[Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 35)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8161-8166]
[DOCID:fr24fe09-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28413; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-25-AD;
Amendment 39-15826; AD 2009-05-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF6-80C2 and
CF6-80E1 Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series turbofan
engines with fuel manifolds part numbers (P/Ns) 1303M31G12 and
1303M32G12, installed in drainless fuel manifold assemblies (introduced
by GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) Service Bulletins (SB) CF6-80C2 S/B 73-
0253 and CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0026). This AD requires removing the loop
clamps that hold the fuel manifold to the compressor rear frame (CRF)
damper brackets, inspecting the fuel manifold for wear at each clamp

location, and replacing the clamps with new, zero-time parts. This AD
also requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of
the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) and air carrier's
Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Programs (CAMP) to require
repetitive fuel manifold inspection and loop clamp replacement. This AD
results from reports of fuel leaks during engine operation. We are
issuing this AD to prevent fuel leaks that could result in an under-
cowl fire and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 31, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39
with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to GE CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1
series turbofan engines with fuel manifolds P/Ns 1303M31G12 and
1303M32G12 installed in drainless fuel manifold assemblies. These
drainless fuel manifold assemblies were introduced by GEAE SBs CF6-80C2
S/B 73-0253 and CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0026. We published the proposed AD in
the Federal Register on September 7, 2007 (72 FR 51388). That action
proposed to require removing and discarding the loop clamps that
assemble the fuel manifolds to the CRF damper brackets, inspecting the
fuel manifolds for wear at each clamp location, and replacing the
clamps. That action also proposed to require revising the ICA ALS and
air carrier's CAMP to require repetitive fuel manifold inspection and
loop clamp replacement during each inspection.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
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 street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Request To Clarify Inspection Requirements

    GE and two air carriers request that we clarify that the AD
inspection requirements are specific to the drainless fuel manifold
configuration, which was introduced by GEAE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0253 (-
80C2) and SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0026 (-80E1).
    We agree. We changed the AD to clarify the applicability and
inspection requirements.

Request for a Phase-in Period

    FedEx Express requests that we add a phase-in period for engines
that might not have been part of a repetitive inspection program before
the effective date of the AD. The commenter states that these engines
would immediately fall out of compliance with the AD if they exceed the
7,500 flight-hour time-since-new (TSN) threshold for new, zero-time
loop clamps, assuming the loop clamps were installed at the last shop
visit. The commenter states that their fleet is almost entirely
configured with drained manifold assemblies. They have not experienced
any significant wear, and likely will have several engines exceeding
the specified flight-hour life limit in the AD.
    We partially agree. As we stated in the first comment response,
this AD applies only to drainless manifold assemblies, so that portion
of FedEx's comment is not relevant to this AD. The need for a phase-in
period is valid. We received another comment on that point and we
changed the AD to accommodate the concerns. That discussion follows
below.

Incorrect Service Bulletin Reference

    GE, the Air Transport Association, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, and
seven carriers point out that the proposed AD incorrectly referenced SB
GEAE CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0226, for the manifold inspection. The appropriate
SB is CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0326.
    We agree. We changed the reference in the AD.

Comment That Clamp Wear Is Also Applicable to Drained Fuel Manifold
Assemblies

    Air New Zealand Ltd and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines comment that the
clamp wear problem is also applicable to fuel manifolds P/N 1303M31G10
and P/N 1303M32G10 installed in the drained fuel manifold assembly,
pre-SB CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0253 configuration.
    We do not agree. We are aware of only one leak found from loop
clamp wear on a drained fuel manifold assembly, which was on a CF6-80C2
series turbofan engine. Considering the service history of the drained
fuel manifold assembly, a mandatory inspection is not warranted at this
time. We did not change the AD.

Request To Apply the Re-Inspection Interval to Engines That Have Had
New, Zero-Time Loop Clamps Installed On-Wing

    Air New Zealand Ltd and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines note that the
proposed AD requires a 7,500 flight-hour re-inspection interval for
first-run engines and engines that have new, zero-time loop clamps
installed at last shop visit. The commenters request that we apply the
same re-inspection interval to engines that have had new, zero-time
loop clamps installed on-wing. Air New Zealand states that they have
been replacing loop clamps with new, zero-time loop clamps when they
perform on-wing inspections of the fuel manifolds.
    We agree. We changed the AD to include on-wing replacement of loop
clamps.

Request for Credit for Installing Loop Clamps On-Wing

    All Nippon Airways requests that the AD initial inspection state
that the 7,500 re-inspection interval for first-run engines or engines
that have had new, zero-time loop clamps previously installed, apply
regardless of previous inspection per GEAE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0326 or
SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0061. The commenter points out that the proposed AD
does not recognize that operators were replacing the loop clamps on-
wing.
    We agree. We changed the AD to clarify that the re-inspection
requirement is not preempted by compliance with existing SB inspection
recommendations.

Request To Consider Using Room Temperature Vulcanizing (RTV) Rubber
Compound

    Air India requests that we consider allowing the use of red, room-
temperature vulcanizing (RTV) rubber

compound (Specification A15F6B6; RTV 106; MIL-846106), between the loop
clamps and fuel manifold when the loop clamps are replaced with new,
zero-time parts at inspection. Air India states that they have applied
RTV rubber compound on the inner diameter of loop clamps where they
have observed wear on other engine tubing. GE previously recommended
using RTV rubber compound on the low-pressure turbine cooling
manifolds, and Air India now uses it at other locations.
    We do not agree. We have no data or experience to justify use of
RTV rubber compound in this application. We did not change the AD.

Recommendation To Use Fiberglass Tape

    The Air Transport Association and American Airlines recommend that
we revise the proposed AD to allow the optional use of fiberglass tape
on the fuel manifolds under the loop clamps. The commenters state that
using the tape will eliminate the wear and reduce the effects of
vibration by improving the fit of the clamps on the fuel manifolds.
American Airlines states that they have been installing the fiberglass
tape on their fuel manifolds at the time of inspection and loop clamp
replacement since the beginning of their program. They believe the tape
is essential to preventing fuel manifold wear.
    We do not agree. We reviewed the data GE provided and concluded
that using fiberglass tape may contribute to the fuel manifold wear. GE
has also stated that they no longer recommend fiberglass tape for this
application. We did not change the AD.

Request for a Unique Compliance Recommendation and Re-Inspection
Interval

    Lufthansa Technik AG and a private citizen request a unique
compliance recommendation and re-inspection interval for engines that
had been previously inspected and or reassembled with new, zero-time
loop clamps, with fiberglass tape between the loop clamps and fuel
manifolds. Lufthansa Technik AG states that they have observed less
wear when using the fiberglass tape.
    We do not agree. As previously noted, GE has stated that they no
longer recommend fiberglass tape for this application. We did not
change the AD.

Request To Not Remove Fiberglass Tape

    Lufthansa Technik AG and GE Aviation request that we revise the
fuel manifold inspection to not require removal of tape between the
loop clamp and fuel manifold, unless wear is observed on the tape. GEAE
SB CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0326, dated March 5, 2003, introduced the option of
installing fiberglass tape on CF6-80C2 series engines. Lufthansa
Technik AG states that if there is no wear found on the tape, then
there will be no wear on the fuel manifold. Removing and replacing all
tape at the time of inspection will add additional unnecessary work-
hours to the inspection.
    We do not agree. As noted earlier, the tape may contribute to the
wear, and GE no longer recommends fiberglass tape for this application.
GE's comment was in anticipation of a future design change with Teflon
tape between the loop clamps and fuel manifolds. We did not change the
AD.

Request That the AD Recognize the Use of Teflon Tape

    GE Aviation and five air carriers request that the AD recognize the
use of Teflon tape between new, zero-time loop clamps and fuel
manifolds. The commenters request that we allow these engines to
continue in service until the next inspection, without limit or
penalty. The air carriers state that they have already been installing
Teflon tape between new, zero-time loop clamps and fuel manifolds.
    We do not agree. We have no data or experience to make a
determination for reducing or extending the inspection and loop clamp
replacement intervals because of installing Teflon tape between the
loop clamps and fuel manifolds. GE has certified new fuel manifolds
with PTFE tape installed at the loop clamp locations. These parts have
the same inspection and loop clamp replacement requirements as the
original parts. We did not change this AD.

Request for Clarification of Compliance Inspection Schedule

    Lufthansa Technik AG and Virgin Atlantic Airways request that we
clarify whether a poorly fitting loop clamp, with or without tape,
would compromise the compliance inspection schedule in the AD.
    We respond that it would not compromise the compliance inspection
schedule in the AD. We concluded that replacing the loop clamps every
7,500 flight-hours (FH) was appropriate based on a GE Weibull analysis
of the engine fleet, the first five fuel leak failures, and the accrued
operation of 1,289 engines that had no leaks. The data was from first-
run engines, which encompasses typical production loop clamp stack-up
variations without tape. None of the subsequent leaks and failures
occurred with less time than the proposed AD inspection compliance
interval of 7,500 FH. We did not change the AD.

Request To Specify Flight Hours Time-Since-Last-Inspection or Flight
Hours Time-Since-Last-Shop Visit

    Japan Airlines International requests that for clarification, the
initial inspection schedule should specify FH time-since-last-
inspection or FH time-since-last-shop visit as of the issue date of the
AD.
    We partially agree. The initial inspection schedule is defined
relative to the last inspection or replacement of the loop clamps with
new clamps. However, for those engines that exceed the 1,750 and 4,500
FH thresholds, the determination is made as of the effective date of
the AD. We changed the AD to clarify this.

Request To Offset the Initial Inspection Schedule

    Japan Airlines International requests that we offset the initial
inspection schedule to accommodate the scheduling of maintenance.
    We do not agree. The time for scheduling maintenance varies among
operators. Defining a generic inspection threshold to accommodate this
variation would introduce risk that the inspection schedule would be
ambiguous. We did not change the AD.

Propose an Additional Inspection Category

    Japan Airlines International proposes an additional inspection
category for operators inspecting the manifolds at intervals longer
than the GE-recommended 4,500 FH interval. The commenter proposes that
in these cases, operators would initially replace the loop clamps and
inspect the fuel manifolds using their existing inspection schedule or
within 4 months, whichever occurs first. The commenter states that they
currently inspect affected fuel manifolds at 6,000 FH intervals, and
based on the wording in the proposed AD, engines would be immediately
in violation of the inspection requirements once the AD is effective.
    We partially agree. The commenter points out the need to include a
transitional period for operators who are inspecting the fuel manifolds
at intervals longer than the earlier GE inspection SB recommendation,
which is engines operating with more than 4,500 FH time-since-last-
inspection or time-since-last-shop visit. We changed the AD to include
a four-month transition period, to bring these engines into compliance.

Request To Permit Alternate Methods of Measuring

    Japan Airlines International and GE Aviation request that we permit
alternate methods of measuring the depth of wear in fuel manifolds,
such as ultrasonic wall thickness measurement. The commenters note that
the proposed AD requires using a pinpoint micrometer to measure depth
of wear. Because of limited access at the top of the installed engine,
the commenter states it is not possible to use a pinpoint micrometer.
    We partially agree. GE does not have a procedure for ultrasonic
inspections of the fuel manifolds for depth of wear. However, we agree
that equivalent measuring techniques are acceptable. We eliminated the
requirement to use a pinpoint micrometer.

Request for Clarification of the Use of Part Manufacturer Approval
(PMA) Loop Clamps

    Japan Airlines International requests clarification on the use of
PMA loop clamps. The commenter asks if the proposed AD also applies to
PMA loop clamps, part number VL1039GE2-10.
    Yes, the AD applies to PMA loop clamps. They are also susceptible
to deteriorating and causing fuel leaks. We changed the AD to include a
reference to PMA loop clamps.

Question on Compliance Time Selection

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines questions the selection of the proposed AD
compliance time of 1,750 FH time-since-last-inspection (TSLI). The
commenter asks why we did not base the compliance recommendation on the
low-time TSLI fuel manifold leak event for an engine with used loop
clamps, which is 350 FH. The commenter also asks why we did not use the
next lowest-time fuel manifold leak event, which is 2,000 FH TSLI. The
commenter cites data presented by GE at the CF6 Technical Symposium on
May 9 through May 10, 2007.
    We do not agree. Since 2005, the fuel manifold leak failure rate
has increased. There were four leak events in 2006, six in 2007, and
six to date in 2008. Thirteen of the events are known to have occurred
before the GE-recommended 4,500 FH re-inspection interval. The average
TSLI for the thirteen failures is 2,250 FH. The 350 FH leak is a low-
time event relative to the other failures and is believed to be unique.
The 1,750 FH TSLI compliance requirement was based on the next-lowest
TSLI leak event at the time, which was after the GE CF6 Technical
Symposium. We did not change the AD.

Question on Why the Compliance Time Is Extended

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines questions why the proposed AD extends the
1,750 FH TSLI compliance time to 4,500 FH TSLI or 4 months after the
effective date of the AD, for engines with used clamps or clamps of
unknown heritage that have already accumulated more than 1,750 FH. The
commenter is concerned that this 4-month compliance period will
increase the probability of a fuel manifold leak event.
    We do not agree. The proposed inspection and loop clamp replacement
schedule for engines that already exceed the 1,750 FH threshold is an
effort to transition the engine fleet to new loop clamps within a
reasonable period of time. This will be achieved either through the
original GE-recommended 4,500 FH schedule or within 4 months, whichever
comes first. We did not change the AD.

Question on GE's Risk Assessment

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines questions why we disregarded GE's risk
assessment that justified the 4,500 FH inspection interval.
    We did because GE's risk assessment predicted fuel manifold leak
events within the 4,500 FH inspection intervals. As previously noted,
the leaking fuel could ignite resulting in an under-cowl fire and
damage to the airplane, which is unacceptable.

Recommendation That We Eliminate Revising the Air Carrier's Approved
CAMP and ALS of Chapter 5

    The Air Transport Association and U.S. Airways recommend that we
eliminate the requirement to revise the air carrier's approved CAMP and
ALS of Chapter 5 in the CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness (ICA) from the proposed AD. The commenters
state that GE has indicated it is developing new-design fuel manifolds
to eliminate the repetitive maintenance required by this AD.
    We do not agree. The AD requires GE to revise the ALS of the ICAs,
and air carriers to revise their CAMP, to specify the repetitive
inspections and loop clamp replacements for the drainless fuel manifold
assemblies with fuel manifold P/N 1303M31G12 and P/N 1303M32G12. The AD
would not be applicable to a new design. We did not change the AD.

Request To Change the Proposed AD Discussion

    GE Aviation requests that we change the proposed AD Discussion to
state that abrasive dirt and debris collecting between the worn loop
clamps and fuel manifolds can result in fuel manifold wear with loop
clamps that appear serviceable.
    We partially agree. The deterioration of the loop clamp and
possible accumulation of dirt and debris between the loop clamp cushion
and fuel manifold might contribute to fuel manifold wear, but if so, it
is a secondary factor. The root cause of the fuel manifold wear is fuel
manifold vibration during engine operation. We did not change the AD.

Request To Consider the Probability of an Under-Cowl Fire

    GE Aviation requests that we consider a longer inspection/
replacement interval, and requests that we consider the probability of
an under-cowl engine fire if we use 4,500 flight-hours instead. GE
Aviation requests that we consider an intermediate compliance time that
is supportable by industry if the 4,500 FH does not sufficiently reduce
the risk of an under-cowl fire. GE states that our proposed 1,750 FH
TSLI interval will reduce the average time between inspections from 15
months to less than 6 months, and increase the number of engines that
will need to be inspected per week during the transition by a factor of
2.5. This will severely burden industry's maintenance capacity. GE also
states that the additional work required to bring engines that already
exceed the 1,750 FH into compliance, during the 4-month grace period,
will make the burden worse.
    We partially agree. The commenter did not consider first-run
engines or engines that have already had new, zero-time loop clamps
installed during either last shop visit or an earlier in-service
inspection. We also note that despite the GE 4,500 FH TSLI SB
recommendation, one fuel leak event occurred in 2005, four occurred in
2006, and six fuel leak events occurred in 2007. Nine of these 11
events occurred within the recommended 4,500 FH interval. We agree that
the lack of a calendar compliance period with the 1,750 FH threshold
could result in an immediate maintenance scheduling problem and we
changed the AD to include the 4-month compliance period with the 1,750
FH threshold to facilitate the transition.

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance

    Japan Airlines International and GE Aviation request that we revise
the Costs of Compliance. GE Aviation estimates that 2 work-hours are
required to inspect the loop clamps and fuel manifolds. Japan Airlines
estimates that

based on their experience, 8 work-hours are required for the
inspections.
    We do not agree. In recognizing the possible work-hour variations
from operator to operator, we believe that 4 work-hours is a valid
average. We did not change the AD.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 350 CF6-80C2 series turbofan
engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it will take about 4 work-hours per engine to perform the actions, and
that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will
cost about $162 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the
total cost of the AD to U.S. operators for a once-through-the-fleet
manifold visual inspection and loop clamp replacement to be $168,700.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

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 Federal Aviation Administration 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:

2009-05-02 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-15826. Docket No.
FAA-2007-28413; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-25-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March
31, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to:
    (1) General Electric (GE) CF6-80C2A1, -80C2A2, -80C2A3, -80C2A5,
-80C2A8, -80C2A5F, -80C2B1, -80C2B2, -80C2B4, -80C2B6, -80C2B1F, -
80C2B1F1, -80C2B1F2, -80C2B2F, -80C2B3F, -80C2B4F, -80C2B5F, -
80C2B6F, -80C2B6FA, -80C2B7F, -80C2B8F, -80C2D1F, -80C2L1F, -80C2K1F
turbofan engine models with fuel manifold part numbers (P/Ns)
1303M31G12 and 1303M32G12, installed in drainless fuel manifold
assemblies (introduced by GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) Service
Bulletin (SB) CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0253). These engines are installed on,
but not limited to, Boeing 747, 767, MD11, and Airbus A300-600 and
A310 airplanes.
    (2) This AD also applies to GE CF6-80E1A1, -80E1A2, -80E1A3, -
80E1A4, -80E1A4/B turbofan engine models with fuel manifold P/Ns
1303M31G12 and 1303M32G12, installed in drainless fuel manifold
assemblies (introduced by GEAE SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0026). These
engines are installed on Airbus A330 airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of fuel leaks during engine
operation. We are issuing this AD to prevent fuel leaks that could
result in an under-cowl fire and damage to the airplane.

Compliance

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

Removal and Replacement of Loop Clamps and Fuel Manifold Inspection
Compliance Times

    (f) Using Table 1 of this AD, Schedule for Inspections and
Replacements, accomplish the following actions in the intervals
indicated in the table: remove and discard all loop clamps, P/N
J1220G10, or part manufacturer approval (PMA) equivalent, that hold
the fuel manifold to the compressor rear frame (CRF) friction damper
brackets. Inspect the fuel manifold for wear at each clamp location
as specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. Replace the
discarded loop clamps with new, zero-time clamps.

           Table 1--Schedule for Inspections and Replacements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Then replace clamps and inspect
                If:                                within:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The engine was previously        1,750 flight hours (FH) time-since-
 inspected using GEAE SB CF6-80C2 S/  last-inspection (TSLI) or within 4
 B 73-0326, dated March 5, 2003,      months after the effective date of
 for CF6-80C2 engines; or GEAE SB     this AD.
 CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0061, dated April
 14, 2003, for CF6-80E1 engines.
(2) Used loop clamps or clamps of    1,750 FH time-since-last-shop-visit
 unknown heritage were installed at   or within 4 months after the
 last shop visit.                     effective date of this AD.

(3) The engine is a first-run        7,500 FH time-since-new or since
 engine or is an engine with zero-    zero-time, new loop clamps were
 time, new loop clamps previously     installed (regardless if
 installed on-wing or at shop visit.  previously inspected per GEAE SB
                                      CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0326 or GEAE SB
                                      CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0061).
(4) The engine has already exceeded  4,500 FH TSLI, or 4 months after
 the 1,750 FH initial inspection      the effective date of this AD,
 threshold on the effective date of   whichever occurs first.
 this AD, but has fewer than 4,500
 flight hours TSLI.
(5) The engine has already exceeded  4 months after the effective date
 the 4,500 FH initial inspection      of this AD.
 threshold on the effective date of
 this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inspection of Fuel Manifold P/Ns 1303M31G12 and 1303M32G12

    (g) Remove any tape at any clamp location. Visually inspect the
full circumference of the manifold for wear at each clamp location.
If any wear is found, follow paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (h) When the fuel manifold shows any signs of wear, determine
the depth of the wear as follows:
    (1) Measure the outside diameter of the tube adjacent to the
worn area.
    (2) Measure the worn area at the smallest diameter.
    (3) Subtract the measurement of the worn tube diameter from the
unworn diameter measurement. Allowable wear is 0.0035 inch.
    (4) Replace fuel manifolds with wear greater than 0.010 inch
before further flight.
    (5) Replace fuel manifolds with wear greater than 0.0035 inch
but less than 0.010 inch, within 50 flight cycles.

Revise Air Carrier's Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program
(CAMP) and Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS)

    (i) Within 30 days of the effective date of this AD, revise the
air carrier's approved CAMP and Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness (ICA) Chapter 5, Airworthiness Limitation Section for
the CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series engines to require:
    (1) Repetitive inspections of fuel manifolds, P/Ns 1303M31G12
and 1303M32G12, installed in drainless fuel manifold assemblies
introduced by CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0253 and CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0026, as
detailed in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, at 7,500 FH
intervals.
    (2) Mandatory removal of all loop clamps that hold the fuel
manifold, P/Ns 1303M31G12 and 1303M32G12, to the CRF damper
brackets, at each inspection.
    (3) Replacement of all loop clamps with new, zero-time loop
clamps, at each inspection.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (j) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (k) GEAE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0326, dated March 5, 2003, and GEAE
SB CF6-80E1 S/B 73-0061, dated April 14, 2003; and the following GE
engine manuals pertain to the subject of this AD:
    (1) CF6-80C2 Engine Manual GEK 92451.
    (2) CF6-80C2L1F Engine Manual GEK 112213.
    (3) CF6-80C2K1F Engine Manual GEK 112721.
    (4) CF6-80E1 Engine Manual GEK 99376.
    (l) Contact General Electric Company via Lockheed Martin
Technology Services, 10525 Chester Road, Suite C, Cincinnati, Ohio
45215; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for the service
information identified in this AD.
    (m) Contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for more information about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 17, 2009.
Thomas A. Boudreau,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-3868 Filed 2-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 77 (Friday, April 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21787-21790]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08451]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0118; Notice 1]

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. (KMC), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2020-2012;2021 Kawasaki ZR900F and ZRT00K
motorcycles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays. KMC filed a
noncompliance report dated November 16, 2020. KMC simultaneously
petitioned NHTSA on November 16, 2020, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces receipt of KMC's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before May 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-
2012;78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Smith, Compliance Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: KMC has determined that certain MY 2020-2012;2021
Kawasaki ZR900F and ZRT00K motorcycles do not fully comply with the
requirements of paragraph S5.2.3(b) of FMVSS No. 123, Motorcycle
Controls and Displays (49 CFR 571.123). KMC filed a noncompliance
report dated November 16, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. KMC simultaneously petitioned
NHTSA on November 16, 2020, for an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of KMC's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 2,302 MY 2020-2012;2021
Kawasaki ZR900F and ZRT00K motorcycles, manufactured between December
4, 2019, and November 2, 2020, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: KMC explains that the noncompliance is that the
subject motorcycles are equipped with ignition switches that use the
ISO identification symbol to identify the off position instead of the
word ``Off'' as specified in paragraph S5.2.3(b) of FMVSS No. 123.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph 5.2.3(b) of FMVSS No. 123 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. If an item of equipment
listed in Table 3, Colum 1 of FMVSS No. 123 is provided, the item and
its operational function shall be identified by (b) Wording shown in
both Column 2 and Column 4. In this case, Table 3, No. 1, shows the
Control and Display Identification Word ``Ignition'' and the
Identification at Appropriate Position of Control and Display as
``Off''.
    V. Summary of KMC's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of KMC's Petition,'' are the
views and arguments provided by KMC. They have not been evaluated by
the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. KMC describes
the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23AP21.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23AP21.097

    KMC concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by
49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject motorcycles that KMC no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant motorcycles under their control after KMC
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-08451 Filed 4-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3404-3405]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00969]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0901; FRL-10588-01-OMS]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment
Request; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New
Source Review (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review (EPA ICR Number
1230.34, OMB Control Number 2060-0003), to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through January 31, 2023. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on April 8, 2022, during
a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for 30 days for public
comments.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before February 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2011-0901, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by email to [email protected]. EPA's policy is that
all comments received will be included in the public docket without
change including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Garwood, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, C504-03, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax

number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through January 31, 2023. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register
on April 8, 2022 during a 60-day comment period (87 FR 20855). This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. Supporting
documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be
collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket
can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA
Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-
1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR is for activities related to the implementation
of the EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program for the time period
between February 1, 2023, and January 31, 2025. Title I, part C of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), Prevention of Significant
Deterioration, and part D, Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas,
require all states to adopt preconstruction review programs for new or
modified stationary sources of air pollution. The provisions of section
110 of the Act include a requirement for states to have a
preconstruction review program to manage the emissions from the
construction and modification of any stationary source of air pollution
to assure that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are achieved
and maintained. Tribes may choose to develop implementation plans to
address these requirements.
    Implementing regulations for these three programs are promulgated
at 40 CFR 49.101 through 49.105; 40 CFR 49.151 through 49.173; 40 CFR
51.160 through 51.166; 40 CFR part 51, appendix S; and 40 CFR 52.21 and
52.24. In order to receive a construction permit for a major new source
or major modification, the applicant must conduct the necessary
research, perform the appropriate analyses, and prepare the permit
application with documentation to demonstrate that their project meets
all applicable statutory and regulatory NSR requirements. Specific
activities and requirements are listed and described in the ICR
Supporting Statement.
    State, local, tribal, or federal reviewing authorities review
permit applications and provide for public review of proposed projects
and issue permits based on their consideration of all technical factors
and public input. The EPA, more broadly, reviews a fraction of the
total applications and audits the state and local programs for their
effectiveness. Consequently, information prepared and submitted by
sources is essential for sources to receive permits, and for federal,
state, tribal, and local environmental agencies to adequately review
the permit applications and thereby properly administer and manage the
NSR programs.
    Information that is collected is handled according to the EPA's
policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2). See also
section 114(c) of the Act.
    Form numbers: 5900-246, 5900-247, 5900-248, 5900-340, 5900-341,
5900-342, 5900-343, 5900-344, 5900-367, 5900-368, 5900-369, 5900-370,
5900-371, 5900-372, 5900-390, 5900-391, and 6700-06.
    Respondents/affected entities: Those which must apply for and
obtain a preconstruction permit under part C or D or section
110(a)(2)(C) of title I of the Act. In addition, state, local, and
tribal reviewing authorities that must review permit applications and
issue permits are affected entities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory [see 40 CFR part 49,
subpart C; 40 CFR part 51, subpart I; 40 CFR part 52, subpart A; 40 CFR
part 124, subparts A and C].
    Estimated number of respondents: 30,359 (total); 30,236 industrial
facilities and 123 state, local, and tribal reviewing authorities.
    Frequency of response: On occasion, as necessary.
    Total estimated burden: 2,970,503 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $242,352,032 (per year). This includes
$3,772,240 annually in outsourced start-up costs for preconstruction
monitoring.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in the hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB because the estimated number of permits of each type has not
changed. There is a slight increase in estimated costs as labor costs
have been updated from 2016 to 2019 labor rates.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-00969 Filed 1-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17528-17532]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07364]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74590; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Stock-Option Order Handling

March 26, 2015.
    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 March 16, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. 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. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding the handling and
processing of stock-option orders on the Exchange. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, 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 aspects 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 proposes to amend its rules regarding the handling and
processing of stock-option orders represented in open outcry on the
floor of the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt
subparagraph (d) to Rule 6.48 (Contract Made on Acceptance of Bid or
Offer) to extend electronic stock component routing functionality
currently only available in the electronic trading environment to
Public Automated Routing (``PAR'') workstation \3\ users and thus,
allow Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') or PAR Officials \4\ to
electronically route the stock component of a stock-option order
represented in open outcry on the floor of the Exchange to an Exchange-
designated broker-dealer not affiliated with the Exchange for
electronic execution at a stock trading venue directly from PAR. In
addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .06
to Rule 6.53C to require that the Clearing Trading Permit Holder
(``CTPHs'') (instead of the executing TPH), on a stock-option order,
enter into a brokerage agreement with one or more non-affiliated
Exchange-designated broker-dealers before electronically routing the
stock component a of stock-option order to an Exchange-designated
broker-dealer for execution at a stock-trading venue.\5\ The Exchange
also proposes to add cross-references to the proposed amended stock-
option order handling and processing rules in the Interpretations and
Policies to Rules 6.45A (Priority and Allocation of Equity Option
Trades on the CBOE Hybrid System) and 6.45B (Priority and Allocation of
Trades in Index Options and Options on ETFs on the CBOE Hybrid System).
The Exchange believes that the proposed enhanced functionalities with
respect to the handling and processing of stock-option orders on PAR
will promote more efficient trading and benefit market participants by
eliminating intermediary manual steps currently required for open
outcry stock-option order execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The PAR workstation (``PAR'') is an Exchange-provided order
management tool for use on the Exchange's trading floor by TPHs and
PAR Officials. See Rule 6.12A; see also Rule 7.12 for a description
of the responsibilities and obligations of PAR Officials. The
Exchange's order handling system allows for orders to be routed to
and from PAR in accordance with TPH and Exchange order routing
parameters and the Rules of the Exchange. See Rule 6.12A.
    \4\ A PAR Official is an Exchange employee or independent
contractor whom the Exchange may designate as being responsible for
(i) operating the PAR workstation in a DPM trading crowd with
respect to the classes of options assigned to him/her; (ii) when
applicable, maintaining the book with respect to the classes of
options assigned to him/her; and (iii) effecting proper executions
of orders placed with him/her. See Rule 7.12.
    \5\ To enter transactions on the Exchange, a TPH must either be
a CTPH or must have a CTPH agree to accept financial responsibility
for all of its transactions. See Rule 6.21. Every CTPH will be
responsible for the clearance of Exchange transactions of a TPH that
``gives up'' the CTPH pursuant to a Letter of Authorization, Letter
of Guarantee, or other authorization given by the CTPH to the
executing TPH. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Procedures
    Under Rule 1.1, a stock-option order is defined as ``an order to
buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying or a related
security coupled with either (a) the purchase or sale of option
contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing either the
same number of units of the underlying or related security or the
number of units of the underlying security necessary to create a delta
neutral position or (b) the purchase or sale of an equal number of put
and call option contracts, each having the same exercise price,
expiration date and each representing the same number of units of stock
as, and on the opposite side of the market from, the underlying or
related security portion of the order.'' \6\ Stock-option orders are a
popular with investors (e.g., buy-writes) and are frequently handled
and processed on the Exchange. Currently, eligible stock-option orders
\7\ may be handled and processed on the Exchange either manually in
open outcry or electronically through the Hybrid Trading System.\8\
This proposal seeks to enhance PAR functionality to allow a third
option for handling and processing of a stock-option order on the
Exchange by allowing the stock component of a stock-option order
executed in open outcry to be handled electronically directly from PAR
by a PAR user (i.e. a floor broker or PAR Official) on the floor of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rule 1.1(ii); accord Rule 6.53C(a)(2).
    \7\ Eligible stock-option orders must comply with the Qualified
Contingent Trade Exemption under Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS. See
infra at pages 8-9. TPHs submitting such orders represent that the
orders comply with the QCT Exemption. See Interpretation and Policy
.06 to Rule 6.53C. Certain other eligibility requirements may also
apply to stock-option orders, which may be determined by Exchange
routing parameters or in accordance with the order's terms. For
example, stock-option orders must couple the stated number of units
of an underlying stock or a security convertible into the underlying
stock (``convertible security'') with the purchase or sale of
options contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing
either (i) the same number of units of the underlying stock or
convertible security, or (ii) the number of units of the underlying
stock necessary to create a delta neutral position, but in no case
in a ratio greater than eight-to-one (8.00), where the ratio
represents the total number of units of the underlying stock or
convertible security in the option leg to the total number of units
of the underlying stock or convertible security in the stock leg (or
such lower ratio as may be determined by the Exchange on a class-by-
class basis). Only those stock-option orders with no more than the
applicable number of legs, as determined by the Exchange on a class-
by-class basis, are eligible for processing. See Rule 6.53C(a)(2).
For electronic orders, the representing TPH must include a tied to
stock indicator on each stock-option order upon systemization. See
Rule 6.53(y); see also Regulatory Circular RG12-088 (Automation of
Stock-Option Strategy Orders).
    \8\ The ``Hybrid Trading System'' refers to (i) the Exchange's
trading platform that allows Market-Makers to submit electronic
quotes in their appointed classes and (ii) any connectivity to the
foregoing trading platform that is administered by or on behalf of
the Exchange, such as a communications hub. References to
``Hybrid,'' ``Hybrid System,'' or ``Hybrid Trading System'' in the
Exchange's Rules include all platforms unless otherwise provided by
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manual Processing
    Stock-option orders may be handled and processed on the Exchange in
open outcry, with the stock portion of the order manually transmitted
(e.g., via telephone) by the PAR user (i.e. a floor broker or PAR
Official) on the floor to a broker on a stock trading venue for
execution.\9\ Trading of a stock-option order in open outcry involves
the stock-option order being represented in open outcry as a strategy
order at a single net price with the option component being traded by a
broker or PAR Official on the floor of the Exchange and the stock
portion being manually transmitted to a broker at a stock trading venue
for execution.\10\ Manual transmission of the stock component of a
stock-option order is accomplished by placing a stock order with a
broker as two paired orders with a designated limit price to be matched
by the broker either on a lit stock exchange, Alternative Trading
System (``ATS''), or over-the-counter. As agent, the broker is
responsible for determining whether the order may be executed in
accordance with all of the rules applicable to the execution of equity
orders, including compliance with the applicable short sale, trade-
through, and reporting rules. In the event that the stock leg of a
stock-option order cannot be executed by the broker, the stock-option
order will remain on

PAR or, at the order entry firm's discretion, to the order entry firm's
booth.\11\ Stock-option orders have historically been handled and
processed in open outcry on the Exchange. The Exchange continues to
allow TPHs to manually execute stock-option orders in this manner.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ TPHs are required to comply with the Qualified Contingent
Trade (``QCT'') Exemption of Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS with
respect to the execution of stock-option orders. See Interpretation
and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C.
    \10\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 34-66394 (February
14, 2012), 77 FR 10026 (February 21, 2012) (Notice of Filing of a
Proposed Rule Change Related to Stock-Option Processing) (SR-CBOE-
2012-005); see also Rules 6.45A(b) and 6.45B(b).
    \11\ See Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C(b)(1).
    \12\ See Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electronic Processing
    Stock-option orders may also be handled electronically on the
Exchange, with the stock portion of the order being electronically
transmitted by the Exchange to a non-affiliated third party Exchange-
designated broker-dealer for execution at an away stock trading
venue.\13\ Generally, the stock component of a stock-option order is
transmitted to an Exchange-designated broker-dealer \14\ as two paired
orders with a designated limit price after the Exchange's trading
system has determined that a stock-option order is executable at the
designated net price. Once transmitted to the Exchange-designated
broker-dealer, the Exchange-designated broker dealer acts as agent for
the stock leg of the stock-option order and is responsible for the
proper execution, trade reporting, and submission to clearing of the
stock trade. Specifically, the Exchange-designated broker-dealer will
be responsible for determining whether the orders may be executed in
accordance with all of the rules applicable to the execution of equity
orders, including compliance with the applicable short sale, trade-
through, and reporting rules. In the event that the stock component of
a stock-option order cannot be executed by the Exchange-designated
broker-dealer, the stock-option order execution will be nullified and
parties to the trade will be notified by the Exchange.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C (Complex
Orders on the Hybrid System); see also Securities and Exchange
Release No. 34-66759 (April 6, 2012), 77 FR 22027 (April 12, 2012)
(Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Stock-Option
Orders) (SR-CBOE-2012-005); Securities and Exchange Release No. 34-
66394 (February 14, 2012), 77 FR 10026 (February 21, 2012) (Notice
of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Stock-Option
Processing) (SR-CBOE-2012-005); Securities and Exchange Release No.
34-56903 (December 5, 2007), 72 FR 70356 (December 11, 2007) (Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
Relating to Stock-Option Orders) (SR-CBOE-2007-068).
    \14\ Currently, ConvergEx Execution Services, LLC
(``ConvergEx'') is the only Exchange-designated broker-dealer that
the Exchange uses for executions of stock components of stock-option
orders on away stock trading venues. The Exchange, however, may
require TPHs to enter into a brokerage agreement with one or more
Exchange-designated broker-dealers that are not affiliated with the
Exchange to electronically execute the stock component of the stock-
option order at a stock trading venue. See Interpretation and Policy
.06 to Rule 6.53C.
    \15\ See generally id. [sic]; see also Rule 6.25(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, TPHs that wish to participate in electronic stock-option
order processing must enter into a customer agreement with one or more
designated broker-dealer that is not affiliated with the Exchange.\16\
In addition, to be eligible for electronic processing, TPHs must
validate that they have executed a brokerage agreement with an
Exchange-designated broker-dealer in order to obtain activation of
stock-option order entry functionality on the Floor Broker Workstation
(``FBW'').\17\ TPHs may only submit complex orders with a stock
component for electronic processing if such orders comply with the
Qualified Contingent Trade (``QCT'') Exemption of Rule 611(a) of
Regulation NMS.\18\ A QCT is a transaction consisting of two or more
component orders, executed as agent or principal, that satisfies the
six elements enumerated in the Commission's Order exempting QCTs from
the requirements of 611(a), which requires trading centers to
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that
are reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs. TPHs submitting
stock-option orders for electronic processing must represent that the
orders' terms comply with the QCT Exemption of Rule 611(a) of
Regulation NMS.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C; see also
Regulatory Circular RG12-088 (Automation of Stock-Option Strategy
Orders).
    \17\ FBW is a system for electronically entering and
electronically managing orders on the floor of the Exchange. FBW is
a third-party facility of the Exchange supplied and managed by
LiquidPoint, LLC.
    \18\ See 17 CFR 242.611(a); Rule 6.53C.06(a); see also
Securities and Exchange Release No. 34-57620 (April 4, 2008), 73 FR
19271 (April 9, 2008) (Order Modifying the Exemption for Qualified
Contingent Trades from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 34-54389 (August 31, 2006), 71 FR 52829 (September 7, 2006)
(Order Granting an Exemption for Qualified Contingent Trades from
Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934).
    \19\ See Interpretation and Policy .06(a) to Rule 6.53C. In
addition, the Exchange has built certain checks into the Hybrid
Trading System to validate certain aspects of compliance with the
QCT Exemption of Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS for stock-option
orders. Those QCT validating checks are described in SR-CBOE-2012-
005. See Securities and Exchange Release No. 34-66394 (February 14,
2012), 77 FR 10026 (February 21, 2012) (Notice of Filing of a
Proposed Rule Change Related to Stock-Option Processing) (SR-CBOE-
2012-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Changes
    The Exchange proposes to introduce enhanced PAR functionality that
would allow TPHs and PAR Officials to route the stock portion of a
stock-option order directly to an Exchange-designated broker-dealer for
electronic execution at a stock trading facility. Under proposed Rule
6.48(d), TPHs and PAR Officials would be able to transmit stock
portions of stock-option orders represented in open outcry directly
from PAR to an Exchange-designated broker-dealer not affiliated with
the Exchange for electronic execution at a stock trading venue. Thus,
rather than executing stock orders manually via telephone, PAR users
would be able to electronically send the stock portion of the stock-
option order from PAR directly to an Exchange-designated broker-dealer
for immediate execution at a stock trading venue. The Exchange notes
that this functionality (electronic stock component order routing,
processing, and handling), is already in use for electronic stock-
option orders submitted into the Hybrid Trading System. The Exchange is
merely proposing to extend this functionality to stock-option orders
handled on the floor of the Exchange. The Exchange believes this added
functionality will support more efficient stock-option order execution,
streamline the steps required for open outcry stock-option order
trading, and enhance the Exchange's audit trail by creating a more
robust record of the stock component of stock option order executions
on the floor of the Exchange.
    Proposed Rule 6.48(d) would also provide that stock portions of
stock-option orders represented in open outcry may be routed to a
designated broker-dealer not affiliated with the Exchange for
electronic execution at a stock trading venue as single orders or as
paired orders (including with orders transmitted from separate PAR
workstations). Consistent with current practices, the Exchange-
designated broker-dealer would be responsible for the proper execution,
trade reporting, and submission to clearing of the stock trade that is
part of the stock-option order. Stock-option order executions for which
the stock portion of the order could not be executed at the designated
price would be nullified and the parties to the trade would be notified
by the Exchange.\20\ In addition, consistent with current
Interpretation and Policy .06(a) to Rule 6.53C, TPHs' compliance with
the Qualified Contingent Trade (``QCT'') Exemption of Rule 611(a) of
Regulation NMS would continue to be required for stock-option orders
where the stock component of the stock-option order is routed from PAR
to an Exchange-designated broker-dealer not affiliated with the
Exchange for electronic

execution at a stock trading venue selected by the Exchange-designated
broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Rule 6.25(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy
.06(a) to Rule 6.53C. Under current Interpretation and Policy .06(a) to
Rule 6.53C, the stock portion of a stock-option order cannot be
processed automatically unless the executing TPH has entered into a
brokerage agreement with one or more Exchange-designated broker-dealers
that are not affiliated with the Exchange that can electronically
execute the equity order on a stock trading venue. The Exchange
proposes to change Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C to
provide that the Trading Permit Holder shall give up a Clearing Trading
Permit Holder previously identified to, and processed by the Exchange
as a Designated Give Up for that Trading Permit Holder in accordance
with Rule 6.21 and which has entered into a brokerage agreement with
one or more Exchange-designated broker-dealers that are not affiliated
with the Exchange to electronically execute the stock component of the
stock-option order at a stock trading venue selected by the Exchange-
designated broker-dealer on behalf of the Trading Permit Holder. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would bring
Interpretation and Policy .06(a) to Rule 6.53C in line with the
Exchange's give up rules in Rule 6.21.
    All trades are finalized not when they are executed, but when they
clear. It is the CTPH, not the order entry TPH that guarantees
authorization of a trade and accepts financial responsibility for all
Exchange transactions made by the executing TPH. Because the CTPH is
the party guaranteeing the transaction, the Exchange believes that it
is reasonable to require that the CTPH enter into a brokerage agreement
with an Exchange-designated broker-dealer not affiliated with the
Exchange in order to route the stock portion of a stock-option order
for electronic processing rather than requiring an executing TPH (that
may be acting as agent or broker) to enter into such an agreement on
the CTPH's behalf. Consistent with Rule 6.21, the CTPH should be
responsible for order handling and processing requirements for trades
that it guarantees.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Rule 6.21; see also Securities and Exchange Release No.
34-72668 (July 24, 2014), 79 FR 44229 (July 30, 2014) (Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Give Up
of a Clearing Trading Permit Holder) (SR-CBOE-2014-048).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, under current Interpretation and Policy .06(a) to Rule
6.53C, the stock portion of a stock-option order cannot be processed
automatically unless the executing TPH has entered into a brokerage
agreement with one or more Exchange-designated broker-dealers that are
not affiliated with the Exchange that can electronically execute the
equity order on a stock trading venue. Accordingly, even when acting as
agent or broker, a TPH cannot submit the stock portion of a stock-
option order for electronic processing unless the TPH has entered into
a brokerage agreement with an Exchange-designated broker-dealer that is
not affiliated with the Exchange. The Exchange believes that current
Interpretation and Policy .06(a) has a chilling effect on market
activity because it prohibits TPHs from entering orders when acting as
a broker for the account of a CTPH or a CTPH customer account. Brokers
that represent a stock-option order merely as an executing agent rather
than on behalf of their own customers may be less willing to enter into
a brokerage agreement with one or more Exchange-designated broker-
dealers and accept counterparty risk for a one-time fee. On the other
hand, a CTPH that submits such an order to a floor broker on behalf of
its own customer and has already accepted counterparty risk on behalf
of its customer as clearing agent and would likely enter such a
brokerage agreement willing as it would extend counterparty risk
current parameters.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Notably, CTPHs have indicated support this proposal. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will allow for more
efficient handling and processing of stock-option orders on the
Exchange and that adoption of the proposal would remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms, of a national market system across
stock and options trading venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and
Policy .06(a) to Rule 6.53C to provide that TPHs shall give up a CTPH
previously identified to, and processed by the Exchange as a Designated
Give Up in accordance with Rule 6.21 and which has entered into a
brokerage agreement with one or more Exchange-designated broker-dealers
that are not affiliated with the Exchange to electronically execute the
stock portion of the stock-option order at a stock trading venue
selected by the Exchange-designated broker-dealer.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Validations of the required brokerage agreements between
CTPHs and an Exchange-designated broker-dealer would be conducted by
the Exchange. Access to electronic processing of stock option orders
would be systematically limited to those CTPHs identified as having
a brokerage agreement with an Exchange-designated broker-dealer in
place. In addition further validation will be ensured through market
participant identifiers provided by CTPHs. MPIDs are firm
identifiers issued by the NASDAQ Market Center for electronic
securities order processing. All electronic stock option order
messages sent to the Exchange must contain an MPID. The Exchange's
designed broker-dealer would also use MPIDs to process and clear the
stock component of electronically executed stock option orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to change Interpretation and Policy .06
to Rule 6.53C to provide that stock-option orders may be executed
against other electronic stock-option orders rather than state that
such orders may be executed against other stock-option orders through
the COB or COA. This change reflects the fact that such orders may be
subjected to the Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') as well as
executed through the COB or COA. Finally, the Exchange proposes
conforming administrative changes to the Rules to include the language
describing these functionality enhancements in Rules 6.45A and 6.45B.
The proposed administrative changes would provide reference to this new
technology within the priority rules for stock-option orders. Thus,
these administrative changes merely add clarity to the Rules regarding
the functionality available to TPHs on PAR.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\24\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \25\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitation transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \26\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market by eliminating steps involved in stock-option order execution on
the Exchange which allows for more efficient trading.

By allowing PAR users to route the stock portion of a stock-option
order to a broker at a stock trading venue directly from PAR, the
Exchange is attempting to allow stock-option orders to be matched
faster and more efficiently. Creating a more streamlined approach to
the execution of stock-option orders allows for less complicated and,
thus, less confusing trading on the Exchange. In addition, as a
consequence, the proposed rule change will promote more liquidity on
the national market system by allowing TPHs to more easily use stock-
option orders and more quickly send stock leg portions of complex order
to stock trading venues for execution. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed rule would enhance the Exchange's audit trail by creating
a more robust record of the stock component of stock option order
executions on the floor of the Exchange.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to
Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C to provide that the Trading
Permit Holder shall give up a Clearing Trading Permit Holder previously
identified to, and processed by the Exchange as a Designated Give Up
for that Trading Permit Holder in accordance with Rule 6.21 and which
has entered into a brokerage agreement with one or more Exchange-
designated broker-dealers that are not affiliated with the Exchange to
electronically execute the stock component of the stock-option order at
a stock trading venue selected by the Exchange-designated broker-dealer
on behalf of the Trading Permit Holder would help create a more robust
market for stock-option orders and protect investors interests
consistent with the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change would bring Interpretation and Policy .06(a) to Rule 6.53C in
line with the Exchange's give up rules in Rule 6.21. Consistent with
Rule 6.21, the CTPH should be responsible for order handling and
processing requirements for trades that it guarantees. The proposed
amendments are reasonable and provide certainty that a CTPH will always
be responsible for a trade, which protects investors and the public
interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to
Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C providing that stock-option
orders may be executed against other electronic stock-option orders and
the proposed amendments to Rules 6.45A and 6.45B would add additional
clarity and transparency to the Rules. The Exchange continues to
evaluate its Rules to add additional clarity and transparency whenever
possible. The Exchange believes that its efforts to clarify the Rules
are in the interests of market participants and the general public and
that providing added transparency in the Rules is consistent with the
Act.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
already offers such orders and is merely introducing new functionality
to execute such orders. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed changes will pose a burden on intramarket competition or
intermarket competition as these orders are already available on the
Exchange. The functionality is available to all TPHs that choose to
enter into the necessary agreements with the Exchange designated
broker-dealer that is not affiliated with the Exchange. To the
contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition as it allows
for market participants to more quickly execute stock-option orders via
the Exchange's Hybrid System.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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 Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-029 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-CBOE-2015-029. 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 also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-CBOE-2015-029,
and should be submitted on or before April 22, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07364 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 193 (Tuesday, October 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60294-60295]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25372]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0932]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Trent River, New Bern, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the U.S. 70 (Alfred C. Cunningham)
Bridge across the Trent River, mile 0.0, at New Bern, NC. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles
during the 2015 New Bern Mumfest celebration.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. on October 10, 2015,
until 5 p.m. on October 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0932], 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 Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-
6222, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Event Director for the New Burn Mumfest,
with approval from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, who
owns and operates the U.S. 70 (Alfred C. Cunningham) Bridge, has
requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations
to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles during the
2015 New Bern MumFest celebration. The bridge is a

bascule bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of
14 feet above mean high water.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.843(a).
Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will open to marine traffic
every two hours, on the hour, from 9 a.m. until 7 p.m. on October 10,
2015 and from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. on October 11, 2015. The bridge will
operate per 33 CFR 117.843(a) from 7 p.m. on October 10, 2015 until 9
a.m. on October 11, 2015. The Trent River is used by a variety of
vessels including small commercial vessels and recreational vessels.
The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with
commercial and recreational waterway users.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the
bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the
users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that
vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by
this 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: October 1, 2015.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-25372 Filed 10-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P