[Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 214)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62609-62613]
[DOCID:fr06no07-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. COTP St. Petersburg 07-046]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Tampa Bay, Port of Tampa, Port of St. Petersburg,
Rattlesnake, Old Port Tampa, Big Bend, Weedon Island, and Crystal
River, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise certain security zones
within the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg Zone (formerly the
Captain of the Port Tampa Zone). The purpose of these revisions is to
ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the surrounding areas
within these zones. Entry into the area encompassed by these revised
security zones would be prohibited without permission of the Captain of
the Port.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before December 6, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard
Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive,
Tampa, FL 33606-3598. Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention
Department maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments
and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated
in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of
this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Coast
Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive,
Tampa, FL 33606-3598 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Jessica Crandell at the
Waterways Management Division, Sector St. Petersburg, FL<PHONE_NUMBER>
Ext 8146.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please identify the docket
number for this rulemaking (COTP Sector St. Petersburg 07-046),
indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment
applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone
number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we
have questions regarding your submission. For example, we may ask you
to resubmit your comment if we are not able to read your original
submission. Please submit all comments and related material in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period. We may change
this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Waterways Management Division at
the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Maritime Transportation Security Act authorized the
establishment of Area Maritime Security Committees (AMSC) that
``advise, consult with, report to, and make recommendations'' on
matters relating to maritime security in an AMSC's port area. See 46
U.S.C. 70112(a)(2) and 33 CFR 103.205. One topic the Tampa AMSC
discussed is the existing security zones established soon after the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. See 68 FR 47852, August 12,
2003, and 68 FR 52340, September 3, 2003.
    These existing security zones were established in 2003 and codified
in 33 CFR 165.760 and 165.764 by the Captain of the Port Tampa. As
noted in the notice of proposed rulemakings for these two final rules,
there were a number of temporary security zone rules issued before
these two final rules. See 68 FR 7093, February 12, 2003 and 68 FR
19166, April 18, 2003.
    Some of the security zones in Sec. Sec.  165.760 and 165.764 were
suspended from July 26, 2007 until January 1, 2008, and revised,
temporary security zones were made effective during this same period.
See 72 FR 45162, August 13, 2007. These temporary changes were made
based on the newly-developed Maritime Security Risk Analysis tool
utilized by the AMSC.
    A Tampa AMSC working group evaluated risk to the maritime
transportation system (MTS) within Tampa Bay, and assessed various risk
mitigation options. The results of the risk assessment indicated the
need to revise the following established security zones for the purpose
of enhancing port security for the region:
     Sec.  165.760(a)(1), Rattlesnake, Tampa, FL;
     Sec.  165.760(a)(3), Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Tampa, FL;
     Sec.  165.760(a)(5), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port
of Tampa, Port Sutton and East Bay;
     Sec.  165.760(a)(7), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port
of Tampa, on the western side of Hooker's Point;
     Sec.  165.764(a)(1), Big Bend, Tampa Bay, Florida zone.

The five revised zones temporarily replacing these five suspended zones
appear in Sec.  165.T07-047(a) (1) through (5), but will expire January
2, 2008. The risk assessment also indicated that two of the zones
suspended--Sec.  165.760(a)(6) [Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port
of Tampa, East Bay and the eastern side of Hooker's Point], and (a)(8)
[Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Manatee]--were no longer
needed.
    The security zones proposed in this notice have been discussed,
vetted and recommended by representatives of the Department of Homeland
Security's Office of Infrastructure Protection, the Western Florida
Area Maritime Security Committee, the Florida Region IV and VI Regional
Domestic Security Task Forces, and numerous local agencies who share in
the maritime security mission in the Tampa Bay region. These proposed
revisions are needed to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and
the surrounding areas within the Captain of the Port Sector St.
Petersburg Zone following the expiration of the currently-effective
temporary final rule, 72 FR 45162, August 13, 2007.
    In 2005, Sector St. Petersburg was created, replacing the Captain
of the Port Tampa Zone. Authority to create security zones in the Tampa
Bay region now resides with the Sector St. Petersburg Captain of the
Port. See 70 FR 41415, July 19, 2005, and 72 FR 36316, July 2, 2007.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The security zones described in this notice have been discussed,
vetted and recommended by representatives of the Department of Homeland
Security's Office of Infrastructure Protection, the Western Florida
Area Maritime Security Committee, the Florida Region IV and VI Regional
Domestic Security Task Forces, and numerous local agencies who share in
the maritime security mission in the Tampa Bay region.
    The following areas are proposed to be established as permanent
security zones in 33 CFR 165.760 by revising or adding the following
paragraphs in that section. All coordinates were fixed using the North
American Datum of 1983.
     Revise Sec.  165.760(a)(3), Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Tampa,
FL. All waters in Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, in Cut ``A''
channel beneath the bridge's main span encompassed by a line connecting
the following points: 27[deg]37.30' N, 082[deg]39.38' W to
27[deg]37.13' N, 082[deg]39.26' W; and, the bridge structure columns,
base and dolphins. This zone is specific to the bridge structure and
dolphins and does not include waters adjacent to the bridge columns or
dolphins outside of the bridge's main span.
     Revise Sec.  760(a)(5), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities,
Port of Tampa, Port Sutton and East Bay. All waters, from surface to
bottom, extending 50 yards from the shore, seawall, and piers around
facilities in Port Sutton within the Port of Tampa encompassed by a
line connecting the following points: 27[deg]54.15' N, 082[deg]26.11'
W; east northeast to 27[deg]54.19' N, 082[deg]26.00' W; then northeast
to 27[deg]54.37' N, 082[deg]25.72' W, closing off all Port Sutton
channel; then northerly to 27[deg]54.48' N, 082[deg]25.70' W.
     Revise Sec.  165.760(a)(7), Piers, Seawalls, and
Facilities, Port of Tampa, on the western side of Hooker's Point. All
waters, from surface to bottom, extending 50 yards from the shore,
seawall, and piers around facilities on Hillsborough Bay northern
portion of Cut ``D'' channel, Sparkman channel, Ybor Turning Basin, and
Ybor channel within the Port of Tampa encompassed by a line connecting
the following points: 27[deg]54.74' N, 082[deg]26.47' W; northwest to
27[deg]55.25' N, 082[deg]26.73' W; then north-northwest to
27[deg]55.60' N, 082[deg]26.80' W; then north-northeast to
27[deg]56.00' N, 082[deg]26.75' W; then northeast to 27[deg]56.58' N,
082[deg]26.53' W; and north to 27[deg]57.29' N, 082[deg]26.51' W; west
to 27[deg]57.29' N, 082[deg]26.61' W; then southerly to 27[deg]56.65'
N, 082[deg]26.63' W; southwesterly to 27[deg]56.58' N, 082[deg]26.69'
W; then southwesterly and terminating at 27[deg]56.53' N,
082[deg]26.90' W.
     Remove Sec.  165.764(a)(1) and add Sec.  165.764(a)(14),
Big Bend Power Plant, FL. All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to
bottom, adjacent to the Big Bend Power Facility, and within an area
bounded by a line connecting the following points: 27[deg]48.08' N,
082[deg]24.88' W; then northwest to 27[deg]48.15' N, 082[deg]24.96' W;
then southwest to 27[deg]48.10' N, 082[deg]25.00' W; then south-
southwest to 27[deg]47.85' N, 082[deg]25.03' W; then southeast to
27[deg]47.85' N, 082[deg]24.79' W; then east to 27[deg]47.55' N,
082[deg]24.04' W; then north to 27[deg]47.62' N, 082[deg]84.04' W; then
west to 27[deg]47.60' N, 082[deg]24.72' W; then north to 27[deg]48.03'
N, 082[deg]24.70' W; then northwest to 27[deg]48.08' N, 082[deg]24.88'
W, closing off entrance to Big Bend Power Facility and the attached
cooling canal.
     Remove Sec.  165.764(a)(2), revised its heading but add
its text unchanged to a new Sec.  165.764(a)(15), Weedon Island Power
Plant, FL. All waters of Tampa Bay, from surface to bottom, extending
50-yards from the shore, seawall and piers around the Power Facility at
Weedon Island encompassed by a line connecting the following points:
27[deg]51.52' N, 082[deg]35.82' W; then north

and east along the shore to 27[deg]51.54' N, 082[deg]35.78' W; then
north to 27[deg]51.68' N, 082[deg]35.78' W; then north to 27[deg]51.75'
N, 082[deg]35.78' W, closing off entrance to the canal; then north to
27[deg]51.89' N, 082[deg]35.82' W; then west along the shore to
27[deg]51.89' N, 082[deg]36.10' W; then west to 27[deg]51.89' N,
082[deg]36.14' W, closing off entrance to the canal.
     Revise Sec.  165.760(a)(1), Rattlesnake Tampa, FL. All
water, from surface to bottom, in Old Tampa Bay east and south of a
line commencing at position 27[deg]53.32' N, 082[deg]32.05' W; north to
27[deg]53.36' N, 082[deg]32.05' W, including on land portions of
Chemical Formulators Chlorine Facility, where the fenced area is
bounded by a line connecting the following points: 27[deg]53.21' N,
082[deg]32.11' W; west to 27[deg]53.22' N, 082[deg]32.23' W; then north
to 27[deg]53.25' N, 082[deg]32.23' W; then west again to 27[deg]53.25'
N, 082[deg]32.27' W; then north again to 27[deg]53.29' N,
082[deg]32.25' W; then east to 27[deg]53.30' N, 082[deg]32.16' W; then
southeast terminating at 27[deg]53.21' N, 082[deg]32.11' W.
    Please note that the portion of the description of Sec.
165.760(a)(1) after the word ``including'' differs from the currently
effective temporary Sec.  165.T07-047(a)(1). We determined that the
``fenced area'' should be more clearly defined in the permanent
regulation and propose replacing the following description ``including
the fenced area encompassing the Chemical Formulator Chlorine
Facility'' in TFR 72 FR 45162-01 with a more accurate North American
Datum Description. The new description is: ``including on land portions
of Chemical Formulators Chlorine Facility where the fenced area is
bounded by a line connecting the following points: 27[deg]53.21' N,
082[deg]32.11' W; west to 27[deg]53.22' N, 082[deg]32.23' W; then north
to 27[deg]53.25' N, 082[deg]32.23' W; then west again to 27[deg]53.25'
N, 082[deg]32.27' W; then north again to 27[deg]53.29' N,
082[deg]32.25' W; then east to 27[deg]53.30' N, 082[deg]32.16' W; then
southeast terminating at 27[deg]53.21' N, 082[deg]32.11' W.''
    Entry into or remaining on or within these proposed revised zones
would be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector
St. Petersburg or his designated representative. Persons desiring to
transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the
Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designated representative on VHF
channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is
granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. In the case
of moving security zones, notification will be given by Broadcast
Notice to Mariners on VHF FM Marine Band Radio, Channel 22A. For
vessels not equipped with a radio, there will also be on site
notification via a designated representative of the Captain of the
Port. A graphical representation of all fixed security zones will be
made available via the World Wide Web: http://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/portDirectory.do?tabId=1&
 cotpId=50, Coast Pilot and nautical

charts.
    Because we proposed to move the only two security zones in Sec.
165.764 to Sec.  165.760, we propose to remove and reserve Sec.
165.764.
    We also proposed to reverse the order of the regulations and
definitions paragraphs in Sec.  165.760 by having the definitions
appear first. We proposed to add a definition designated representative
to the revised paragraph (b).
    In revised paragraph (c) we have replaced references to the Captain
of the Port Tampa with references to Captain of the Port Sector St.
Petersburg and made references to using Broadcast Notice to Mariners to
announce the activation of moving security zones by cruise ships
entering certain waters--see Sec.  165.760(a)(9).

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This proposed
rule may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts
will be minimized for the following reasons: There is ample room for
vessels to navigate around security zones, and there are several
locations for recreational and commercial fishing vessels to fish
throughout the Tampa Bay Region. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on
a case-by-case basis allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because the majority of the zones are limited
in size, leaving ample room for vessels to navigate around the zones.
The zones will not significantly impact commuter and passenger vessel
traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zones via local
notice to mariners and marine broadcasts. Also, the Captain of the Port
may, on a case-by-case basis, allow persons or vessels to enter a
security zone.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the office listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, for assistance in understanding this rule.
The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question
or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' supporting this preliminary
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

    2. In Sec.  165.760, revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(5),
(a)(7), (b) and (c), and add paragraphs (a)(14) and (a)(15) to read as
follows:

Sec.  165.760  Security Zones; Tampa Bay, Port of Tampa, Port of Saint
Petersburg, Rattlesnake, Old Port Tampa, Big Bend, Weedon Island, and
Crystal River; Florida.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Rattlesnake, Tampa, FL. All water, from surface to bottom, in
Old Tampa Bay east and south of a line commencing at position
27[deg]53.32' N, 082[deg]32.05' W; north to 27[deg]53.36' N,
082[deg]32.05' W, including on land portions of Chemical Formulators
Chlorine Facility, where, the fenced area is bounded by a line
connecting the following points: 27[deg]53.21' N, 082[deg]32.11' W;
west to 27[deg]53.22' N, 082[deg]32.23' W; then north to 27[deg]53.25'
N, 082[deg]32.23' W; then west again to 27[deg]53.25' N, 082[deg]32.27'
W; then north again to 27[deg]53.29' N, 082[deg]32.25' W; then east to
27[deg]53.30' N, 082[deg]32.16' W; then southeast terminating at
27[deg]53.21' N, 082[deg]32.11' W.
* * * * *
    (3) Sunshine Skyway Bridge, FL. All waters in Tampa Bay, from
surface to bottom, in Cut ``A'' channel beneath the bridge's main span
encompassed by a line connecting the following points: 27[deg]37.30' N,
082[deg]39.38' W to 27[deg]37.13' N, 082[deg]39.26' W; and, the bridge
structure columns, base and dolphins. This zone is specific to the
bridge structure and dolphins and does not include waters adjacent to
the bridge columns or dolphins outside of the bridge's main span.
* * * * *
    (5) Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Tampa and Port Sutton,
Tampa, FL. All waters, from surface to bottom, extending 50 yards from
the shore, seawall, and piers around facilities in Port Sutton within
the Port of Tampa encompassed by a line connecting the following
points: 27[deg]54.15' N, 082[deg]26.11' W; east northeast to
27[deg]54.19' N, 082[deg]26.00' W; then northeast to 27[deg]54.37' N,
082[deg]25.72' W, closing off all Port Sutton channel; then northerly
to 27[deg]54.48' N, 082[deg]25.70' W.
* * * * *
    (7) Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Tampa, on the western
side of Hooker's Point, Tampa, FL. All waters, from surface to bottom,
extending 50 yards from the shore, seawall, and piers around facilities
on Hillsborough Bay northern portion of Cut ``D'' channel, Sparkman
channel, Ybor Turning Basin, and Ybor channel within the Port of

Tampa encompassed by a line connecting the following points:
27[deg]54.74' N, 082[deg]26.47' W; northwest to 27[deg]55.25' N,
082[deg]26.73' W; then north-northwest to 27[deg]55.60' N,
082[deg]26.80' W; then north-northeast to 27[deg]56.00' N,
082[deg]26.75' W; then northeast to 27[deg]56.58' N, 082[deg]26.53' W;
and north to 27[deg]57.29' N, 082[deg]26.51' W; west to 27[deg]57.29'
N, 082[deg]26.61' W; then southerly to 27[deg]56.65' N, 082[deg]26.63'
W; southwesterly to 27[deg]56.58' N, 082[deg]26.69' W; then
southwesterly and terminating at 27[deg]56.53' N, 082[deg]26.90' W.
* * * * *
    (14) Big Bend Power Plant, FL. All waters of Tampa Bay, from
surface to bottom, adjacent to the Big Bend Power Facility, and within
an area bounded by a line connecting the following points:
27[deg]48[min]08[sec] N, 082[deg]24[min]88[sec] W; then northwest to
27[deg]48[min]15[sec] N, 082[deg]24[min]96[sec] W; then southwest to
27[deg]48[min]10[sec] N, 082[deg]25[min]00[sec] W; then south-southwest
to 27[deg]47[min]85[sec] N, 082[deg]25[min]03[sec] W; then southeast to
27[deg]47[min]85[sec] N, 082[deg]24[min]79[sec] W; then east to
27[deg]47[min]55[sec] N, 082[deg]24[min]04[sec] W; then north to
27[deg]47[min]62[sec] N, 082[deg]84[min]04[sec] W; then west to
27[deg]47[min]60[sec] N, 082[deg]24[min]72[sec] W; then north to
27[deg]48[min]03[sec] N, 082[deg]24[min]70[sec] W; then northwest to
27[deg]48[min]08[sec] N, 082[deg]24[min]88[sec] W, closing off entrance
to Big Bend Power Facility and the attached cooling canal.
    (15) Weedon Island Power Plant, FL. All waters of Tampa Bay, from
surface to bottom, extending 50-yards from the shore, seawall and piers
around the Power Facility at Weedon Island encompassed by a line
connecting the following points: 27[deg]51[min]52[sec] N,
082[deg]35[min]82[sec] W; then north and east along the shore to
27[deg]51[min]54[sec] N, 082[deg]35[min]78[sec] W; then north to
27[deg]51[min]68[sec] N, 082[deg]35[min]78[sec] W; then north to
27[deg]51[min]75[sec] N, 082[deg]35[min]78[sec] W, closing off entrance
to the canal; then north to 27[deg]51[min]89[sec] N,
082[deg]35[min]82[sec] W; then west along the shore to
27[deg]51[min]89[sec] N, 082[deg]36[min]10[sec] W; then west to
27[deg]51[min]89[sec] N, 082[deg]36[min]14[sec] W, closing off entrance
to the canal.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Cruise ship means a vessel required to comply with 33 CFR part 120.
    Designated representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders
including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers
operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP), in the
enforcement of regulated navigation areas, safety zones, and security
zones.
    (c) Regulation. (1) Entry into or remaining on or within the zones
described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designated
representative.
    (2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may
contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or his designated
representative on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to transit the
area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated
representative. In the case of moving security zones, notification of
activation of these zones will be given by Broadcast Notice to Mariners
on VHF FM Marine Band Radio, Channel 22A. For vessels not equipped with
a radio, there will also be on site notification via a designated
representative of the Captain of the Port.

    Note to Sec.  165.760 (c)(2): A graphical representation of all
fixed security zones will be made available via the Coast Pilot and
nautical charts.

    (3) Enforcement. Under Sec.  165.33, no person may cause or
authorize the operation of a vessel in the security zones contrary to
the provisions of this section.
* * * * *

Sec.  165.764  [Removed]

    3. Remove and reserve Sec.  165.764.

    Dated: October 29, 2007.
J.A. Servidio,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. E7-21760 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68070]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-21972]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 600

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 536, and 537

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799; FRL-9706-5; NHTSA-2010-0131]
RIN 2060-AQ54; RIN 2127-AK79

2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

Correction

    In rule document 2012-21972 appearing on pages 62623-63200 in the
issue of Monday, October 15, 2012, make the following correction:

Sec.  533.5  Requirements [Corrected]

0
1. On page 63195, Figure 4, an equation, is corrected to appear as set
forth below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15NO12.102

[FR Doc. C1-2012-21972 Filed 11-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44074]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0889]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY:  The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the
Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is
necessary to allow the community to participate in the Juvenile
Diabetes Research Foundation One Walk event. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the
deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. through 11 a.m. on
October 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0889, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The California Department of Transportation
has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower
Drawbridge over the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The
drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet
above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw
operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway
is commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 9 a.m. through 11 a.m. on October 1, 2017, to allow the community
to participate in the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation One Walk
event. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway
users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do
so at anytime. In the event of an emergency the draw can open on signal
if at least one hour notice is given to the bridge operator. There are
no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will
also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast
Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge
so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any
impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 18, 2017.
Carl T. Hausner,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-20128 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 150)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47203-47207]
[DOCID:fr05au10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0403; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-166-AD;
Amendment 39-16379; AD 2010-16-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model MD-
11 and MD-11F Airplanes Equipped With General Electric CF6-80C2 Series
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. This AD requires revising the
airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew to use certain
procedures during descent in certain icing conditions. This AD results
from reports of several in-flight engine flameouts, including multiple
dual engine flameout events, in ice-crystal icing conditions. We are
issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has the proper procedures
to follow in certain icing conditions. These certain icing conditions
could cause a multiple engine flameout during flight with the potential
inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective September 9, 2010.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and

other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-
647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. That NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on April 7, 2008 (73 FR 18719). That NPRM proposed
to require revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to advise the
flightcrew to use certain procedures during descent in certain icing
conditions.

Other Relevant Proposed Rulemaking

    NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2008-0402, Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-165-
AD (73 FR 18721, April 7, 2008), proposes to require similar actions
for Model 747 airplanes and Model 767 airplanes, certified in any
category, equipped with General Electric Model CF6-80C2 or CF6-80A
series engines. These airplanes have been determined to be subject to
the identified unsafe condition addressed in this AD.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International supports the intent
and language of the NPRM. The National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB), based on the success of similar AFM requirements to address
this unsafe condition on Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 400, 400A,
and 400T series airplanes and Model MU-300 airplanes, supports the
adoption of the proposed requirements.

Request for FAA To Actively Pursue Research To Develop a Permanent
Solution

    The NTSB notes that the NPRM is intended as interim action, and
points out that it has issued Safety Recommendation A-06-59, dated
August 25, 2006. In this safety recommendation the NTSB asked the FAA
to ``* * * work with engine and airplane manufacturers and other
industry personnel as well as the appropriate international
airworthiness authorities to actively pursue research to develop an ice
detector that would alert pilots to internal engine icing and require
that it be installed on new production turbojet engines, as well as
retrofitted to existing turbojet engines.'' Therefore, the NTSB hopes
the FAA pursues research in concert with the multinational Aircraft
Icing Research Alliance that might develop an ice detector to alert
flightcrews to the accretion of ice crystals on internal engine
surfaces, so that flightcrews can take the appropriate actions.
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree that the
General Electric (GE) CF6-80C2 series engine needs to be modified to
mitigate the risk of flameouts caused by ice crystal accretion.
However, at this time, we do not agree to pursue research to develop an
ice detector that would alert flightcrews to the internal engine icing,
or with requiring manufacturers to install ice detectors internal to
the engines. In addition, no such designs have been proposed to the
FAA. Instead, for future designs, we are developing rulemaking to show
acceptable engine operation in an ice crystal environment. For engines
that currently demonstrate a susceptibility to ice crystals, we are
working with manufacturers to develop engine design changes to make
engines more robust during ice crystal accumulation and shedding
encounters. We will continue to provide feedback to the NTSB through
the established process for addressing safety recommendations. For this
AD, if different methods to address the unsafe condition are developed,
under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD, we will consider
requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that the method would provide an acceptable level of
safety. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Require Demonstration of Non-Susceptibility in Future
Designs

    The NTSB states that it hopes the FAA will require future engine
designs to demonstrate that they will not be susceptible to the
accretion of ice crystals on internal surfaces. The NTSB points out
that this request is in keeping with information provided to the NTSB
by an FAA icing expert during a briefing with the Safety Board.
    From these statements, we infer that the NTSB is requesting that we
revise the NPRM to include a statement of our intent to require
manufacturers to demonstrate that future engine designs are not
susceptible to the accretion of ice crystals. We partially agree. We
agree that current FAA regulations addressing engine and airplane icing
do not apply to the ice crystal environment; therefore, we are working
with the aviation industry to develop appropriate regulations that
address operation in an ice crystal environment. As we determine the
necessary requirements to address this issue, we will consider
additional rulemaking. We do not agree to revise this AD to include a
statement regarding future regulations that have not yet been
determined. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    GE acknowledges that a small number of inclement weather or
significant weather system encounters have resulted in short-duration
multiple engine power loss. GE points out that these few events
occurred out of 14 million flights over 20 years of total service
experience on the Model CF6-80C2 series engine. GE states that a forced
landing resulting from one of these in-flight ice-crystal icing events
is extremely improbable (including demonstrated relight performance).
Therefore, GE asserts that the proposed condition does not meet the
definition of ``unsafe condition,'' as defined by FAA Advisory Circular
39-8, ``Continued Airworthiness Assessments of Powerplant and Auxiliary
Power Unit Installations of Transport Category Airplanes,'' dated
September 8, 2003.
    From these statements, we infer that GE requests that we withdraw
the NPRM. We do not agree. We have evaluated the unsafe condition and
find that sufficient data exist to demonstrate that the environment
that causes the engine flameout would likely cause engine damage that
potentially would prevent an engine from relighting. The condition
could exist on all of an airplane's engines, resulting in a forced
landing. The advisory circular referenced by the commenter merely
provides guidance. We have determined that an unsafe condition exists,
and the appropriate vehicle for correcting an unsafe condition is an
AD. We have not changed the AD regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Wording of the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing proposes that we revise the wording of the unsafe condition
from, ``These certain icing conditions could cause a multiple engine
flameout during

flight without the ability of the engines to be relit * * *'' to
``These certain icing conditions may cause a multiple engine flameout
during flight, with the potential inability to restart the engines * *
*.'' Boeing asserts that the wording in the NPRM overly conveys the
likelihood of not being able to restart the engine(s) after flameout.
While the possibility exists, Boeing confirms that all engines involved
in all of the flameout events to date have been restarted in flight
with subsequent normal landings.
    We agree. We acknowledge that none of the flameout events on this
engine model to date have resulted in a forced landing due to the
inability to restart the engines. We agree that the inability to
restart the engines following flameout is possible, not probable.
Therefore, we have revised the unsafe condition statement in the
Summary section and paragraph (e) of this AD (specified as paragraph
(d) of the NPRM) as proposed by Boeing.

Requests To Revise Wording in the Discussion Section of the NPRM

    Boeing proposes that we revise the Discussion section of the NPRM
to state that there have been seven engine flameout events, not six.
Boeing states that it has received seven reports of flameout events on
Model MD-11 airplanes due to ice-crystal icing conditions.
    We acknowledge that Boeing has received seven reports, instead of
the six specified in the NPRM. However, the Discussion section of the
NPRM is not restated in the final rule; therefore, no change to the AD
is necessary in this regard.
    GE suggests that we revise the wording of the Discussion section of
the NPRM to remove the word ``core,'' or, if that is not acceptable, to
change ``core flow path'' to ``booster and core flow path.'' GE points
out that the term ``core'' can be interpreted to mean just the high-
pressure spool portion of a turbofan.
    We partially agree. We do not agree with GE's suggestion to remove
the word ``core'' from the Discussion section. We do agree that the
phrase ``booster and core flow path'' is more accurate; however,
because the Discussion section of the NPRM is not restated in this AD,
there is no need to revise the AD in this regard.
    GE suggests that we revise the Discussion section of the NPRM to
change the word ``usually'' to ``often'' in the following sentence:
``Therefore, it [ice-crystal icing] is usually undetected by the
flightcrew.'' GE states that this change would make the NPRM consistent
with a similar NPRM (Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-165-AD, Docket FAA-
2008-0402 (73 FR 18721, April 7, 2008)), which addresses the same
unsafe condition on certain Model 747 and 767 airplanes.
    From this statement, we infer that GE is requesting that we revise
the Discussion section of the NPRM to clarify that ice-crystal icing is
often undetected by the flightcrew, not usually undetected. We
partially agree. We agree that the wording change suggested by GE would
make this AD consistent with a similar NPRM that addresses the same
unsafe condition on certain Model 747 and 767 airplanes. However, as
previously noted, the Discussion section in the NPRM is not restated in
this AD, therefore, there is no need to revise the AD in this regard.

Requests To Revise the Costs of Compliance Section of the NPRM

    GE suggests that there should be an operational cost of compliance
included in the proposed Costs of Compliance provided in the NPRM. GE
states that, while increasing engine off-take or bleed does provide
additional margin against flameout, doing so requires somewhat
increased fuel burn. GE believes the proposed procedure would be
required on a significant percentage of flights.
    Federal Express (FedEx) believes that the total cost of the NPRM
has either not been fully considered, or has not been properly
communicated. FedEx asserts that the cost of using wing and tail anti-
ice increases fuel burn and exposes the airplane to additional
reliability risks associated with increased use of the anti-ice system,
while only providing a small incremental amount of effectiveness. FedEx
also states that it estimates the increased fuel consumption to be 40
pounds for a descent from flight level (FL) 400 to landing.
    From these statements, we infer that GE and FedEx are requesting
that we revise the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM to provide
an operational cost for increased fuel burn necessitated by use of the
proposed AFM procedure. We do not agree. The cost information in AD
actions describes only the direct costs of the specific action required
by the AD: an AFM revision in this case. The estimated cost of this
action represents the time necessary to perform only the actions
actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions
required by an AD, operators might incur operational costs in addition
to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions,
however, typically does not include incidental or operational costs
such as the time required for planning or other administrative actions,
and, in this case, possible additional fuel costs. Those costs, which
might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to
calculate. Additionally, we have determined that the additional fuel
burn necessitated by the AFM procedure would be insignificant. However,
as we explain under ``Request to Revise the Proposed AFM Text,'' we
have revised the procedure to allow the ANTI-ICE switches to be placed
in the OFF position when icing conditions are no longer present or
anticipated. This allowance will further reduce any additional fuel
burn caused by the use of the anti-ice system. We have not changed the
Costs of Compliance section of this AD in this regard.

Request To Include Alternative AFM Requirements

    FedEx recommends that we revise the NPRM to allow alternative AFM
requirements based on the full authority digital engine control (FADEC)
electronic control unit (ECU) installed software version. FedEx states
that GE has documented six flameout events suspected to be a result of
ice-crystal accretion. FedEx points out that GE Service Bulletin 73-21-
07, Engine fuel and control--Electronic Control Unit Introduction of
Software Version 8.3.K (8322), was introduced to improve the flameout
margin in ice-crystal conditions. FedEx explains that this software
change will create new engine control configurations with enhanced
variable bypass valve (VBV) scheduling logic for inclement weather, and
will change the scheduling of the VBVs at high altitude to increase ice
extraction from the booster-core flowpath transition to the fan exit
stream. FedEx believes there have been no suspected flameout events on
airplanes using the combination of engine anti-ice and ECU software
version 8.3.K on Model MD-11s, and indicates that it is upgrading its
fleet to ECU software version 8.3.K in accordance with AD 2007-22-07,
Amendment 39-15243 (72 FR 60227, October 24, 2007), applicable to GE
CF6-80C2D1F turbofan engines. Therefore, FedEx proposes that airplanes
with ECU software version 8.3.J or previous should follow the AFM
requirement proposed in the NPRM, and airplanes with software version
8.3.K or subsequent should be allowed to follow alternative AFM
requirements. FedEx provides suggested wording for an alternative AFM
requirement.
    We do not agree to revise this AD to allow alternative AFM
requirements based on the installed software version. Based on a recent
multiple engine flameout incident on a Model 747-400

airplane equipped with CF6-80C2B1F engines and ECU software equivalent
to the version 8.3.K, we have determined that ECU software version
8.3.K alone will not necessarily provide an adequate margin of safety
against engine flameout in all environments. We note that the nacelle
anti-ice had been switched on prior to engine flameout. Increasing the
bleed flow and engine idle speed by placing the ENG, WING, and TAIL
ANTI-ICE switches in the ON position will provide additional margin for
engine flameout. We have not revised the AD in this regard.

Request To Remove Part of the AFM Requirement

    FedEx requests that additional justification be made available to
support the proposed AFM requirement to use wing and tail anti-ice
systems. FedEx states that both its flight operations and engineering
staffs agree that increasing the flameout margin to buffer against
possible core shedding of ice-crystal accretion is an important
requirement, and fully support activation of the ENG IGN OVRD switch
and engine anti-ice as effective means of reducing flameouts. However,
FedEx feels strongly that part of the proposed AFM requirement is of
limited value and might not be justifiable. FedEx asserts that
selection of wing anti-ice would result in a small or incremental
increase in core temperature, while increasing fuel flow and
unnecessarily exposing the airplane to additional reliability risks.
FedEx further notes that the NTSB, in its comments to the NPRM, made no
mention of wing and tail anti-ice systems being part of the successful
recommendations on Model 400A airplanes.
    We do not agree to remove the requirement to use wing and tail
anti-ice. As discussed previously, despite having the nacelle anti-ice
switched on, a Model 747-400 airplane experienced a multiple engine
flameout. Therefore, the use of nacelle anti-ice alone is not
sufficient to prevent a multiple engine flameout. Increasing the bleed
flow and engine idle speed by placing the ENG, WING, and TAIL ANTI-ICE
switches in the ON position will provide additional margin against
engine flameout. We have not revised the AD in this regard.

Request To Revise the Proposed AFM Text

    Boeing proposes that we revise the proposed AFM text provided in
the NPRM as follows:

    Prior to reducing thrust for descent, when icing conditions
(defined by visible moisture in the air and TAT is 6 Deg C or below)
are present, the ENG IGN OVRD switch and the ENG, WING, and TAIL
ANTI-ICE switches must be placed in the ON position. When icing
conditions are no longer present or anticipated, place the ENG IGN
OVRD switch and the ENG, WING, and TAIL ANTI-ICE switches in the OFF
position.

Boeing states that this AFM text provides additional procedural
information, as noted in the current Interim Operating Procedures for
icing conditions that exist or are anticipated prior to descent.
    We agree that the AFM text changes suggested by Boeing do provide
helpful procedural information. We have also determined that there is
no additional benefit to having the engine, wing, and tail anti-ice
switched on once icing conditions are no longer present or anticipated.
Therefore, we have revised the AFM text provided in paragraph (g) of
this AD (specified in paragraph (f) of the NPRM) to include the
supplemental procedural information provided by Boeing, and to allow
engine, wing, and tail anti-ice to be switched off once icing
conditions are no longer present or anticipated.

Explanation of Additional Paragraph in This AD

    We have added a new paragraph (d) to this AD to provide the Air
Transport Association (ATA) of America subject code 30: Ice and rain
protection. This code is added to make this AD parallel with other new
AD actions. We have reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Explanation of Additional Change Made to the AD

    We have revised this AD to identify the legal name of the
manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected airplane models.

Conclusion

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

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the original NPRM, we have increased the labor
rate used in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per
work-hour. The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this
increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 118 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
                      Action                           Work hours     Average labor        Parts           Cost per        registered       Fleet cost
                                                                      rate per hour                        airplane        airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision......................................               1              $85               $0              $85               70           $5,950
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2010-16-03 McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Amendment 39-16379. Docket
No. FAA-2008-0403; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-166-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 9,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model MD-11
and MD-11F airplanes, certified in any category, equipped with
General Electric CF6-80C2 series engines.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30: Ice and
rain protection.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports of several in-flight engine
flameouts, including multiple dual engine flameout events, in ice-
crystal icing conditions. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the
flightcrew has the proper procedures to follow in certain icing
conditions. These certain icing conditions could cause a multiple
engine flameout during flight with the potential inability to
restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    (g) Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Limitations Section of the McDonnell Douglas MD-11/MD-11F AFM to
include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a
copy of this AD into the AFM.

    ``Prior to reducing thrust for descent when icing conditions
(defined by visible moisture in the air and TAT is 6 [deg]C or
below) are present, the ENG IGN OVRD switch and the ENG, WING, and
TAIL ANTI-ICE switches must be placed in the ON position. When icing
conditions are no longer present or anticipated, place the ENG IGN
OVRD switch and the ENG, WING, and TAIL ANTI-ICE switches in the OFF
position.''

    Note 1: When a statement identical to that in paragraph (g) of
this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the
general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this
AD may be removed from the AFM.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion
Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562) 627-5262; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on July 16, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19156 Filed 8-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11335-11337]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04634]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77242; File No. SR-EDGX-2016-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees as They Apply to the Equity Options Platform

February 26, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 18, 2016, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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 Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules
15.1(a) and (c) (``Fee Schedule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange's current approach to routing fees is to set forth in
a simple manner certain sub-categories of fees that approximate the
cost of routing to other options exchanges based on the cost of
transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as costs to the
Exchange for routing (i.e., clearing fees, connectivity and other
infrastructure costs, membership fees, etc.) (collectively, ``Routing
Costs''). The Exchange then monitors the fees charged as compared to
the costs of its routing services and adjusts its routing fees and/or
sub-categories to ensure that the Exchange's fees do indeed result in

a rough approximation of overall Routing Costs, and are not
significantly higher or lower in any area. The Exchange proposes to
adopt a routing fee in connection with the launch of the new options
exchange, ISE Mercury, LLC (``ISE Mercury'') consistent with this
approach.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt fee code YC which would be appended
to orders routed to ISE Mercury beginning February 16, 2016, which is
the same date that ISE Mercury initiated trading.\6\ Orders that yield
fee code YC would be charged a fee of $0.99 per contract. Proposed fee
code YC would be applied to all orders routed to ISE Mercury regardless
of the capacity of the order \7\ or whether the order is in a Penny
Pilot Security \8\ or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SEC Approves ISE's Form 1 Application for Third Options
Exchange, dated February 1, 2016, available at http://www.ise.com/press-room/press-releases/2016/february/ise-mercury-to-launch-on-february-16-2016/. The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee
change on February 16, 2016 (SR-EDGX-2016-11). On February 18, 2016,
the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
    \7\ Order capacities include Customer, Professional, Firm,
Broker-Dealer, Joint Back Office, Market Maker, and Non-BATS Market
Maker. As defined in the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
    \8\ As defined in the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange anticipates that the proposed fee structure will
approximate the cost of routing orders to ISE Mercury. The Exchange
also notes that the proposed fee for fee code YC is higher than the
fees charged by ISE Mercury and is designed to approximate Routing
Costs based on the highest rate ISE Mercury charges.\9\ As it has done
historically in connection with the fee structure for routing to other
options exchanges, the Exchange is proposing the charge set forth above
to maintain a simple Fee Schedule with respect to routing fees that
approximates the total cost of routing, including Routing Costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ISE Mercury's standard rates range from a rebate of $0.18 to
a fee of $0.90 per contract. See ISE Mercury Fee Notice dated
February 5, 2016 available at http://www.ise.com/assets/mercury/
documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/2016/
ISE%20Mercury%20Fee%20Announcement$20160205.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. As explained above, the Exchange generally attempts to
approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges, including
other applicable costs to the Exchange for routing. While the proposed
fee for fee code YC is higher than the fees charged by ISE Mercury, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable as it takes into account Routing
Costs based on the highest rate charged by ISE Mercury. The Exchange
believes that a pricing model based on approximate Routing Costs is a
reasonable, fair and equitable approach to pricing. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt routing fees to ISE
Mercury is fair, equitable and reasonable because the fees are
generally an approximation of the anticipated cost to the Exchange for
routing orders to ISE Mercury. The Exchange notes that routing through
the Exchange is voluntary. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
fee structure for orders routed to and executed at ISE Mercury is fair
and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies
equally to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of these changes
represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the
Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors.
Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if
they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive
standing in the financial markets. The Exchange does not believe that
its proposed pricing for routing to ISE Mercury burdens competition, as
such rates are intended to approximate the cost of routing to ISE
Mercury. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive or providers
of routing services if they deem routing fee levels to be excessive.
The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket
competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all
Members.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\13\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2016-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2016-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-EDGX-2016-12 and should be submitted on or before March
24, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04634 Filed 3-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P