor beam web, upper chord, and lower chord, located at the
applicable body stations specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13,
2007; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2,
dated April 1, 2015; by doing all the actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing

Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, dated June 13, 2007; or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015;
except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do the inspections
at the time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as
applicable. As of the effective date of this AD, only use Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015,
for accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph.

    Note 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD: The airplane groups
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13,
2007, do not, in all cases, match the airplane groups identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April
1, 2015 (Group 4 airplanes in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, coincide with certain
Group 2 airplanes in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June
13, 2007).

    (1) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes, except for line numbers 1
through 291, identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296,
dated June 13, 2007: Do the inspections at the applicable initial
compliance time listed in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, except where
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, specifies
a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD
requires compliance within the specified compliance time after April
8, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-05-06). Repeat the
inspections thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June
13, 2007.
    (2) For Group 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin
737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007: Do the inspections at the
applicable initial compliance time listed in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June
13, 2007, except where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated
June 13, 2007, specifies a compliance time after the date on the
service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after April 8, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-
05-06). Repeat the inspections thereafter at the intervals specified
in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-
57-1296, dated June 13, 2007.

(h) Retained Repair Instructions, With Revised Service Information That
Contains New Repair Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2008-05-06, with revised service information that contains new
repair actions. If any crack is found during any inspection required
by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in
paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For inspections done using Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-
1296, dated June 13, 2007: If any crack is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, specifies contacting
Boeing for repair instructions, before further flight, repair using
a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (2) For inspections done using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015: If any crack is found
during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before
further flight, repair, including doing all applicable related
investigative actions and corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015; except where Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015,
specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions, before further
flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD. Accomplishing a
repair specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296,
Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for the repaired
area only.

(i) New Requirement of This AD: Inspection for Tapered Fillers for
Certain Airplanes, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective
Actions

    For Groups 1 through 4, Configuration 1 airplanes identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April
1, 2015: Except as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in table 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296,
Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, do an inspection to determine if
tapered fillers are installed; and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015; except where Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015,
specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions, before further
flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD. Do all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
A review of the maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this
inspection if the installation of tapered fillers can be
conclusively determined from that review.

(j) New Requirement of This AD: Inspections and Corrective Actions for
Group 5 Airplanes

    For Group 5 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015: Except as
provided by paragraph (k) of this AD, at the applicable time
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015; accomplish
inspections and applicable corrective actions using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(n) of this AD.

(k) Exception to Service Information

    Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, specifies a
compliance time ``after the Revision 2 date of this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time ``after the effective date of this AD.''

(l) Optional Terminating Action

    Accomplishing the applicable preventative modification specified
in paragraph 3.B.4., ``Preventive Modification'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015, terminates the applicable
repetitive inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD. The
preventative modification, including related investigative and
corrective actions, must be done in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015; except where Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated April 1, 2015,
specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions, before further
flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-57-1296, Revision 1, dated September 26, 2012. This
document is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (o)(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, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved as specified in the fourth paragraph (related
to AD 2008-05-06) of Section 1.F., Approval, of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-57-1296, Revision 1, dated September 26, 2012, for
repairs and modifications are not approved for any provision of this
AD. All other AMOCs approved for AD 2008-05-06 are approved as AMOCs
for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

(o) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (p)(5) and (p)(6) of this AD.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
August 9, 2016.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1296, Revision 2, dated
April 1, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
April 8, 2008 (73 FR 11538, March 4, 2008).
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For Boeing 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (6) You may view this 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
425-227-1221.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 21, 2016.
Dorr M. Anderson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-15355 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


A Federal Advisory Committee for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development March 24, 2006 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING DRAFT AGENDA Thursday, April 6, 2006 2: 00 p. m.   4: 00 pm Eastern Time CONFERENCE CALL Participation by Teleconference Only 2: 00 2: 10 p. m. Welcome and Overview Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr.  Roll Call Chair, BOSC Executive  Purpose of Teleconference Committee 2: 10 2: 15p. m. DFO Remarks Lori Kowalski, Office of Research and Development 2: 15 2: 35 p. m. Water Quality Subcommittee Dr. Herb Windom, Chair, Draft Report Water Quality Subcommittee  Overview  Responses to charge questions 2: 35 2: 50 p. m. Discussion Dr. James Clark and Dr. Cliff Duke, BOSC Executive Committee 2: 50 3: 00 p. m. Public Comment 3: 00 3: 45 p. m. Discussion ( Continued) Dr. James Clark and Dr. Cliff Duke, BOSC Executive Committee 3: 45 4: 00 p. m. Final Report Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr.  Identification of Additional Changes Chair, BOSC Executive  Approval by Executive Committee Committee 4: 00 p. m. Adjourn


78452 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Notices ( 202) 566   1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by e mail to docket. oeca@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills   subpart BB ( OMB Control Number 2060   0021 and EPA ICR Number 1055.07). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2003. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: The NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills, published at 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB, was proposed on September 24, 1976, and promulgated on February 23, 1978. Revisions to the standards were promulgated on May 20, 1986. This rule addresses total reduced sulfur ( TRS) and particulate matter emissions from new, modified and reconstructed Kraft Pulp Mills. In addition to the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements listed in the General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart A), Kraft Pulp Mills are required to continuously monitor and record at least once per shift specific parameters at the applicable affected facilities: The opacity of the gases discharged into the atmosphere from any recovery furnace; the concentration of TRS emissions on a dry basis and the percent of oxygen by volume on a dry basis in the gases discharged to the atmosphere; for an incinerator, the combustion temperature at the point of incineration of effluent gases being emitted by the affected facilities; and for any lime kiln or smelt discharge tank using a scrubber emission control device, the pressure loss of the gas stream through the control equipment and the scrubbing liquid pressure to the control equipment. Sources are also required to record on a daily basis 12 hour average TRS concentrations and oxygen concentrations ( for the recovery furnace and lime kiln) for two consecutive periods of each operation. Sources must report semiannually measurements of excess emissions as defined by the standard for the applicable affected facility. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 62.4 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Kraft Pulp Mills/ brown stock washer systems, recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks, lime kilns, black liquor oxidation systems and condensate stripper systems. Estimated Number of Respondents: 92. Frequency of Response: Initial, semiannual and on occasion. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 12,107. Estimated Total Annual Non labor Cost: $ 3,143,600, includes $ 300,000 annualized capital costs and $ 2,844,000 annualized O& M costs. There is an increase of 2,148 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to an increase and a more accurate estimate of the number of kraft pulp mills in the United States. The estimates on the number of existing and new sources were based on the active ICR, Federal Register publications on other sector related rules, consultation with OAQPS and industry, and queries conducted on two EPA databases including the Sector Facility Index Project and the Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem.

Dated: December 10, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02   32392 Filed 12   23   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OECA   2002   0005; FRL   7426   6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities, ICR Number 1127.07, OMB Number 2060   0083 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart I),

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 49 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEN1. SGM 24DEN1 78453 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Notices ( OMB Control Number 2060   0083, EPA ICR Number 1127.07). The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 23, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Fried, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D. C. 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 564   7016; fax number: ( 202) 564   0050; E mail address: fried. gregory@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 20, 2002 ( 67 FR 41981), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA   2002   0005, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center ( ECDIC) in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the ECDIC is ( 202) 566   1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by E mail to: docket. oeca@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart I) ( OMB Control Number 2060   0083, EPA ICR Number 1127.07). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2003. Under the OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities were proposed on June 11, 1973, and promulgated on July 25, 1977. These regulations apply to the following facilities in 40 CFR part 60, subpart I: Dryers; systems for screening, handling, storing, and weighing hot aggregate; systems for loading, transferring, and storing mineral filler; systems for mixing hot mix asphalt; and the loading, transfer, and storage systems associated with emission control systems. The Administrator has judged that Particulate Matter ( PM) emissions from hot mix asphalt facilities cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the purpose of this NSPS is to control the emissions of particulate matter ( PM) from hot mix asphalt facilities. The standards limit particulate emissions to 90 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter ( mg/ DCM) and a 20% opacity. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart I. In order to ensure compliance with the standards promulgated to protect public health, adequate reporting and recordkeeping is necessary. Owners/ operators of hot mix asphalt facilities must notify EPA of construction, modification, or reconstruction of a new or existing facility and submit a notification and the results of an initial performance test. In addition, a facility subject to this NSPS must record any startups, shutdowns or malfunctions. The purpose of the notifications is to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to this standard. Performance tests are conducted to ensure that the new plants operate within the boundaries outlined in the standard. In the absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act. Under this standard the data collected by the affected industry is retained at the facility for a minimum of two years and made available for inspection by the Administrator. The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the standards are labor costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 49 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEN1. SGM 24DEN1 78454 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Notices Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,835. Frequency of Response: Initial and on occasion. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 10,303 hours. Estimated Total Annual Labor Cost: $ 588,507. Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 3,413 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to an increase in the number of existing facilities that will undergo modifications such that they will be required to submit notifications and conduct the appropriate performance tests required by the standard.

Dated: December 10, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02   32393 Filed 12   23   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7426   8]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Surveys AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Surveys, OMB Control Number 2090   0019, expiring March 31, 2003. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost, where appropriate, it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 23, 2003. ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1711.04 and OMB Control No 2090   0019 to the following addresses: Susan Auby, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division ( Mail Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the ICR contact Susan Auby at EPA by phone at 202   566   1672, by e mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or download off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr and refer to EPA ICR No 1711.04. For technical questions about the ICR contact: Patricia Bonner by phone at 202   566   2204 or by e mail at bonner. patricia@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Surveys, OMB Control No. 2090   0019, EPA ICR Number 1711.04 expiring March 31, 2003. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection. Abstract: EPA uses voluntary surveys to learn how satisfied EPA customers are with our services, and how we can improve services, products and processes. EPA surveys individuals who use services or could have. During the next three years, EPA plans up to 185 surveys, and will use results to target/ measure service delivery improvements. By seeking renewal of the generic clearance for customer surveys, EPA will have the flexibility to gather the views of our customers to better determine the extent to which our services, products and processes satisfy their needs or need to be improved. The generic clearance will speed the review and approval of customer surveys that solicit opinions from EPA customers on a voluntary basis, and do not involve `` fact finding'' for the purposes of regulatory development or enforcement. An Agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it has a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this information collection was published July 26, 2002 ( FR 67 48893); no comments were received. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes to 2 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Individuals or households. Estimated Number of Respondents: 58,827. Frequency of Response: On occasion. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,966. Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O& M Cost Burden: 0. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including use of automated collection techniques, to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1711.04 and OMB Control No. 2090   0019 in any correspondence.

Dated: December 10, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02   32395 Filed 12   23   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7426   9]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Emergency Planning and Release Notification Requirements Under Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act Sections 302, 303, and 304 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: Emergency Planning and Release Notification Requirements under Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act Sections 302, 303, and 304, OMB Control Number 2050   0092, expiring January 31, 2003. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost; where VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 49 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEN1. SGM 24DEN1


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12229-12234]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05565]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82876; File No. SR-FICC-2018-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change to the Required Fund Deposit
Calculation in the Government Securities Division Rulebook

March 14, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On January 12, 2018, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
proposed rule change SR-FICC-2018-001 (``Proposed Rule Change'')
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ to make changes to the
method by which the Government Securities Division (``GSD'') of FICC
calculates the margin requirement of its members.\3\ The Proposed Rule
Change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 1,
2018.\4\ As of March 14, 2018, the Commission has received two comment
letters to the Proposed Rule Change.\5\ This order institutes
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ On January 12, 2018, FICC also filed the proposal contained
in the Proposed Rule Change as advance notice SR-FICC-2018-801
(``Advance Notice'') with the Commission pursuant to Section
806(e)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act''), 12 U.S.C.
5465(e)(1), and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) of the Act, 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(n)(1)(i). Notice of filing of the Advance Notice was published for
comment in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 82779 (February 26, 2018), 83 FR 9055
(March 2, 2018) (SR-FICC-2018-801). On March 7, 2018, the Commission
extended its review period of the Advance Notice for an additional
60 days pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision
Act. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82820 (March 7, 2018), 83
FR 10761 (March 12, 2018) (SR-FICC-2018-801). The proposal contained
in the Proposed Rule Change and the Advance Notice shall not take
effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the
proposal are completed.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82588 (January 26,
2018), 83 FR 4687 (February 1, 2018) (SR-FICC-2018-001)
(``Notice'').
    \5\ Letter from Robert E. Pooler, Chief Financial Officer, Ronin
Capital LLC, dated February 22, 2018, to Robert W. Errett, Deputy
Secretary, Commission, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ficc-2018-001/ficc2018001-3133039-161947.pdf (``Ronin Letter'');
letter from Michael Santangelo, Chief Financial Officer, Amherst
Pierpont Securities LLC, dated February 22, 2018, to Brent J.
Fields, Secretary, Commission, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ficc-2018-001/ficc2018001-3130095-161938.pdf (``Amherst
Pierpont Letter''). Because the proposal contained in the Proposed
Rule Change was also filed as an Advance Notice, supra note 3, the
Commission is considering all public comments received on the
proposal regardless of whether the comments were submitted to the
Advance Notice or the Proposed Rule Change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    FICC proposes to amend the FICC GSD Rulebook (``GSD Rules'') \7\ to
make changes to GSD's method of calculating GSD members' (``Members'')
margin.\8\

Specifically, FICC proposes to (1) change GSD's method of calculating
the Value-at-Risk (``VaR'') Charge component; (2) add a new component
referred to as the ``Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment;'' (3)
eliminate the Blackout Period Exposure Charge and the Coverage Charge
components; (4) amend the Backtesting Charge component to (i) include
the backtesting deficiencies of certain GCF Counterparties during the
Blackout Period, and (ii) give GSD the ability to assess the
Backtesting Charge on an intraday basis for all Netting Members; and
(5) amend the calculation for determining the Excess Capital Premium
for Broker Members, Inter-Dealer Broker Members, and Dealer Members.\9\
In addition, FICC proposes to provide transparency with respect to
GSD's existing authority to calculate and assess Intraday Supplemental
Fund Deposit amounts.\10\ The proposed QRM Methodology document would
reflect the proposed VaR Charge calculation and the proposed Blackout
Period Exposure Adjustment calculation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4687.
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4687-88.
    \10\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4688. Pursuant to the GSD
Rules, FICC has the existing authority and discretion to calculate
an additional amount on an intraday basis in the form of an Intraday
Supplemental Clearing Fund Deposit. See GSD Rules 1 and 4, supra
note 7.
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4688.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Changes to GSD's VaR Charge Component

    FICC states that the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Change
are designed to improve GSD's current VaR Charge so that it responds
more effectively to market volatility.\12\ Specifically, FICC proposes
to (1) replace GSD's current full revaluation approach with a
sensitivity approach; \13\ (2) employ the Margin Proxy as an
alternative (i.e., a back-up) VaR Charge calculation; (3) eliminate
GSD's current augmented volatility adjustment multiplier; (4) utilize a
haircut method for securities cleared by GSD that lack sufficient
historical data; and (5) establish a VaR Floor calculation that would
serve as a minimum VaR Charge for Members, as discussed below.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4690. FICC proposes to amend
its calculation of GSD's VaR Charge because during the fourth
quarter of 2016, FICC's current methodology for calculating the VaR
Charge did not respond effectively to the market volatility that
existed at that time. As a result, the VaR Charge did not achieve
backtesting coverage at a 99 percent confidence level and,
therefore, yielded backtesting deficiencies beyond FICC's risk
tolerance.
    \13\ Id. GSD's proposed sensitivity approach is similar to the
sensitivity approach that FICC's Mortgage-Backed Securities Division
(``MBSD'') uses to calculate the VaR Charge for MBSD clearing
members. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79868 (January 24,
2017), 82 FR 8780 (January 30, 2017) (SR-FICC-2016-007) and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79643 (December 21, 2016), 81 FR
95669 (December 28, 2016) (SR-FICC-2016-801).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the proposed sensitivity approach to the VaR Charge, FICC would
source sensitivity data and relevant historical risk factor time series
data generated by an external vendor based on its econometric, risk and
pricing models.\15\ FICC would conduct independent data checks to
verify the accuracy and consistency of the data feed received from the
vendor.\16\ In the event that the external vendor is unable to provide
the sourced data in a timely manner, FICC would employ its existing
Margin Proxy as a back-up VaR Charge calculation.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4690. The following risk
factors would be incorporated into GSD's proposed sensitivity
approach: Key rate, convexity, implied inflation rate, agency
spread, mortgage-backed securities spread, volatility, mortgage
basis, and time risk factor. These risk factors are defined as
follows:
     Key rate measures the sensitivity of a price change to
changes in interest rates;
     convexity measures the degree of curvature in the
price/yield relationship of key interest rates;
     implied inflation rate measures the difference between
the yield on an ordinary bond and the yield on an inflation-indexed
bond with the same maturity;
     agency spread is yield spread that is added to a
benchmark yield curve to discount an Agency bond's cash flows to
match its market price;
     mortgage-backed securities spread is the yield spread
that is added to a benchmark yield curve to discount a to-be-
announced (``TBA'') security's cash flows to match its market price;
     volatility reflects the implied volatility observed
from the swaption market to estimate fluctuations in interest rates;
     mortgage basis captures the basis risk between the
prevailing mortgage rate and a blended Treasury rate; and
     time risk factor accounts for the time value change (or
carry adjustment) over the assumed liquidation period. Id.
    The above-referenced risk factors are similar to the risk
factors currently utilized in MBSD's sensitivity approach; however,
GSD has included other risk factors that are specific to the U.S.
Treasury securities, Agency securities and mortgage-backed
securities cleared through GSD. Id. Concerning U.S. Treasury
securities and Agency securities, FICC would select the following
risk factors: Key rates, convexity, agency spread, implied inflation
rates, volatility, and time. Id. For mortgage-backed securities,
each security would be mapped to a corresponding TBA forward
contract and FICC would use the risk exposure analytics for the TBA
as an estimate for the mortgage-backed security's risk exposure
analytics. Id. FICC would use the following risk factors to model a
TBA security: Key rates, convexity, mortgage-backed securities
spread, volatility, mortgage basis, and time. Id. To account for
differences between mortgage-backed securities and their
corresponding TBA, FICC would apply an additional basis risk
adjustment.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4692. In the event that the
data used for the sensitivity approach is unavailable for a period
of more than five days, FICC proposes to revert back to the Margin
Proxy as an alternative VaR Charge calculation. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, FICC proposes to look at the historical changes of
specific risk factors during the look-back period in order to generate
risk scenarios to arrive at the market value changes for a given
portfolio.\18\ A statistical probability distribution would be formed
from the portfolio's market value changes, which would then be
calibrated to cover the projected liquidation losses at a 99 percent
confidence level.\19\ The portfolio risk sensitivities and the
historical risk factor time series data would then be used by FICC's
risk model to calculate the VaR Charge for each Member.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4690.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC also proposes to eliminate the augmented volatility adjustment
multiplier. FICC states that the multiplier would not be necessary
because the proposed sensitivity approach would have a longer look-back
period and the ability to include an additional stressed market
condition to account for periods of market volatility.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to FICC, in the event that a portfolio contains classes
of securities that do not have sufficient volume and price information
available, a historical simulation approach would not generate VaR
Charge amounts that reflect the risk profile of such securities.\22\
Therefore, FICC proposes to calculate the VaR Charge for these
securities by utilizing a haircut approach based on a market benchmark
with a similar risk profile as the related security.\23\ The proposed
haircut approach would be calculated separately for U.S. Treasury/
Agency securities and mortgage-backed securities.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4692-93.
    \24\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FICC proposes to amend the existing calculation of the VaR
Charge to include a VaR Floor, which would be the amount used as the
VaR Charge when the sum of the amounts calculated by the proposed
sensitivity approach and haircut method is less than the proposed VaR
Floor.\25\ The VaR Floor would be calculated as the sum of (1) a U.S.
Treasury/Agency bond

marginfloor \26\ and (2) a mortgage-backed securities margin floor.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id. The U.S. Treasury/Agency bond margin floor would be
calculated by mapping each U.S. Treasury/Agency security to a tenor
bucket, then multiplying the gross positions of each tenor bucket by
its bond floor rate, and summing the results. Id. The bond floor
rate of each tenor bucket would be a fraction (initially set at 10
percent) of an index-based haircut rate for such tenor bucket. Id.
    \27\ Id. The mortgage-backed securities margin floor would be
calculated by multiplying the gross market value of the total value
of mortgage-backed securities in a Member's portfolio by a
designated amount, referred to as the pool floor rate, (initially
set at 0.05 percent). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Addition of the Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment Component

    FICC proposes to add a new component to GSD's margin calculation--
the Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment.\28\ FICC states that the
Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would be calculated to address
risks that could result from overstated values of mortgage-backed
securities that are pledged as collateral for GCF Repo Transactions
\29\ during a Blackout Period.\30\ A Blackout Period is the period
between the last business day of the prior month and the date during
the current month upon which a government-sponsored entity that issues
mortgage-backed securities publishes its updated Pool Factors.\31\ The
proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would result in a charge
that either increases a Member's VaR Charge or a credit that decreases
the VaR Charge.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4694. The proposed Blackout
Period Exposure Adjustment would be calculated by (1) projecting an
average pay-down rate of mortgage loan pools (based on historical
pay down rates) for the government sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac) and the Government National Mortgage Association
(Ginnie Mae), respectively, then (2) multiplying the projected pay-
down rate by the net positions of mortgage-backed securities in the
related program, and (3) summing the results from each program.
    \29\ GCF Repo Transactions refer to transactions made on FICC's
GCF Repo Service that enables dealers to trade general collateral
repos, based on rate, term, and underlying product, throughout the
day, without requiring intra-day, trade-for-trade settlement on a
Delivery-versus-Payment basis.
    \30\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4694.
    \31\ Id. Pool Factors are the percentage of the initial
principal that remains outstanding on the mortgage loan pool
underlying a mortgage-backed security, as published by the
government-sponsored entity that is the issuer of such security.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Elimination of the Blackout Period Exposure Charge and Coverage
Charge Components

    FICC proposes to eliminate the existing Blackout Period Exposure
Charge component from GSD's margin calculation.\33\ The Blackout Period
Exposure Charge only applies to Members with GCF Repo Transactions that
have two or more backtesting deficiencies during the Blackout Period
and whose overall 12-month trailing backtesting coverage falls below
the 99 percent coverage target.\34\ FICC would eliminate this charge
because the proposed Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment would apply to
all Members with GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-
backed securities during the Blackout Period.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC also proposes to eliminate the existing Coverage Charge
component from GSD's margin calculation.\36\ FICC states that the
Coverage Charge is based on historical portfolio activity, which may
not be indicative of a Member's current risk profile.\37\ FICC would
eliminate the Coverage Charge because, as FICC states, the proposed
sensitivity approach would provide overall better margin coverage,
rendering the Coverage Charge unnecessary.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id. FICC states that it previously determined the Coverage
Charge to be appropriate to address potential shortfalls in margin
charges under the current, full revaluation approach.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Amendment of the Backtesting Charge Component

    FICC proposes to amend GSD's existing Backtesting Charge component
of its margin calculation to (1) include the backtesting deficiencies
of certain Members during the Blackout Period and (2) give GSD the
ability to assess the Backtesting Charge on an intraday basis.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4695.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Backtesting Charge does not apply to Members with
mortgage-backed securities during the Blackout Period because such
Members would be subject to a Blackout Period Exposure Charge.\40\ In
response to FICC's proposal to eliminate the Blackout Period Exposure
Charge, FICC proposes to amend the applicability of the Backtesting
Charge.\41\ Specifically, FICC proposes to apply the Backtesting Charge
to Members that experience backtesting deficiencies that are attributed
to the Member's GCF Repo Transactions collateralized with mortgage-
backed securities during the Blackout Period.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id. Additionally, during the Blackout Period, the Blackout
Period Exposure Adjustment Charge, as described in Section I.C, will
be applied to all applicable Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC also proposes to amend the Backtesting Charge to apply to
Members that experience backtesting deficiencies during the trading day
because of such Member's intraday trading activities.\43\ The Intraday
Backtesting Charge would be assessed on Members with portfolios that
experience at least three intraday backtesting deficiencies over the
prior 12-month period and would generally equal a Member's third
largest historical intraday backtesting deficiency.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4695.
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Amendment of the Excess Capital Premium Charge

    FICC proposes to amend GSD's calculation for determining the Excess
Capital Premium. Currently, GSD assesses the Excess Capital Premium
when a Member's VaR Charge exceeds the Member's Excess Capital.\45\
Only Members that are brokers or dealers are required to report Excess
Net Capital figures to FICC while other Members report net capital or
equity capital, based on the type of regulation to which the Member is
subject.\46\ If a Member is not a broker or dealer, FICC uses the net
capital or equity capital in order to calculate each Member's Excess
Capital Premium.\47\ FICC proposes to move to a net capital measure for
broker Members, inter-dealer broker Members, and dealer Members.\48\
FICC states that such a change would make the Excess Capital Premium
for those Members more consistent with the equity capital measure that
is used for other Members in the Excess Capital Premium
calculation.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4696. The term ``Excess
Capital'' means Excess Net Capital, net assets, or equity capital as
applicable, to a Member based on its type of regulation. GSD Rules,
Rule 1, supra note 7.
    \46\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4696.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Additional Transparency Surrounding the Intraday Supplemental Fund
Deposit

    Separate from the above changes to GSD's margin calculation, FICC
proposes to provide transparency in the GSD Rules with respect to GSD's
existing calculation of the Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit.\50\
FICC proposes to provide more detail in the GSD rules surrounding both
GSD's calculation of the Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit charge and
its determination of whether to assess the charge.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Id.
    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC calculates the Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit by tracking
three criteria for each Member.\52\ The

first criteria, the ``Dollar Threshold,'' evaluates whether a Member's
Intraday VaR Charge equals or exceeds a set dollar amount when compared
to the VaR Charge that was included in the most recent margin
collection.\53\ The second criteria, the ``Percentage Threshold,''
evaluates whether the Intraday VaR Charge equals or exceeds a
percentage increase of the VaR Charge that was included in the most
recent margin collection.\54\ The third criteria, the ``Coverage
Target,'' evaluates whether a Member is experiencing backtesting
results below a 99 percent confidence level.\55\ In the event that a
Member's additional risk exposure breaches all three criteria, FICC
assess an Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit.\56\ FICC also assess an
Intraday Supplemental Fund Deposit if, under certain market conditions,
a Member's Intraday VaR Charge breaches both the Dollar Threshold and
the Percentage Threshold.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Id.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4697.
    \55\ Id.
    \56\ Id.
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Description of the QRM Methodology

    The QRM Methodology document provides the methodology by which FICC
would calculate the VaR Charge, with the proposed sensitivity approach,
as well as other components of the Required Fund Deposit
calculation.\58\ The QRM Methodology document specifies (i) the model
inputs, parameters, assumptions and qualitative adjustments; (ii) the
calculation used to generate margin amounts; (iii) additional
calculations used for benchmarking and monitoring purposes; (iv)
theoretical analysis; (v) the process by which the VaR methodology was
developed as well as its application and limitations; (vi) internal
business requirements associated with the implementation and ongoing
monitoring of the VaR methodology; (vii) the model change management
process and governance framework (which includes the escalation process
for adding a stressed period to the VaR calculation); (viii) the
haircut methodology; (ix) the Blackout Period Exposure Adjustment
calculations; (x) intraday margin calculation; and (xi) the Margin
Proxy calculation.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 4697.
    \59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments Received

    The Commission received two comment letters in response to the
Proposed Rule Change.\60\ One comment letter, the Amherst Pierpont
Letter, requested additional time to provide comments on the
proposal.\61\ A second comment letter, the Ronin Letter, objects to the
Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See supra, note 5.
    \61\ The Commission is extending the period for review and
public comment for the Proposed Rule Change associated with this
proposal through this Order and has also extended the period for
review and public comment on the Advanced Notice associated with
this proposal, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ronin states that the Proposed Rule Change would ``unduly burden
competition'' and be ``unnecessary and unfair'' because the VaR model
redesign would necessitate higher margin requirements than are
necessary for Members, specifically Members with a higher cost of
capital.\62\ Ronin states that FICC is tasked with determining that
each Member's margin is adequate to satisfy losses that may arise from
the liquidation of that Member's portfolio under a default scenario,
but Ronin emphasizes that FICC must also ensure that ``backtesting
practices are appropriate for determining the adequacy of [FICC's]
margin resources.'' \63\ Ronin states that certain ``flaws'' in FICC's
current backtesting methodology should be carefully examined before
using backtesting deficiencies as justification for the proposed
sensitivity VaR model.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Ronin Letter at 1-9.
    \63\ Ronin Letter at 2.
    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ronin also states that FICC's assumption that it would take three
days to liquidate or hedge the portfolio of a defaulted Member is
incorrect.\65\ Specifically, Ronin states that FICC incorrectly assumes
that liquidity needs following a default will be identical for all
Members.\66\ Ronin states that the three-day liquidation period creates
an ``arbitrary and extremely high hurdle'' for historical backtesting
by overestimating the closeout-period risk posed to FICC by many of its
Members by ``triple-counting'' a single event.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ Ronin Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ronin also states that FICC lacks visibility into its Members'
``true risk'' because FICC only has access to a subset of a Members'
portfolio and, consequently, FICC does not have a VaR model issue, but,
instead, a ``data sharing problem.'' \68\ Ronin states that due to a
lack of information regarding Members' entire portfolios, FICC is
``improperly'' applying its VaR model to only a subset of a Member's
portfolio, resulting in incomplete margin calculations, which FICC
should rectify through ``cross-margin integration'' with the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange and FICC's Mortgage-Backed Securities Division.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Id.
    \69\ Ronin Letter at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Ronin states that the VaR model input is ``biased''
because it continuously retains a ``stressed period'' in the proposed
10-year look-back period.\70\ This results in higher than necessary
margin withholdings because it ``treats every day for risk-related
purposes as if the market is continuously in the midst of a financial
crisis.'' \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Ronin Letter at 4.
    \71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \72\ to determine whether the Proposed Rule
Change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised
by the Proposed Rule Change. Institution of proceedings does not
indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect
to any of the issues involved. Rather, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to comment on the Proposed Rule Change,
and provide the Commission with arguments to support the Commission's
analysis as to whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule
Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\73\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the Proposed
Rule Change's consistency with Section 17A of the Act,\74\ and the
rules thereunder, including the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Id.
    \74\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\75\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a clearing agency must be designed to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act,\76\ which requires that
the rules of a clearing agency do not impose any burden on competition
not necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act,\77\ which requires a
clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify,
measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and
those exposures arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement
processes by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its
credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of
confidence;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act,\78\ which requires a
clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover, if the covered
clearing agency provides central counterparty services, its credit
exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin
system that, at a minimum, considers, and produces margin levels
commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant
product, portfolio, and market;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii) under the Act,\79\ which requires a
clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover, if the covered
clearing agency provides central counterparty services, its credit
exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin
system that, at a minimum, marks participant positions to market and
collects margin, including variation margin or equivalent charges if
relevant, at least daily and includes the authority and operational
capacity to make intraday margin calls in defined circumstances;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act,\80\ which requires
a clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover, if the covered
clearing agency provides central counterparty services, its credit
exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin
system that, at a minimum, calculates margin sufficient to cover its
potential future exposure to participants in the interval between the
last margin collection and the close out of positions following a
participant default;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv) under the Act,\81\ which requires a
clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover, if the covered
clearing agency provides central counterparty services, its credit
exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin
system that, at a minimum, uses reliable sources of timely price data
and procedures and sound valuation models for addressing circumstances
in which pricing data are not readily available or reliable; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) under the Act,\82\ which requires a
clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover, if the covered
clearing agency provides central counterparty services, its credit
exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin
system that, at a minimum, uses an appropriate method for measuring
credit exposure that accounts for relevant product risk factors and
portfolio effects across products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the Proposed Rule Change. In particular, the Commission invites
the written views of interested persons concerning whether the Proposed
Rule Change is consistent with Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) and (I) of the
Act, Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (6)(i)-(v) under the Act, cited above,
or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations
thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to
approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral
presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(g) under the Act,\83\ any request for
an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(g).
    \84\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants to the Commission
flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either oral or
notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate for
consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the Proposed Rule Change should be approved
or disapproved by April 4, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
April 16, 2018. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FICC-2018-001 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-2018-001. 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 such filings also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FICC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-FICC-2018-001 and should be submitted on
or before April 4, 2018. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by April
16, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\85\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05565 Filed 3-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 8, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18777]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08024]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 522

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0002]

Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs;
Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Application; Fomepizole

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval
of a new animal drug application (NADA) for a fomepizole injectable
solution used as an antidote for ethylene glycol poisoning in dogs.
This action is being taken at the sponsor's request because this
product is no longer manufactured or marketed.

DATES: Withdrawal of approval is effective April 20, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sujaya Dessai, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paladin Labs (USA), Inc., 160 Greentree Dr.,
suite 101, Dover, DE 19904 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of
NADA 141-075 for ANTIZOL-VET (fomepizole) Injection because the product
is no longer manufactured or marketed.
    Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in
accordance with Sec.  514.116 Notice of withdrawal of approval of
application (21 CFR 514.116), notice is given that approval of NADA
141-075, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is hereby
withdrawn.
    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is amending
the animal drug regulations to reflect the voluntary withdrawal of
approval of this application.

    Dated: April 3, 2015.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2015-08024 Filed 4-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P