[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57960-57967]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20499]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95806; File No. SR-FICC-2022-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Increase the Minimum
Required Fund Deposit for GSD Netting Members and Sponsoring Members,
and Make Other Changes

September 16, 2022.
    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 September 9, 2022, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change consists of modifications to FICC's
Government Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``GSD Rules'') and
Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules (``MBSD
Rules,'' and collectively with the GSD Rules, the ``Rules'') \3\ in
order to increase the minimum Required Fund Deposit for GSD Netting
Members and Sponsoring Members (collectively, ``members''), as well as
make certain clarifying and technical changes, as described in greater
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the GSD Rules,
available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/
rules/ficc_gov_rules.pdf, and the MBSD Rules, available at
www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
ficc_mbsd_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    FICC is proposing to increase the minimum Required Fund Deposit for
members, as described in greater detail below.
Background
    As part of its market risk management strategy, FICC manages its
credit exposure to members by determining the appropriate Required Fund
Deposit to the Clearing Fund and monitoring its sufficiency, as
provided for in the Rules.\4\ The Required Fund Deposit serves as each
member's margin. The objective of a member's Required Fund Deposit is
to mitigate potential losses to FICC associated with liquidation of
member's portfolio in the event FICC ceases to act for that member
(hereinafter referred to as a ``default'').\5\ The aggregate of all
member's Required Fund Deposits, together with certain other deposits
required under the Rules, constitutes the Clearing Fund, which FICC
would access, among other instances, should a defaulting member's own
Clearing Fund deposit be insufficient to satisfy losses to FICC caused
by the liquidation of that member's portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See GSD Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation), supra
note 3. FICC's market risk management strategy is designed to comply
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4) under the Act, where these risks are
referred to as ``credit risks.'' 17 CFR 240.17-Ad-22(e)(4).
    \5\ The Rules identify when FICC may cease to act for a member
and the types of actions FICC may take. For example, GSD is
permitted to cease to act for (i) a Member pursuant to GSD Rule 22A
(Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases to Act), (ii) a
Sponsoring Member pursuant to Section 14 of GSD Rule 3A (Sponsoring
Members and Sponsored Members), and (iii) a Sponsored Member
pursuant to Section 13 of GSD Rule 3A (Sponsoring Members and
Sponsored Members). Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Rules, each member's Required Fund Deposit amount
consists of a number of applicable components, each of which is
designed to address specific risks faced by FICC, as identified within
GSD Rule 4.\6\ Currently, FICC requires a minimum Required Fund Deposit
of $100,000 be made and maintained in cash.\7\ The same requirement
applies to the GSD Sponsoring Members; \8\ however, for GSD Repo
Brokers, the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount is $5 million.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ GSD Rule 4. Supra note 3.
    \7\ GSD Rule 4, Section 3. Supra note 3.
    \8\ GSD Rule 3A, Section 10(d). Supra note 3.
    \9\ GSD Rule 4, Section 1b. Supra note 3. Currently, if a Repo
Broker has two Margin Portfolios, with Broker Account(s) in one
Margin Portfolio and Dealer Account(s) in the other Margin
Portfolio, the total minimum Required Fund Deposit applicable to the
Repo Broker would be $5.1 million, i.e., $5 million minimum Required
Fund Deposit for the Margin Portfolio with Broker Account(s) and
$100,000 minimum Required Fund Deposit for the Margin Portfolio with
Dealer Account(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC's margining methodologies are designed to mitigate market,
liquidity and other risks. FICC regularly assesses its margining
methodologies to evaluate whether margin levels are commensurate with
the particular risk attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and
market. In connection with such reviews, FICC has determined that there
are circumstances where the current minimum Required Fund Deposit
amount at GSD is insufficient to manage FICC's risk in the event of an
abrupt or sudden increase in a member's activity.
    FICC employs daily backtesting to determine the adequacy of each
member's Required Fund Deposit.\10\ FICC compares the Required Fund
Deposit \11\ for each member with the simulated liquidation gains/
losses using the actual positions in the member's portfolio, and the
actual historical security returns. A backtesting deficiency occurs
when a member's Required Fund Deposit would not have been adequate to
cover the projected liquidation losses estimated from a member's
settlement activity based on the backtesting results. FICC investigates
the cause(s) of any backtesting deficiencies. As part of this
investigation, FICC pays particular attention to members with
backtesting deficiencies that bring the coverage for that member below
the 99% confidence target (i.e., if the member had more than two
backtesting deficiency days in a rolling twelve-month period) to
determine if there is an identifiable cause of repeat backtesting
deficiencies.\12\ FICC also evaluates whether multiple members may
experience backtesting deficiencies for the same underlying reason.
Backtesting deficiencies highlight exposure that could subject FICC to
potential losses in the event that a member defaults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Model Risk Management Framework (``Model Risk
Management Framework'') sets forth the model risk management
practices of FICC and states that Value at Risk (``VaR'') and
Clearing Fund requirement coverage backtesting would be performed on
a daily basis or more frequently. See Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 81485 (August 25, 2017), 82 FR 41433 (August 31, 2017)
(SR-FICC-2017-014), 84458 (October 19, 2018), 83 FR 53925 (October
25, 2018) (SR-FICC-2018-010), 88911 (May 20, 2020), 85 FR 31828 (May
27, 2020) (SR-FICC-2020-004), 92380 (July 13, 2021), 86 FR 38140
(July 19, 2021) (SR-FICC-2021-006), and 94271 (February 17, 2022),
87 FR 10411 (February 24, 2022) (SR-FICC-2022-001).
    \11\ Members may be required to post additional collateral to
the Clearing Fund in addition to their Required Fund Deposit amount.
See e.g., Section 7 of GSD Rule 3 (Ongoing Membership Requirements),
supra note 3 (providing that adequate assurances of financial
responsibility of a member may be required, such as increased
Clearing Fund deposits). For backtesting comparisons, FICC uses the
Required Fund Deposit amount, without regard to the actual, total
collateral posted by the member to the Clearing Fund.
    \12\ The 99% confidence target is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(iii) which requires FICC to calculate margin to cover its
``potential future exposure'' which is defined in Rule 17Ad-
22(a)(13) to mean the ``maximum exposure estimated to occur at a
future point in time with an established single-tailed confidence
level of at least 99 percent with respect to the estimated
distribution of future exposure.'' 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(13) and
(e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While multiple factors may contribute to a member's backtesting
deficiency, a position increase by a member after the calculation of
each member's Required Fund Deposit may be a factor that leads to the
member incurring backtesting

deficiencies due to the additional exposure that is not mitigated until
the collection of the Required Fund Deposit occurs intraday, or on the
next Business Day. This factor is heightened for those members that
have a low or minimum Required Fund Deposit because there are less
deposits to mitigate any abrupt change in their portfolio exposure.
    Typical examples where a member's required Clearing Fund deposit
amount is the same as the current minimum Required Fund Deposit amount
of $100,000 include (1) when a new member has activated its clearing
accounts at FICC and is growing its business, (2) when a member has
limited or infrequent clearing activity, and (3) when a member is
winding down its business and is in the process of retiring its FICC
membership. In each of these circumstances, an abrupt increase in
clearing activity following a period of low or no clearing activity
could cause FICC to be under-margined with respect to the member and
may result in backtesting deficiencies. This is because if a member
with low or no clearing activity were to have an abrupt increase in
clearing activity after the calculation of the member's Required Fund
Deposit (which would have been calculated based on a period of low or
no clearing activity), it could lead to the member incurring
backtesting deficiencies due to the additional exposure to FICC from
the increase in clearing activity that may not be mitigated until the
collection of the Required Fund Deposit either intraday or on the next
Business Day. Therefore, FICC is proposing to increase the GSD minimum
Required Fund Deposit amount in order to address the risk that FICC
becomes under-margined in circumstances when a member's required
Clearing Fund deposit amount is the same as the current GSD minimum
Required Fund Deposit amount, i.e., $100,000.
    In determining the appropriate minimum Required Fund Deposit
amount, FICC reviewed different minimum Required Fund Deposit amounts
to determine the anticipated effects of increasing the minimum Required
Fund Deposits on Clearing Fund coverage and on backtesting results,
i.e., $500,000 versus $1 million. FICC also conducted a review of
minimum deposit requirements of registered clearing agencies and
foreign central counterparty clearing houses (``CCPs'') to compare
FICC/GSD's minimum Required Fund Deposit amount with the deposits
required by registered clearing agencies and foreign CCPs. Based on the
results of the reviews and the comparison of other registered clearing
agencies and foreign CCPs, FICC believes that a proposed minimum
Required Fund Deposit amount of $1 million for GSD would provide an
appropriate balance of improving member backtesting results and FICC/
GSD's Clearing Fund coverage while minimizing the impact to members.
    To assess the impact on GSD backtesting coverage if the GSD minimum
Required Fund Deposit amount were increased from $100,000 to $1
million, FICC conducted a backtesting impact study for the 12-month
period ended June 30, 2022 (``Backtesting Impact Study''). The result
of the Backtesting Impact Study indicates that using $1 million as
GSD's minimum Required Fund Deposit amount would have reduced the
number of members with backtesting coverage below 99%.\13\ The
Backtesting Impact Study shows 70 members below 99% backtesting
coverage as of June 30, 2022 with a collective 396 backtesting
deficiencies in GSD. Approximately 21% (i.e., 85 out of 396) of the
backtesting deficiencies occurred with members that had a Required Fund
Deposit of less than $1 million on the relevant deficiency day(s). If
the proposed changes had been in place during the Backtesting Impact
Study period, approximately 16% (i.e., 65 out of 396) of the
backtesting deficiencies incurred by the members would have been
eliminated, and the total number of members that were below the 99%
confidence target as of June 30, 2022 would have been reduced by 8.
Overall, a $1 million minimum requirement would have increased GSD's
12-month backtesting coverage 0.22%, eliminated 65 backtesting
deficiencies, and improved the rolling twelve-month backtesting
coverage for 8 members to above 99% confidence target. In contrast, if
a $500,000 minimum Required Fund Deposit had been applied during the
same study period, GSD's 12-month backtesting coverage would have
increased by 0.13%, 38 backtesting deficiencies would have been
eliminated, and the rolling twelve-month backtesting coverage for 3
members would have been improved to above 99% confidence target. In
summary, if the minimum Required Fund Deposit at GSD during the study
period had been set to $1 million compared to $500,000, there would
have been 27 more backtesting deficiencies eliminated (i.e., 65 instead
of 38 or an approximately 71% increase in the number of backtesting
deficiencies that could have been eliminated), 5 more members would be
brought back to above 99% confidence target (i.e., 8 instead of 3 or an
approximately 166% increase in the number of members brought back to
above 99% confidence target), and the overall GSD backtesting coverage
would have increased an additional 0.09%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Backtesting percentages indicate the risk that a minimum
Required Fund Deposit would be insufficient to manage risk in the
event of a member's default. A backtesting coverage that is below
the 99% confidence target for a member means that the member has had
more than two backtesting deficiency days in a rolling twelve-month
period, i.e., assuming the member had a full year of trading
history. As indicated above, consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(iii), FICC pays particular attention to members with
backtesting deficiencies that bring the results for that member
below the 99% confidence target to determine if there is an
identifiable cause of repeat backtesting deficiencies. Supra note
12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC's review of the requirements of other clearing agencies and
foreign CCPs indicated that FICC/GSD's current minimum Required Fund
Deposit requirement of $100,000 was significantly lower than minimum
deposits or equivalent required by such other entities.\14\ While the
minimum required fund deposits of such other entities is not
dispositive as to the risk borne by FICC or the proper fund deposit
amounts to offset such risk, it is indicative of the amounts that users
of other similarly situated entities can expect to pay as a minimum
required fund deposit to use the services of the clearing agencies and
foreign CCPs and the impact to such users. The comparison shows that
entities using other clearing agencies and foreign CCPs pay
significantly more in minimum

fund deposits to use similar services than the current minimum Required
Fund Deposit amount at GSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, the minimum initial contribution for The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') is $500,000. See Rule 1002(d)
of the OCC Rules, available at https://www.theocc.com/getmedia/9d3854cd-b782-450f-bcf7-33169b0576ce/occ_rules.pdf. The minimum
guaranty fund deposit for Chicago Mercantile Exchange (``CME'') is
$500,000 or $2.5 million depending on the product types being
cleared. See Rule 816 of the CME Rulebook, available at https://www.cmegroup.com/content/dam/cmegroup/rulebook/CME/I/8/8.pdf. The
minimum Required Fund Deposit for National Securities Clearing
Corporation (``NSCC'') is $250,000. See Rule 4 of NSCC Rulebook,
available at https://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
nscc_rules.pdf. The minimum default fund contribution for LCH
Limited is GBP 500,000 (approximately $579,000 based on current
foreign currency exchange rate). See definition of ``Minimum
Contribution'' in the LCH Limited Default Rules, available at
https://www.lch.com/system/files/media_root/210609_Default%20Rules_Clean_0.pdf. The minimum RepoClear default
fund contribution for LCH Ltd. is GBP 2,000,000 (approximately $2.3
million based on the current foreign currency exchange rate). See
definition of ``Minimum RepoClear Contribution'' in the LCH Limited
Default Rules, available at https://www.lch.com/system/files/media_root/210609_Default%20Rules_Clean_0.pdf. The minimum
contribution to Ice Clear U.S. Guaranty Fund is $2 million. See Rule
301 of ICE Clear U.S., Inc. Rules, available at https://www.ice.com/publicdocs/rulebooks/clear/ICE_Clear_US_Rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC also conducted a Clearing Fund requirement impact study for
the period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 (``CFR Impact Study''). The
result of the CFR Impact Study indicates that if the proposed changes
had been in place during the CFR Impact Study period, approximately 47%
(81 out of a total of 174) of the current members' Margin Portfolios
would have been impacted, with an average and a weighted average (with
weights based on number of impacted days) additional Required Fund
Deposit of approximately $686,000 and $792,000, respectively, for each
such Margin Portfolio per impacted day. However, when comparing the
actual, total Clearing Fund deposit of the current members' Margin
Portfolios with the proposed minimum Required Fund Deposit amount, only
approximately 13% (23 out of a total 174) of such members' Margin
Portfolios would have been impacted, requiring an average and a
weighted average (with weights based on number of impacted days)
additional cash deposit of approximately $649,000 and $715,000,
respectively, for each such Margin Portfolio per impacted day. The
result of the CFR Impact Study also shows one Repo Broker that would
have been impacted, requiring additional Clearing Fund deposit of
approximately $392,000 in either cash or Eligible Clearing Fund
Securities per impacted day. Overall, the proposed changes would have
resulted in an average increase in daily Required Fund Deposit of $31.4
million (or 0.17%) at GSD during the CFR Impact Study period.
    Based on the Backtesting Impact Study and the CFR Impact Study
results discussed above, FICC believes that $1 million is the
appropriate minimum Required Fund Deposit amount at GSD that would
minimize the financial impact to its members while improving member
backtesting results and FICC/GSD's Clearing Fund coverage.
    As is currently provided for in the Rules, FICC/GSD is proposing to
continue to require that members deposit in cash an amount not less
than the minimum Required Fund Deposit.\15\ FICC permits members to
satisfy their Required Fund Deposit obligations through a combination
of cash and open account indebtedness secured by Eligible Clearing Fund
Securities.\16\ Cash deposits are fungible. FICC would therefore be
further strengthening its liquidity resources by requiring each member
(including Repo Brokers) to deposit at least $1 million in cash to the
GSD Clearing Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Currently, all members (including Repo Brokers) are
required to have at least $100,000 of the Required Fund Deposit in
cash. See GSD Rule 4, Section 3. Supra note 3.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Changes
    In order to implement the proposed increase in the minimum Required
Fund Deposit amount to $1 million for the Sponsoring Members, Section
10(c) of GSD Rule 3A (Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members) would
be revised to state that the Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account Required
Fund Deposit shall be equal to the greater of: (i) $1 million or (ii)
the sum of the following: (1) the sum of the VaR Charges for all of the
Sponsored Members whose activity is represented in the Sponsoring
Member Omnibus Account as derived pursuant to Section 1b(a)(i) of GSD
Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation), and (2) all amounts derived
pursuant to the provisions of GSD Rule 4 other than pursuant to Section
1b(a)(i) of GSD Rule 4 computed at the level of the Sponsoring Member
Omnibus Account. In addition, Section 10(d) of GSD Rule 3A would be
revised to replace the minimum cash amount from $100,000 to $1 million
to match the proposed increased minimum Required Fund Deposit amount
for the Sponsoring Members.
    In order to implement the proposed increase in the minimum Required
Fund Deposit amount to $1 million for the GSD Netting Members, Section
2(a) of GSD Rule 4 would be revised to state that each Netting Member
shall be required to make a Required Fund Deposit to the Clearing Fund
equal to the greater of (i) the Minimum Charge or (ii) the Total
Amount. FICC is also proposing to add a sentence to Section 2(a) of GSD
Rule 4 that makes it clear that the Minimum Charge applicable to each
Netting Member, other than a Repo Broker, shall be no less than $1
million. In addition, for better organization of the subject matter and
clarity, FICC is proposing to move two sentences in GSD Rule 4 from
Section 1b to Section 2(a) with revisions: one stipulates that the
Minimum Charge applicable to each Repo Broker shall be no less than $5
million for each Margin Portfolio with Broker Account(s) and no less
than $1 million for each Margin Portfolio with Dealer Account(s) and
the other refers to additional payments, charges and premiums being
applied by FICC after application of Minimum Charges, which replaces
``minimum Clearing Fund amounts''. Lastly, Section 3 of GSD Rule 4
would be revised to replace the minimum cash amount from $100,000 to $1
million to match the proposed increased minimum Required Fund Deposit
amount.
    Although FICC is not proposing to increase the minimum Required
Fund Deposit for MBSD at this time, for clarity and transparency, FICC
is proposing to add a sentence to Section 2 of MBSD Rule 4 (Clearing
Fund and Loss Allocation) that would make it clear the Minimum Charge
for each margin portfolio of a Clearing Member shall be no less than
$100,000. To enhance clarity in Section 2 of MBSD Rule 4, FICC is also
proposing to replace (i) ``Clearing Fund requirement'' with ``Minimum
Charge for each margin portfolio'' and (ii) ``minimum Clearing Fund
amounts'' with ``Minimum Charges''. Furthermore, FICC is proposing a
technical change to correct a reference to the non-Unregistered
Investment Pool Clearing Member in Section 2 of MBSD Rule 4.
Implementation Timeframe
    Subject to approval by the Commission, FICC would implement the
proposed changes by no later than 60 Business Days after such approval
and would announce the effective date of the proposed changes by an
Important Notice posted to its website.
2. Statutory Basis
    FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a registered clearing agency. Specifically, FICC believes
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \17\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(iii),\18\ each as
promulgated under the Act, for the reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the Rules be designed
to, among other things, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds
which are in the custody or control of FICC or for which it is
responsible.\19\ FICC believes the proposed rule changes are designed
to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its
custody or control or for which it is responsible because they are
designed to enable FICC to require the necessary margin for members who
have a minimum Required Fund Deposit to limit its exposure to such
members in the event of a member default. Having adequate margin for
such members would help ensure that FICC does not

need to use its own resources, or the Eligible Clearing Fund Securities
and funds of non-defaulting members, to cover losses in the event of a
default of such members. Specifically, the proposed rule change seeks
to remedy potential situations that are described above where FICC
could be under-margined. By ensuring that members that have the minimum
Required Fund Deposit amount are adequately covering FICC's risk of
loss, FICC would be reducing the risk of losses, which would need to be
addressed by using non-defaulting members' securities or funds, or
FICC's funds. In addition, by requiring that members pay an amount not
less than the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount in cash, FICC would
be making available additional collateral that is easier to access upon
a member's default, further reducing the risk of losses and using non-
defaulting members' securities or funds, or FICC's funds, for
liquidity. Therefore, FICC believes the proposed rule change enhances
the safeguarding of securities and funds that are in the custody or
control of FICC, consistent with Section 17(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act requires that FICC establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and
manage its credit exposures to members and those arising from its
payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining
sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each
member fully with a high degree of confidence.\21\ As described above,
FICC believes that the proposed changes would enable it to better
identify, measure, monitor, and, through the collection of members'
Required Fund Deposits, manage its credit exposures to members by
maintaining sufficient resources to cover those credit exposures fully
with a high degree of confidence. More specifically, as indicated by
the Backtesting Impact Study results, raising the minimum Required Fund
Deposit amount to $1 million at GSD would decrease the number of
backtesting deficiencies and help ensure that FICC maintains the
coverage of credit exposures for more members at a confidence level of
at least 99%. In addition, by requiring members pay an amount not less
than the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount in cash, FICC would be
making available collateral that is easier to access when members
default, thus further reducing the potential risk of loss from having
to use non-defaulting members' securities or funds, or FICC's funds,
for liquidity. Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed changes would
enhance FICC's ability to effectively identify, measure, monitor and
manage its credit exposures and would enhance its ability to maintain
sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each
member fully with a high degree of confidence. As such, FICC believes
the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under
the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act requires that FICC establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its members by
establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, calculates
margin sufficient to cover its potential future exposure to members in
the interval between the last margin collection and the close out of
positions following a member default.\23\ FICC employs daily
backtesting to determine the adequacy of each member's Required Fund
Deposit, paying particular attention to members that have backtesting
deficiencies below the 99% confidence target. Such backtesting
deficiencies highlight exposure that could subject FICC to potential
losses if a member defaults. As discussed above, FICC has determined
that approximately 16% (i.e., 65 out of 396) of the backtesting
deficiencies would have been eliminated during the Backtesting Impact
Study period if the minimum Required Fund Deposit were $1 million. By
raising the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount to $1 million at GSD,
FICC believes it can decrease the backtesting deficiencies by members,
and thus decrease its exposure to such members in the event of a
default. FICC believes that the increase in margin for those members
that currently have a Required Fund Deposit of less than $1 million
would improve the probabilities that the margin required of such
members is sufficient to cover FICC's potential future exposure to
members in the interval between the last margin collection and the
close out of positions following a member default. Therefore, FICC
believes the proposed change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii)
under the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules
be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions.\25\ FICC believes the proposed clarifying
and technical changes to the GSD and MBSD Rules would allow FICC to
help promote prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions. This is because the proposed changes to the Rules would
clarify and improve the transparency of the Rules. Enhancing the
clarity and transparency of the Rules would help members to better
understand their rights and obligations regarding FICC's clearance and
settlement services. FICC believes that when members better understand
their rights and obligations regarding FICC's clearance and settlement
services, they can act in accordance with the Rules. FICC believes that
better enabling members to comply with the Rules would promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
by FICC. As such, FICC believes the proposed clarifying and technical
changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FICC believes that the proposed changes to increase the minimum
Required Fund Deposit could have an impact on competition.
Specifically, FICC believes that the proposed changes could burden
competition because they would result in larger Required Fund Deposits
for certain members, e.g., members that currently have lower Required
Fund Deposits would have to deposit additional cash and/or Eligible
Clearing Fund Securities, as applicable, to their Clearing Fund
deposits. The proposed changes could impose more of a burden on those
members that have lower operating margins, lower cash reserves or
higher costs of capital compared to other members. Nonetheless, FICC
believes that any burden on competition imposed by the proposed changes
would not be significant and would be both necessary and appropriate in
furtherance of FICC's efforts to mitigate risks and meet the
requirements of the Act, as described in this filing and further below.
    FICC believes that any burden on competition presented by the
proposed changes to increase the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount
would not be significant. As discussed above, if the minimum Required
Fund Deposit at GSD had been increased to $1 million during the CFR
Impact Study period, approximately 47% (81 out of a total of 174) of
the current members' Margin Portfolios would have been impacted,

with an average and a weighted average additional Required Fund Deposit
of approximately $686,000 and $ 792,000, respectively, for each such
Margin Portfolio per impacted day. However, when comparing the actual,
total Clearing Fund deposit of the current members' Margin Portfolios
with the proposed minimum Required Fund Deposit amount, only
approximately 13% (23 out of a total of 174) of such members' Margin
Portfolios would have to deposit additional cash to the Clearing Fund,
with an average and a weighted average cash deposit of approximately
$649,000 and $715,000, respectively, for each such Margin Portfolio per
impacted day. Furthermore, when comparing the average additional cash
deposit amounts that members would be required to make if the minimum
Clearing Fund cash deposit at GSD had been increased to $1 million with
their respective average Net Capital \27\ during the CFR Impact Study
period, the largest average additional cash deposit amount represented
approximately 0.49% of the affected member's average Net Capital.\28\
Similarly, when comparing the average additional Clearing Fund deposit
that members would be required to make, either in cash or Eligible
Clearing Fund Securities, if the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount
at GSD had been increased as proposed with their respective average Net
Capital during the CFR Impact Study period, the largest average
additional Clearing Fund deposit amount represented approximately 1.46%
of the affected member's average Net Capital.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As defined in GSD Rule 1 (Definitions), the term ``Net
Capital'' means, as of a particular date, the amount equal to the
net capital of a broker or dealer as defined in SEC Rule 15c3-
1(c)(2), or any successor rule or regulation thereto. Supra note 3.
    \28\ The affected member would have had to deposit an additional
$900,000 in cash each impacted day during the CFR Impact Study
period.
    \29\ The affected member would have had to deposit an additional
$392,000 in either cash or Eligible Clearing Fund Securities each
impacted day during the CFR Impact Study period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FICC believes that the increase to $1 million is
comparable with what users of other similarly situated registered
clearing agencies and foreign CCPs are expected to pay as a minimum
required deposit for similar services.\30\ Furthermore, by limiting the
proposed Required Fund Deposit to $1 million rather than a higher
minimum Required Fund Deposit, FICC would be minimizing the financial
impact to its members while improving member backtesting results and
FICC/GSD's Clearing Fund coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While raising the minimum Required Fund Deposit to $500,000 would
also reduce backtesting deficiencies, it would not reduce them to the
same extent that raising the minimum Required Fund Deposit to $1
million would have. If the minimum Required Fund Deposit were raised to
$1 million rather than $500,000, FICC would have observed 27 fewer
backtesting deficiencies at GSD, which represents an approximately 71%
increase (i.e., 65 instead of 38) in the number of deficiencies that
could have been eliminated. Backtesting deficiencies highlight exposure
that could subject FICC to potential losses in the event that a member
defaults. FICC believes that the additional reduction in exposure that
would occur if the minimum Required Fund Deposit at GSD were raised to
$1 million rather than $500,000 justifies the potential additional
burden for members who currently have a Required Fund Deposit of less
than $1 million.
    Even if the burden were deemed significant with respect to certain
members, FICC believes that the above-described burden on competition
that may be created by the proposed changes would be necessary in
furtherance of the Act, specifically Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act,\31\ because, as described above, the Rules must be designed to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds that are in FICC's
custody or control or which it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, FICC believes the proposed changes are designed
to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its
custody or control or for which it is responsible because they are
designed to enable FICC to require the necessary margin for members who
have a minimum Required Fund Deposit to limit its exposure to such
members in the event of a member default. Having adequate margin for
such members would help ensure that FICC does not need to use its own
resources, or the Eligible Clearing Fund Securities and funds of non-
defaulting members, to cover losses in the event of a default of such
members. Specifically, the proposed changes seek to remedy potential
situations where FICC could be under-margined. By ensuring that members
that have the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount are adequately
covering FICC's risk of loss, FICC would be reducing the risk of
losses, which would need to be addressed by using non-defaulting
members' securities or funds, or FICC's funds. In addition, by
requiring that members pay an amount equal to the minimum Required Fund
Deposit amount in cash, FICC would be making available additional
collateral that is easier to access upon a member's default, further
reducing the risk of losses and using non-defaulting members'
securities or funds, or FICC's funds, for liquidity. Therefore, FICC
believes the proposed changes are necessary in furtherance of Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FICC believes these proposed changes are necessary to
support FICC's compliance with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act,\33\ which require FICC to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to (x) effectively identify, measure, monitor, and
manage its credit exposures to members and those arising from its
payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining
sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each
member fully with a high degree of confidence; and (y) cover its credit
exposures to its members by establishing a risk-based margin system
that, at a minimum, calculates margin sufficient to cover its potential
future exposure to members in the interval between the last margin
collection and the close out of positions following a member default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, FICC believes increasing the minimum Required
Fund Deposit amount at GSD to $1 million would decrease the number of
backtesting deficiencies and ensure that FICC maintains the coverage of
credit exposures for more members at a confidence level of at least
99%. This outcome is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) which
requires that FICC maintain sufficient financial resources to cover its
credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of
confidence.\34\ This outcome is also consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(iii) which requires that FICC calculate sufficient margin to
cover its ``potential future exposure'' which is defined as the
``maximum exposure estimated to occur at a future point in time with an
established single-tailed confidence level of at least 99 percent with
respect to the estimated distribution of future exposure.'' \35\ FICC
believes that the increase in margin for those members that currently
have a Required Fund Deposit of less than $1 million at GSD would help
ensure that FICC maintain sufficient financial resources to cover its

credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of
confidence and that the margin deposited by such members is sufficient
to cover FICC's potential future exposure in the interval between the
last margin collection and the close out of positions following a
member default. Therefore, FICC believes that these proposed changes
are necessary to support FICC's compliance with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i)
and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
    \35\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes that the above-described burden on competition that
could be created by the proposed changes would be appropriate in
furtherance of the Act because such changes have been appropriately
designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are
in the custody or control of FICC or for which it is responsible, as
described in detail above. The proposal would enable FICC to produce
margin levels more commensurate with the risks it faces as a central
counterparty. The proposed increase in minimum Required Fund Deposit at
GSD would be in relation to the credit exposure risks presented by the
class of members that currently have a Required Fund Deposit of less
than $1 million, and each member's Required Fund Deposit would continue
to be calculated with the same parameters and at the same confidence
level for each member. Therefore, members that present similar risk,
regardless of the type of member, would have similar impact on their
Required Fund Deposit amounts.
    In addition, based on the comparison with other registered clearing
agencies and foreign CCPs, FICC believes that the increase to $1
million is comparable with what users of other similarly situated
registered clearing agencies and foreign CCPs are expected to pay and
would not be a significant burden on Members.\37\ Furthermore, based on
the results of the Backtesting Impact Study and CFR Impact Study, as
discussed above, FICC believes that a proposed minimum Required Fund
Deposit of $1 million at GSD would provide an appropriate balance of
improving member backtesting results while minimizing the impact to
members by not raising the minimum Required Fund Deposit above $1
million. Therefore, because the proposed changes are designed to
provide FICC with a more appropriate and balanced method of managing
the risks presented by each member while minimizing the impact to
members, FICC believes the proposed changes are appropriately designed
to meet its risk management goals and regulatory obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes that it has designed the proposed changes in a way
that is both necessary and appropriate to meet compliance with its
obligations under the Act. Specifically, the proposal to increase the
minimum Required Fund Deposit amount to $1 million at GSD would better
limit FICC's credit exposures to its members. In addition, by
continuing to require that members pay an amount equal to the minimum
Required Fund Deposit amount in cash, FICC would be making available
additional collateral that is easier for FICC to access upon a member's
default, further limiting its credit exposure to members. Therefore, as
described above, FICC believes the proposed changes are necessary and
appropriate in furtherance of FICC's obligations under the Act,
specifically Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \38\ and Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(4)(i) and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act.\39\ For these
reasons, the proposed changes are not designed to be an artificial
barrier to entry but a necessary and appropriate change to address
specific risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \39\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FICC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. If any additional written comments are received, they
will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by
Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to
Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General
Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should
submit only information that they wish to make available publicly,
including their name, email address, and any other identifying
information.
    All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's
instructions on how to submit comments, available at https://www.sec.gov/regulatory-actions/how-to-submit-comments. General
questions regarding the rule filing process or logistical questions
regarding this filing should be directed to the Main Office of the
SEC's Division of Trading and Markets at [email protected] or
202-551-5777.
    FICC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FICC-2022-006 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2022-006. 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 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-2022-006 and should be
submitted on or before October 13, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20499 Filed 9-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59801-59805]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22676]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0723; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-137-AD;
Amendment 39-17586; AD 2013-19-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a

report of cracks found in the skin at body station (STA) 540 just below
stringer S-22L on a Model 737-700 series airplane. This AD requires
repetitive detailed and high frequency eddy current inspections for
cracking of the skin around the eight fasteners common to the ends of
the STA 540 bulkhead chords between stringers S-22 and S-23, left and
right sides; and corrective actions and preventive modification if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking in the skin, which can result in rapid decompression of the
cabin.

DATES: This AD is effective November 4, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 4,
2013.

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

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 (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2012 (77 FR
43547). The NPRM proposed to require repetitive detailed and high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the skin
around the eight fasteners common to the ends of the STA 540 bulkhead
chords between stringers S-22 and S-23, left and right sides; and
corrective actions and preventive modification if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 43547, July 25, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Concurrence

    The Boeing Company concurred with the content of the NPRM (77 FR
43547, July 25, 2012).

Support of Compliance Time

    AirTran/Southwest Airlines stated that the inspection threshold and
intervals will fit within its planned scheduled maintenance checks. The
commenter also stated that the number of man-hours and elapsed time to
accomplish the NPRM (77 FR 43547, July 25, 2012) will not impact the
overall span-time of its planned scheduled maintenance check.

Request To Change the Compliance Time

    American Airlines requested that all airplanes have the same
compliance time of 26,500 total flight cycles with a grace period of
6,500 flight cycles. The commenter explained that since the NPRM (77 FR
43547, July 25, 2012) is for the same type of airplanes with the same
condition, they should have the same compliance time regardless of the
amount of flight cycles at the time of the AD release date. The
commenter noted that the NPRM specifies a compliance time of 18,000
total flight cycles with a grace period of 4,000 flight cycles for
airplanes with less than 27,500 total flight cycles. The commenter also
stated that the 4,000 flight cycle grace period does not allow enough
time for operators to have two good opportunities to accomplish the
inspections during normal maintenance visits.
    We disagree with changing the compliance times. In developing
appropriate compliance times for this action, we considered the urgency
associated with the subject unsafe condition and the practical aspect
of accomplishing the required actions within a period of time that
corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected
operators. The shorter compliance time for airplanes with higher number
of total flight cycles addresses the increased likelihood of cracking
or larger cracks being present. Under the provisions of paragraph (l)
of this final rule, we will consider requests for approval of an
adjustment of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable
level of safety. No change has been made to this final rule in this
regard.

Request for Increased Repetitive Inspection Intervals

    American Airlines requested that the repetitive inspection interval
of 4,000 flight cycles specified in the NPRM (77 FR 43547, July 25,
2012) be changed to at least 8,000 flight cycles to coordinate with
heavy maintenance visits to provide the least amount of impact during
the maintenance visit. The commenter stated that it does not believe
that we have provided sufficient evidence to warrant such a tight
repetitive inspection interval if no cracks are found after the initial
inspection. The commenter also noted that since this crack has only
been found on one airplane, it is not certain how susceptible the rest
of the fleet is to develop skin cracks at body station (BS)540.
    We disagree with increasing the repetitive inspection interval. In
developing an appropriate repetitive inspection interval for this
action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe
condition and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required
actions within a period of time that corresponds to the normal
scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. The interval was
determined using the same methodology as for other cracks of primary
structure addressed in other airworthiness directives. No data has been
offered that would substantiate a change to this final rule. Under the
provisions of paragraph (l) of this final rule, we will consider
requests for approval of an adjustment of the repetitive inspection
interval if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new
interval would provide an acceptable level of safety. No change has
been made to this final rule in this regard.

Request To Change Cost Estimate

    American Airlines requested that we change the Cost of Compliance
table to account for the removal and installation of the ram air
transition duct and the

recirculation air filter housing. American Airlines stated the ram air
transition duct must be removed to accomplish the inspection of the
skin around the 8 fasteners and will add an additional 2 work-hours
(open and close) for each airplane. American Airlines requested that
the labor cost for the inspection be changed to 5 work-hours rather
than the estimated 3 work-hours specified in the NPRM (77 FR 43547,
July 25, 2012) to include the removal and installation of the ram air
transition duct. American Airlines also stated that the recirculation
air filter housing must be removed to accomplish the preventative
modification and will add an additional 6 work-hours (open and close)
for each airplane. American Airlines also noted that the current price
for the modification kit is $993, rather than $894 as referenced in the
NPRM (77 FR 43547, July 25, 2012).
    We partially agree with the request to change the Cost of
Compliance table. We disagree with the figures used by the commenter.
The work-hours, however, have been revised in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013. The Cost
of Compliance table has been revised accordingly.

Request To Allow the Use of Grip Length Adjustment Washers

    AirTran/Southwest Airlines requested that we add Note 6 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-53-1294, dated March 31, 2011, to allow the use of grip
length adjustment washers to accomplish the NPRM (77 FR 43547, July 25,
2012).
    We disagree. Note 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision 1, dated June
14, 2013 (previously Note 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, dated March 31,
2011), states, ``If the length of any fastener specified in this
service bulletin does not meet the installation standards in SRM
[structural repair manual] Chapter 51, then a fastener of the same
specification, or an approved substitute, with a length which meets the
installation standards in SRM Chapter 51 may be used.'' Since the
installation standards of Section 51 of the SRM include the use of grip
length adjustment washers, no additional authorization is necessary. No
change has been made to this final rule in this regard.

Request To Remove or Modify Paragraph (i)(4) of the NPRM (77 FR 43547,
July 25, 2012)

    AirTran/Southwest Airlines requested that paragraph (i)(4) of the
NPRM (77 FR 43547, July 25, 2012) be removed. AirTran/Southwest
Airlines requested that we allow the operator to determine the sequence
in which steps are to be accomplished for the inspections and
modifications, otherwise, the operators may inadvertently violate the
AD by performing unrelated tasks out of sequence.
    American Airlines requested that we remove or modify paragraph
(i)(4) of the NPRM (77 FR 43547, July 25, 2012) stating that paragraph
(i)(4) is more restrictive than necessary to ensure safety of flight.
American Airlines stated that not being able to accomplish some steps
out of order will prevent accomplishment of the AD in a timely manner.
American Airlines suggested modifying paragraph (i)(4) of the NPRM (77
FR 43547, July 25, 2012) to allow the modifications and repairs to be
accomplished in any order as long as the steps within those actions are
accomplished in order.
    We agree to remove paragraph (i)(4) of the NPRM (77 FR 43547, July
25, 2012). We have received Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-53-1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013, which removes
instructions regarding the sequencing of steps and changes certain part
numbers. We have revised paragraphs (c), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this
final rule to refer to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
53-1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013. We have also added new
paragraph (k) to this final rule to allow credit for the actions
required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, if those
actions were performed before the effective date of this final rule
using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, dated
March 31, 2011. Subsequent paragraphs have been redesignated
accordingly.

Request To Allow Removal of Additional or Fewer Parts, and Include
Jacking and Shoring Limitations

    AirTran/Southwest Airlines requested that we include a statement
stating that it is acceptable to remove additional, or fewer, parts as
necessary; however, jacking and shoring limitations must be observed.
    We partially agree with the request. We agree that clarification is
needed regarding removal of additional or fewer parts. We infer that
this comment concerns instructions in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-53-1294, dated March 31, 2011, regarding access and
restoration, which are not required to address the unsafe condition.
However, we disagree with requiring jacking and shoring limitations in
this final rule because those actions are not required to address the
unsafe condition. Operators may perform those actions in accordance
with approved maintenance procedures. We have added new paragraph
(i)(4) to this final rule to state that access and close actions
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294,
Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013, are not required by this final rule.
We have also revised paragraphs (g) and (h) of this final rule to refer
to paragraph (i)(4) of this final rule.

STC Winglet Comment

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets
per STC ST00830SE does not affect them.
    We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the NPRM (77 FR 43547, July
25, 2012) as paragraph (c)(1) in this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to
this AD to state that installation of STC ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/408E012E008616A7862578880060456C?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00830se) does
not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final
rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE 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. For all other AMOC requests, the operator must request approval
for an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(l) of this final rule.

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 change described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 43547, July 25, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 43547, July 25, 2012).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 903 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                            Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product                Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection (left and right sides).....  14 work-hours x $85 per hour            $0  $1,190 per inspection     $1,074,570 per inspection cycle.
                                         = $1,190 per inspection                     cycle.
                                         cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs and
inspections 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preventive modification (each     7 work-hours x $85 per hour =      $894..............  $1,489.
 side).                            $595.
Skin repair (each side).........  37 work-hours x $85 per hour =     Up to $5,635......  Up to $8,780.
                                   $3,145.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-19-04 the Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17586; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0723; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-137-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 4, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to the Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes; certificated in any category;
as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-
1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/408E012E008616A7862578880060456C?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00830se)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE 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. For all other AMOC requests, the
operator must request approval for an AMOC in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracks found in the skin at
body station (STA) 540 just below stringer S-22L. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the skin, which
can result in rapid decompression of the cabin.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    (1) Except as required by paragraphs (g)(2), (i)(2), and (i)(3)
of this AD, at the applicable time specified in table 1 of paragraph
1.E.

``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-
1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013: Do detailed and high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the skin for cracking
in the area around the eight fasteners securing the STA 540 bulkhead
chords between stringers S-22 and S-23, and do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013, except as
required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(4) of this AD. If no cracking
is found, repeat the detailed and HFEC inspections at the intervals
specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision 1, dated
June 14, 2013, except as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD,
until the optional preventive modification specified in paragraph
(h) of this AD is done. Do all applicable corrective actions before
further flight.
    (2) For airplanes that have incorporated Boeing Business Jet
Lower Cabin Altitude Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01697SE
(http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/0812969A86AF879B8625766400600105?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01697se)
(6,500 feet maximum cabin altitude in lieu of 8,000 feet), the
flight-cycle related compliance times are different from those
specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294,
Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013. All initial compliance times
specified in total flight cycles or flight cycles must be reduced to
half of those specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-53-1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013. All repetitive
interval compliance times specified in flight cycles must be reduced
to one-quarter of those specified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013.

(h) Optional Preventive Modification

    Accomplishing the preventive modification, including an HFEC
inspection for cracking of the skin and STA 540 bulkhead chords, and
all applicable repairs, in accordance with paragraph 3.B, Part 2 or
Part 4 (left side), and Part 3 or Part 5 (right side), of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013, terminates
the inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for the side
on which the modification is done, except as required by paragraphs
(i)(1) and (i)(4) of this AD.

(i) Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (1) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294,
Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013, specifies to contact Boeing for
appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(l) of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294,
Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013, specifies to do the action after
the original issue date of that service bulletin, this AD requires
the compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where the Condition column of table 1 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-
1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013, specifies a condition as of
the original issue date of that service bulletin, this AD specifies
the condition as of the effective date of this AD.
    (4) The access and restoration instructions identified in the
Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
53-1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013, are not required by this
AD. Operators may perform those actions in accordance with approved
maintenance procedures.

(j) Post-Repair Inspections

    The post-repair inspections, specified in table 2 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-53-1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013, are not required by
this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD: The damage tolerance
inspections specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,''
of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision
1, dated June 14, 2013, may be used in support of compliance with
Section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(b)(2)). The
corresponding actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision
1, dated June 14, 2013, are not required by this AD.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g), (h), and (j) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, dated March 31, 2011, which
is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle 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, it may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO) to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information referenced in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference in this AD may be obtained at the
addresses identified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294,
Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at 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.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 9, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-22676 Filed 9-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 73273]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28820]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042; FRL-9920-26-OAR]
RIN 2060-AQ90

NESHAP Risk and Technology Review for the Mineral Wool and Wool
Fiberglass Industries; NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Area Sources;
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that
the period for providing public comments on the November 13, 2014,
supplemental proposed rule titled ``NESHAP Risk and Technology Review
for the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries; NESHAP for Wool
Fiberglass Area Sources'' is being extended for 30 days.

DATES: Comments. The public comment period for the supplemental
proposed rule published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2014
(79 FR 68012), is being extended for 30 days to January 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments. Written comments on the supplemental proposed rule may be
submitted to EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile or through hand
delivery/courier. Please refer to the supplemental proposal (79 FR
68012) for the addresses and detailed instructions.
    Docket. Publicly available documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
The official public docket for these rulemakings are Docket ID Nos.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 (Mineral Wool Production) and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042
(Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing).
    World Wide Web. The EPA Web site for these rulemakings is http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/minwool/minwopg.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Susan Fairchild, Minerals and
Manufacturing Group (D243-04), Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comment Period

    After considering the request received from North American
Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) to extend the public
comment period, the EPA has decided to extend the public comment period
for an additional 30 days. Therefore, the public comment period will
end on January 14, 2015, rather than December 15, 2014. This extension
will help ensure that the public has sufficient time to review the
proposed rule and the supporting technical documents and data available
in the docket.

    Dated: December 4, 2014.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-28820 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 173 (Friday, September 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55353-55354]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for New Special
Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1-
Motor vehicle, 2-Rail freight, 3-Cargo vessel, 4-Cargo aircraft only,
5-Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 1, 2020.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special permits
       Application No.                Applicant           Regulation(s) affected              thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21091-N.....................  Air Products and           173.301(f), 173.301(g)..  To authorize the
                               Chemicals, Inc..                                     transportation in commerce
                                                                                of hydrogen in tube trailers
                                                                                containing non-DOT
                                                                                Specification cylinders
                                                                                manufactured under DOT-SP
                                                                                14576 that do not have
                                                                                pressure relief devices.
                                                                                (mode 1)
21093-N.....................  Orbital Sciences, LLC....  172.101(j)(2),            To authorize the
                                                          173.185(a)(1),            transportation in commerce
                                                          173.185(b)(3)(i).         of the lithium metal battery
                                                                                identified as Model No.
                                                                                9ER20P-20B, manufactured by
                                                                                Orion HIT, which are
                                                                                specifically designed for
                                                                                space flight, as Class 9
                                                                                without passing UN T.6--
                                                                                Impact Test. (modes 1, 3, 4)
21094-N.....................  Umbra Lab, Inc...........  173.185(a)(1),            To authorize the
                                                          173.185(b).               transportation of prototype
                                                                                lithium batteries within a
                                                                                spacecraft. (mode 1)
21095-N.....................  Suterra, LLC.............  173.306(i)(1)...........  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of limited quantities of
                                                                                aerosols for which the
                                                                                completed package exceeds 66
                                                                                lbs gross weight. (modes 1,
                                                                                2)

21096-N.....................  Pacira Cryotech, Inc.....  171.23, 173.306(j)......  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of receptacles, small that
                                                                                have a oxidizer subsidiary
                                                                                hazard under 49 CFR
                                                                                173.306(j). (modes 1, 4, 5)
21097-N.....................  United States Dept Of      ........................  To authorize the
                               Geological Survey.                                   transportation in commerce
                                                                                of methane hydrate in dry
                                                                                shippers using liquefied
                                                                                nitrogen. (modes 1, 4)
21098-N.....................  The Dow Chemical Company.  172.203(a), 172.302(c),   To authorize the
                                                          173.31(d)(1)(ii).         transportation in commerce
                                                                                of tank cars for which the
                                                                                external visual inspection
                                                                                of the manway cover gasket
                                                                                on AAR Specification 211,
                                                                                DOT Specification 111, DOT
                                                                                Specification 117J, DOT
                                                                                Specification 117R and DOT
                                                                                Specification 117P tank cars
                                                                                by alternative means. (mode
                                                                                2)
21099-N.....................  StageFX, Inc.............  173.51(a), 173.64,        To authorize the use of the
                                                          173.65.                   2018 APA Standard 87-1C:
                                                                                Standard for the
                                                                                Construction,
                                                                                Classification, Approval,
                                                                                and Transportation of
                                                                                Entertainment Industry and
                                                                                Technical (EI&T)
                                                                                Pyrotechnics for
                                                                                classification of
                                                                                pyrotechnic materials.
                                                                                (modes 1, 4)
21102-N.....................  Subaru Of America, Inc...  ........................  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of emissions monitoring
                                                                                devices that are in-use
                                                                                during transportation. (mode
                                                                                1)
21103-N.....................  Kalitta Air, LLC.........  172.200, 172.300,         To authorize the
                                                          172.400, 175.30.          transportation in commerce
                                                                                of certain hazardous
                                                                                materials by cargo aircraft
                                                                                without shipping papers,
                                                                                marking and labeling, and
                                                                                information to the pilot-in-
                                                                                command. (mode 4)
21104-N.....................  Kelley Fuels, Inc........  172.336(c)..............  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of cargo tanks containing
                                                                                either gasoline or diesel
                                                                                fuel with a placard
                                                                                permanently marked with a
                                                                                ``1203'' UN number
                                                                                identification mark. (mode
                                                                                1)
21106-N.....................  General Motors, LLC......  173.185(b)(1)...........  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of lithium ion cells in
                                                                                Large Packaging by highway
                                                                                and rail. (mode 1, 2)
21108-N.....................  Aerospacelab.............  173.185(a)(1)...........  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of low production lithium
                                                                                batteries contained in
                                                                                equipment by motor vehicle
                                                                                and cargo-only aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-19643 Filed 9-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>11/16/2007 04:21 PM	To
	"Thompson, John E \(OES\)"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Finman, Hodayah H
\(OES\)"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Klein, Jeffrey M"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Belefski, Mary L."
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Vetter, Darci"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Smith, Russell"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"MacNeil, John S."
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>	cc
	Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ross Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Aaron
Levy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Diane McConkey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	bcc

	Subject
	CUE Methyl Bromide Final Rulemaking:  Informal Draft

	History:
		This message has been forwarded.

Hi all,

Please find attached EPA's informal draft of the CUE methyl bromide
final rulemaking.  Once again, this package is on a fast track.  I would
appreciate your comments by COB Monday, November 26.  I also propose a
conference call on November 28th, 10 am-noon.  If you have concerns
about the timeline, please let me know as soon as possible.

Once again, thank you all for your continued work and cooperation!

Best,

Amanda