[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46479-46481]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18752]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72756; File No. SR-ICEEU-2014-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change to CDS Policies
Relating to EMIR

August 4, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On June 30, 2014, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-ICEEU-2014-10 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on July 10, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters regarding the proposed change. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed
rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-72544 (July 3, 2014),
79 FR 39421 (July 10, 2014) (SR-ICEEU-2014-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICE Clear Europe is proposing this change to amend certain of the
ICE Clear Europe credit default swaps (``CDS'') risk policies (``Risk
Policy Amendments'') in order to facilitate compliance with
requirements under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation
(including regulations thereunder, ``EMIR'') \4\ that will apply to ICE
Clear Europe as an authorized central counterparty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central
counterparties and trade repositories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe states that the relevant policies being modified
by the proposed change are (i) the CDS Risk Policy (``Risk Policy'');
(ii) the Risk Model Description (``Model Description''); (iii) the CDS
Clearing Back-Testing Framework (``Back-Testing Framework''); (iv) the
CDS Clearing Stress-Testing Framework (``Stress-Testing Framework'');
and (v) the CDS Default Management Framework (``Default Management
Framework'').
    ICE Clear Europe states that the changes to the Risk Policy amend
the calculation of CDS initial margin requirements to comply with
margin requirements under EMIR Article 41 and Article 24 of the
implementing Regulatory Technical Standards.\5\ ICE Clear Europe
contends that, as revised, the initial margin methodology is designed
to provide portfolio risk coverage against at least 5-day market
realizations that would occur with probability 99.5% (previously
99.0%), that is, the estimated requirements provide risk protection
equivalent to at least a 5-day 99.5% Value-at-Risk measure. In
addition, ICE Clear Europe states that in order to address requirements
under EMIR related to procyclicality (Article 28 of the Regulatory
Technical Standards) changes were made to the maximum scale used for
the initial margin approach by adding a volatility scale that assigns a
25% weight to stressed period observations during the lookback period
from April 2007 to the present (consistent with Article 28(b) of the
Regulatory Technical Standards). ICE Clear Europe expects the revised
initial margin requirement, including certain portfolio benefit
assumptions, to result in more conservative initial margin requirements
than under the previous approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No. 153/2013 of 19
December 2012 Supplementing Regulation (EU) No. 648/2012 of the
European Parliament and of the Council with regard to Regulatory
Technical Standards on Requirements for Central Counterparties (the
``Regulatory Technical Standards'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe states that similar amendments to those described
above are also made to the Model Description. ICE Clear Europe contends
that under the revised Model Description, the

overall initial margin methodology, post portfolio benefits and other
risk components (e.g. jump-to-default and wrong way risk), will provide
portfolio risk coverage against at least 5-day market realizations that
would occur with probability 99.5% or higher. ICE Clear Europe states
that conforming changes with respect to the 99.5% confidence interval
are also made in the Model Description. ICE Clear Europe also states
that the revised Model Description reflects the use of stressed
observations described above to limit procyclicality. Furthermore, ICE
Clear Europe states that the Model Description has also been revised to
include the Clearing House's Monte Carlo Approach for Risk Management
(``MC''), which has previously been applied to Western European
sovereign CDS and is proposed to be extended to all CDS.
    ICE Clear Europe states that the CDS MC approach aims to model the
spread risk component of initial margin by combining individual risk
factors (``RFs''), i.e., single name or index family of instruments,
into a copula. ICE Clear Europe further states that marginal
distributions for individual RFs are joined together under a Student-t
copula. In this way, ICE Clear Europe contends, the model preserves
historical behavior of RFs and their dependencies and that the value-at
risk (VaR) for the profit and loss distribution can be estimated by
sampling from this copula.
    ICE Clear Europe contends that the MC method offers a number of
advantages over the existing scenario-based spread response method (the
``Decomp SR''), in that (1) the dependence structure of RFs is encoded
into the copula, as opposed to the long-short offsets algorithm used to
determine portfolio benefits under the Decomp SR; and (2) the copula
can also capture tail dependence, such that various extreme scenarios
can be easily simulated.
    ICE Clear Europe states that the scenario-based approach of the
spread risk component with its portfolio benefit assumptions is
generally expected to result in a more conservative requirement when
compared to the MC VaR approach for the same coverage level. ICE Clear
Europe further states that in order to ensure compliance with the 99.5%
confidence interval requirement for OTC derivatives under EMIR, the
final spread response charge will be determined as the more
conservative of the Decomp SR and the MC VaR calculated at a 99.5%
confidence interval.
    ICE Clear Europe also states that the CDS pricing model, used since
the inception of clearing, has also been attached to the Risk Model
Description as an annex.
    ICE Clear Europe states that the changes to the Back-Testing
Framework are also meant to implement the 99.5% confidence interval.
ICE Clear Europe states that the historical volatility calculation has
changed in the Back-Testing Framework to use data from, at minimum, the
most recent year (or, if shorter, the period in which the relevant
contract has been cleared). In addition, ICE Clear Europe contends
that, per the amendments, on at least a monthly basis, the CDS Risk
Department will report the CDS back testing results and analysis to the
CDS Risk Committee in order to seek their review and, if needed, their
recommendations of the CDS margin model. ICE Clear Europe also states
that CDS back testing results and analyses are made available to all
CDS Clearing Members and clients (where known to ICE Clear Europe) for
their own portfolios and that disclosed information is aggregated in a
form that does not breach confidentiality. ICE Clear Europe also
contends that the policy also provides a framework for monitoring and
remediating breaches that arise during back-testing, based on the so-
called ``Basel Traffic Light System,'' depending on the number and
magnitude of the exceedances. Finally, ICE Clear Europe states that the
Back-Testing Framework will be reviewed and approved by the CDS Risk
Committee and ICE Clear Europe Board at least annually.
    ICE Clear Europe states the Stress-Testing Framework is amended to
provide further detail as to its use of daily stress testing, which
allows ICE Clear Europe to discover any potential weaknesses in the
risk methodologies as well as to exercise short-term measures if the
tests reveal that any counterparties are inadequately collateralized.
ICE Clear Europe contends that a detailed analysis of the stress
testing and sensitivity testing results is to be performed by the CDS
Risk Department at least on a monthly basis, or more frequently in
stressed market conditions, to ensure the adequacy of the existing
stress test scenarios and framework. ICE Clear Europe states the
Stress-Testing Framework amendments would also add pure historical
scenarios, as required under EMIR, that are applied at the single name
level, using the same date across all instruments. ICE Clear Europe
also states that single-name specific stress scenarios are based on the
same 5-day period when the on-the-run indices had the greatest observed
related spread increases or decreases. ICE Clear Europe also states
that the guaranty fund stress scenario has also been clarified, and is
designed to account for: (1) The occurrence of credit events for two
Clearing Members and three reference entities on which the defaulted
Clearing Members sold protection, (2) adverse contracting or widening
credit spread scenarios, (3) adverse widening of Index-single name
``basis,'' and (4) adverse changes of the default-free discount terms
structure. ICE Clear Europe contends that CDS stress testing results
and analyses are made available to all CDS Clearing Members and clients
(where known to ICE Clear Europe) for their own portfolios and
disclosed information is aggregated in a form that does not breach
confidentiality. Finally, ICE Clear Europe states the CDS Stress
Testing framework is to be reviewed and approved by the CDS Risk
Committee and ICE Clear Europe Board at least annually.
    ICE Clear Europe contends that minor improvements have been made to
the Default Management Framework, namely, (1) ICE Clear Europe will
conduct a quarterly (rather than annual) review of its Default
Management Framework, and (2) ICE Clear Europe will perform a mock
Clearing Member default test at least annually.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \6\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such self-regulatory organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \7\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a
clearing agency are designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1)-(3) requires a registered
clearing agency that performs central counterparty services to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, measure its
credit exposures to its participants at least once a day and

limit its exposures to potential losses from defaults by its
participants, use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to
participants under normal market conditions, and if it performs central
counterparty services for security-based swaps, maintain sufficient
financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the two
participant families to which it has the largest exposures in extreme
but plausible market conditions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 17A of the Act \9\ and the rules thereunder applicable to
ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe represents that the proposed rule
change will enhance the financial resources available to the Clearing
House by imposing more conservative initial margin requirements, while
also reducing the risk of loss to market participants resulting from a
default by a Clearing Member or other customer. ICE Clear Europe
further states that the proposed rule change will impose more frequent
reviews and tests of its risk management procedures. The Commission
therefore believes that the proposed enhancements to ICE Clear Europe's
risk policies are designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for
which it is responsible consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F).\10\ In
addition, the Commission believes the proposed Risk Policy Amendments
are reasonably designed to ensure that ICE Clear Europe continues to
meet the risk management requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1)-(3).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act \12\ allows the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change earlier than 30 days after the date of
publication of the notice of the proposed rule change in the Federal
Register where the Commission finds good cause for so doing and
publishes the reason for the finding. In its filing, ICE Clear Europe
requested that the Commission approve the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis for good cause shown. ICE Clear Europe has
represented that the proposed Risk Policy Amendments are necessary in
order to comply with requirements under EMIR in connection with its
authorization as a central counterparty under EMIR. ICE Clear Europe
further notes that failure to have the amendments in effect, and to be
in compliance with the EMIR requirements, may adversely affect the
approval of its authorization application and therefore its ability to
do business as a recognized central counterparty. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that good cause exists to approve the proposed rule
change on an accelerated basis pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of
the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \14\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICEEU-2014-10) be,
and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \16\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18752 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8207-8208]
[DOCID:fr23fe07-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension: Form N-3; SEC File No. 270-281; OMB Control No. 3235-
0316.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Form N-3 (17 CFR
239.17a and 274.11b) under the Securities Act of 1933 and under the
Investment Company Act of 1940, Registration Statement of Separate
Accounts Organized as Management Investment Companies.'' Form N-3 is
the form used by insurance company separate accounts organized as
management investment companies that offer variable annuity contracts
to register as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``Investment Company Act'') and/or to
register their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.
77a et seq.) (``Securities Act''). The primary purpose of the
registration process is to provide disclosure of financial and other
information to investors and potential investors for the purpose of
evaluating an investment in a security. Form N-3 also permits separate
accounts

organized as management investment companies that offer annuity
contracts to provide investors with a prospectus containing information
required in a registration statement prior to the sale or at the time
of confirmation of delivery of securities. The form also may be used by
the Commission in its regulatory review, inspection, and policy-making
roles.
    The Commission estimates that there are 2 initial registration
statements and 30 post-effective amendments to initial registration
statements filed on Form N-3 annually and that the average number of
portfolios referenced in each initial filing and post-effective
amendment is 2. The Commission further estimates that the hour burden
for preparing and filing a post-effective amendment on Form N-3 is
154.7 hours per portfolio. The total annual hour burden for preparing
and filing post-effective amendments is 9,282 hours (30 post-effective
amendments x 2 portfolios x 154.7 hours per portfolio). The estimated
annual hour burden for preparing and filing initial registration
statements is 3,690.8 hours (2 initial registration statements x 2
portfolios x 922.7 hours per portfolio). The total annual hour burden
for Form N-3, therefore, is estimated to be 12,972.8 hours (9,282 hours
+ 3,690.8 hours).
    The information collection requirements imposed by Form N-3 are
mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept
confidential. 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 control number
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312
or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    February 14, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3092 Filed 2-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50096-50097]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19359]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC21-33-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-566); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-566 (Annual Report of a Utility's 20
Largest Purchasers), which will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection
requirements.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due October 7,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC-566 to OMB through
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB control number (1902-
0114) in the subject line. Your comments should be sent within 30 days
of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Please submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No.
IC21-33-000) to the Commission as noted below. Electronic filing
through http://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (Including Courier) Delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions:
    OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain; Using the
search function under the ``Currently Under Review field,'' select
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit'' and select
``comment'' to the right of the subject collection.
    FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-566 (Annual Report of a Utility's 20 Largest
Purchasers).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0114.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-566 information
collection requirements with no revisions to the current requirements.
    Abstract: Section 305(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\
mandates federal oversight and approval of certain electric corporate
activities to ensure that neither public nor private interests are
adversely affected. The FPA prescribes information filing requirements
to achieve this goal. These filing requirements are found at 18 CFR
131.31, and serve as the basis for FERC-566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 825d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC-566 implements FPA requirements that each public utility
annually publishes a list of the 20 purchasers which purchased the
largest annual amounts of electric energy sold by such public utility
during any of the three previous calendar years. The public disclosure
of this information provides the information necessary to determine
whether public or private interests will be adversely affected by
business relationships between public utilities and their 20 largest
purchasers of electricity.
    This information collection request includes proposed changes in
Form 566 in accordance with the public display requirements at 5 CFR
1320.5(b).
    Type of Respondents: Public utilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates 321 responses

annually, and 4 hours and $332 per response. The total estimated
burdens per year are 1,284 hours and $106,572. These burdens are
itemized in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Total number                        Total annual burden     Cost per
                         Annual number   of responses     Average burden &      hours & total     respondent ($)
 Number of respondents   of responses     (column A x    cost per response   annual cost (column    (column E /
                        per respondent     column B)            \2\             C x column D)        column A)
A.                                  B.              C.  D..................  E..................              F.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
321...................               1             321  4 hrs.; $348.......  1,284 hrs.;                    $348
                                                                              $111,708.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Commission staff estimates that the average industry hourly
cost for this information collection is approximated by the current
FERC 2021 average hourly costs for wages and benefits, i.e., $87.00/
hour.

    Dated: September 1, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19359 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Supporting Statement

for

Vessel Identification System

OMB No.: 1625-0070

COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS:  Instruction

A.  Justification.

1.  Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

Title 46 U.S.C. chapter 125 required the establishment of the Vessel
Identification System (VIS).  The implementing regulations are in 33 CFR
Part 187.  State and territory participation in VIS is entirely
voluntary.  However, to participate, States and territories must comply
with certain requirements to ensure the integrity and uniformity of the
information provided to VIS.  A State or territory must sign a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Coast Guard before participating
in the VIS.

This information collection supports the following strategic goals:

Department of Homeland Security

Prevention

Service

Coast Guard

Mobility

Prevention Policy & Response Policy Directorates (CG-5P & CG-5R)

Reduce the number and/or impact of waterways impediments

2.  Purpose of the information collection.

VIS comprises a nationwide information system for identifying
recreational, commercial, and public vessels that are numbered or titled
under the laws of a State or territory.  VIS includes information
identifying vessels and vessel owners, and information to assist law
enforcement officials in the investigation of stolen vessels or other
legal investigation, such as fraud.  Furthermore, individuals who borrow
money to purchase a vessel in a State or territory that both
participates in VIS and holds certification of compliance (with
guidelines for State or territory titling systems) are deemed to have
preferred mortgage status.

All 50 States and 6 territories have the opportunity to participate in
the VIS program.  The 6 territories are Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, District of Columbia, and Northern Mariana
Islands.

3.  Considerations of the use of improved information technology.

We estimate that all of the reporting requirements can be done
electronically.  At this time, we estimate that 100% are collected
electronically.

4.  Efforts to identify duplication.

Only the States and territories that participate in VIS have the
information required by this program.

5.  Methods used to minimize the burden to small businesses if involved.

This information collection does not have an impact on small businesses
or other small entities.

6.  Consequences to the Federal program if collection were conducted
less frequently.

Without regular updates to the VIS, the data would not be useful for law
enforcement purposes.  The primary benefits of VIS come from its ability
to serve as a tracking device much like the Vehicle Identification
Number found in automobiles.  As a tracking device, the benefits of VIS
are in:

the recovery of stolen or missing vessels, which will benefit boat
owners, local and State law enforcement agencies and boat insurers;

the purchase of a vessel, which will make it less likely to unknowingly
purchase a stolen vessel, which can be a financial disaster if the
rightful owner shows up to claim it; and

the discovery of liens, unpaid taxes, and claims that are lodged against
a vessel, and that can become the unexpected responsibility of the new
owner.

Without VIS, these benefits are not realized.

7.  Special collection circumstances.

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8.  Consultation.

A 60-Day Notice (See [USCG-2015-0689], August 13, 2015, 80 FR 48550) and
30-Day Notice (XX XX, 2015, 80 FR XXXXX) were published in the Federal
Register to obtain public comment on this collection.  The Coast Guard
has not received any comments on this information collection.

9.  Provide any payment or gift to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

10.  Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents.

The VIS application is an authorized-user-only website requiring user
log in, available to Numbering and Titling, Registration and Law
Enforcement personnel of VIS participating States and Federal Agencies.

11.  Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions of sensitive language.

12.  Estimate of annual hour and cost burden to respondents.

The estimated number of respondents is 34.

The estimated number of annual responses is 859.

The estimated annual hour burden is 5,164 hours.

The estimated annual cost burden is $372,272.

The burden to respondents is provided in Appendix A.  The wage rates
used are in accordance with the current edition of COMDTINST
7310.1(series) for “Out-Government” personnel.

VIS Data Transfers:  We estimate that it will take a technical
specialist about 6 hours to prepare and submit VIS data.  For each
participating State and territory, we estimate that this data transfer
will occur every 2 weeks (or 26 times per year).  The position of a
technical specialist is analogous to a GS-12.

MOA Applications:  We estimate that it will take a program specialist
about 16 hours to prepare an MOA application.  We estimate that we will
receive 1 MOA application per year.  The position of a program
specialist is analogous to a GS-14.

13.  Total of annualized capital and start-up costs.

Much of the information to be included in the VIS database is already
collected by States and territories when registering vessels.  The
start-up cost is the cost of developing the VIS interface and conversion
software at the State and territory level.  The Coast Guard estimates
the average start-up cost per State or territory is $55,000.  Thus, the
average annual start-up cost is $55,000 ($55,000 * 1 entity per year).

14.  Estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government.

The estimated annual Federal Government cost is $480,752 (see Appendix
B).  The estimate is comprised of 2 elements.  First, we estimate the
VIS Database cost of $480,000 annually.  Second, we estimate that it
will take a technical specialist about 8 hours to review and process
each MOU.  Coast Guard program and legal specialists conduct the review.
 The position of a technical specialist is analogous to a GS-14.  The
wage rate shown is in accordance with the current edition of COMDTINST
7310.1(series) for “In-Government” personnel.

15.  Explain the reasons for change in the burden.

The change in burden is an ADJUSTMENT due to a change (i.e., decrease)
in the estimated annual number of responses.  There is no proposed
change to the reporting requirements of this collection.  The reporting
requirements remain unchanged.  The methodology for calculating burden
was changed to more accurately reflect current practices for VIS Data
Transfers and to account for the MOA Application process.  Previously,
we estimated that all 56 States and territories would send us VIS data
250 times per year, and that additional separate error reconciliation
reports (over 100,000) would be sent to the CG.  Current practice is for
the 33 participating States and territories to regularly submit VIS data
in such a manner that we no longer receive separate error reconciliation
reports.

16.  Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17.  Approval for not explaining the expiration date for OMB approval.

The Coast Guard will display the expiration date for OMB approval of
this information collection.

18.  Exception to the certification statement.

The Coast Guard does not request an exception to the certification of
this information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods:

This section does not apply because the collection of information does
not employ statistical methods.

  In accordance with 46 U.S.C. Chapter 123.

  The CG/State-Territory MOA calls for data transfer at least monthly.

  The MOA calls for at least monthly, we estimate every 2 weeks or 26
times per year.

1625-0070

 PAGE   1

  PAGE  3  of   NUMPAGES  3


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55057-55060]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24813]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2017 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1026; Product Identifier 2017-NM-097-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system reviews
conducted by the manufacturer. This proposed AD would require revising
the maintenance or inspection program to include new airworthiness
limitations. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: 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 to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1026.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1026; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-1026;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-097-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a final
rule titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, that rule
included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88'') at 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR
88 was amended by Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 20, 2002;
corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002) and Amendment 21-83 (67 FR
72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to
change ``21-82'' to ``21-83'').
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt ADs to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe
conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in
combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the

evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may
mitigate the need for further action.
    This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by
the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct
potential ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures,
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-
7552-AWL, dated October 2016, which addresses fuel tank systems and
impact-resistant fuel tank access doors. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or
inspection program to add airworthiness limitations specified in Boeing
707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October
2016. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1026.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(k) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of
changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued
operational safety of the airplane.

Related Rulemaking

    AD 2008-04-11 R1, Amendment 39-16147 (74 FR 68505, December 28,
2009) (``AD 2008-04-11 R1''), applies to all The Boeing Company Model
707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. AD 2008-04-11
R1 requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to
include new inspections. Accomplishing the actions specified in this
proposed AD would terminate all requirements of AD 2008-04-11 R1.
    AD 2013-24-07, Amendment 39-17681 (78 FR 72550, December 3, 2013)
(``AD 2013-24-07''), applies to all The Boeing Company Model 707
airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. AD 2013-24-07
requires an inspection of the left- and right-hand wing fuel tank
access doors to determine that impact-resistant access doors are
installed in the correct locations, and to replace any door with an
impact-resistant access door if necessary; an inspection for stencils
and index markers on impact-resistant access doors, and application of
new stencils or index markers if necessary; and revision of the
maintenance program to incorporate changes to the airworthiness
limitations section. Accomplishing the actions specified in this
proposed AD would terminate the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2013-24-07.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise the Maintenance or Inspection    1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85            $765
 Program.                                hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-1026; Product Identifier
2017-NM-097-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 4, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) of this AD.
    (1) AD 2008-04-11 R1, Amendment 39-16147 (74 FR 68505, December
28, 2009) (``AD 2008-04-11 R1'').
    (2) AD 2013-24-07, Amendment 39-17681 (78 FR 72550, December 3,
2013) (``AD 2013-24-07'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes,
certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Model 707-100 long body, -200, -100B long body, and -100B
short body, -300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes.
    (2) Model 720 and 720B series airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct potential
ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures,
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information in Section A, including Subsections A.1, A.2, and
Appendix 1, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016; except as provided in
paragraph (h) of this AD. The initial compliance times for the AWL
tasks are within the applicable compliance times specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD.
    (1) AWL No. 28-AWL-01, External Wires Over Center Fuel Tank, as
specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-
7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial compliance time for
accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-01 is
specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, as
applicable.
    (i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as
specified in 28-AWL-01 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct
the inspection within 120 months after the most recent inspection.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in
28-AWL-01: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the
effective date of this AD.
    (2) AWL No. 28-AWL-18, AC Fuel Boost Pump Bonding Installation,
as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-
7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial compliance time for
accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-18 is
specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as
applicable.
    (i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as
specified in 28-AWL-18 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct
the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in
28-AWL-18 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the
inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) AWL No. 28-AWL-19, Fuel Valve Bonding Jumper Installation--
Engine Fuel Shutoff, Defuel, Reserve Tank Transfer, Fuel Dump, and
Fuel Manifold Valves, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial
compliance time for accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL
No. 28-AWL-19 is specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of
this AD, as applicable.
    (i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as
specified in 28-AWL-19 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct
the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in
28-AWL-19 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the
inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (4) AWL No. 28-AWL-21, Dry Bay Fuel Manifold Assembly--Bonding
Jumper Installation, as specified in Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016. The initial
compliance time for accomplishment of the actions specified by AWL
No. 28-AWL-21 is specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i) or (g)(4)(ii) of
this AD, as applicable.
    (i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as
specified in 28-AWL-21 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct
the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in
28-AWL-21 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the
inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (5) AWL No. 28-AWL-23, Reserve Tank Transfer Piping Assembly--
Bonding Jumper Installation, as specified in Boeing 707/720
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs), D6-7552-AWL, dated October 2016.
The initial compliance time for accomplishment of the actions
specified by AWL No. 28-AWL-23 is specified in paragraph (g)(5)(i)
or (g)(5)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as
specified in 28-AWL-23 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct
the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in
28-AWL-23 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the
inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Additional Acceptable Wire Types and Sleeving

    (1) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies wire types BMS 13-48, BMS
13-58, and BMS 13-60, the following wire types are also acceptable:
MIL-W-22759/16, MIL-W-22759/32, MIL-W-22759/34, MIL-W-22759/41, MIL-
W-22759/86, MIL-W-22759/87, and MIL-W-22759/92; and MIL-C-27500
cables, which are constructed from the MIL Specification wire types
identified in this paragraph.
    (2) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies TFE-2X Standard wall for
wire sleeving, the following sleeving materials are also acceptable:
Roundit 2000NX and Varglas Type HO, HP, or HM.

(i) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or
intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD.

(j) Terminating Action for Other ADs

    (1) Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of
this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2008-04-11 R1 for that
airplane.
    (2) Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of
this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-24-
07 for that airplane.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher
Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6498; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-24813 Filed 11-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53803-53805]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21526]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72992; File No. SR-BOX-2014-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Interpretative Material to
Rule 5050 (Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading) To Allow $1 or
Greater Strike Price Intervals for Options on the SPDR[supreg] S&P
500[supreg] Exchange Traded Fund (``SPY'') and the SPDR[supreg] Dow
Jones[supreg] Industrial Average Exchange Traded Fund (``DIA'')

September 4, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 3, 2014, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 interpretative material to Rule 5050
(Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading) to allow $1 or greater
strike price intervals for options on the SPDR[supreg] S&P 500[supreg]
Exchange Traded Fund (``SPY'') and the SPDR[supreg] Dow Jones[supreg]
Industrial Average Exchange Traded Fund (``DIA''). The text of the
proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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 interpretive material to Rule 5050
by modifying the interval setting regime for SPY and DIA options listed
on the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Fund (``ETF'') and the SPDR Dow
Jones Industrial Average ETF, respectively, to allow $1 or greater
strike price intervals.\4\ Through this filing, the Exchange intends to
make SPY and DIA options more tailored and easier for investors and
traders to use. This is a competitive filing that is based on a
proposal recently submitted by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The SPDR S&P 500 ETF is based on the broad-based S&P 500
Index, and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF is based on the
Dow Jones Industrial Average.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72949 (August 29,
2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-46) (Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to SPY and DIA
Options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current Rule IM-5050-1, the interval of strike prices of
series of options on ETFs is $1 or greater where the strike price is
200 or less and $5 or greater where the strike price is more than
200.\6\ The Proposal seeks to narrow those strike intervals to $1 apart
for SPY and DIA options, in effect matching the interval for these
products to ETF option strike prices at or below 200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See IM-5050-1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The underlying prices for SPY and DIA are approaching the 200 price
point. By the end of June 2014, for example, SPY was trading at more
than $195 per share and DIA was trading at more than $168 per share. As
the option strike prices continue to appreciate, investor and member
demands to list additional SPY and DIA option series continue to
increase. SPY is the most heavily traded and liquid exchange-traded
product in the U.S., and SPY options represent 13% of the total option
volume in the U.S. DIA options represent less than 1% of the options
volume in the U.S. Moreover, the popularity of DIA and SPY options is
reflected in the fact that they have options contracts reflecting
monthly, quarterly, and weekly expiration cycles.\7\ Not having the
proposed $1 intervals above a 200 strike price will significantly limit
investors' hedging and trading possibilities, particularly when it
comes to executing strategies that are effective in $1 intervals; and
may, as a result, constrict trading and hedging activity. The Exchange
therefore proposes to amend IM-5050-1 to allow SPY and DIA options to
trade in $1 increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For rules regarding quarterly options and weekly options
(also known as Short Term Options, see IM-5050-4 and IM-5050-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend IM-5050-1(b) to state
that notwithstanding any other provision regarding the interval of
strike prices of series of options on ETFs in Rule 5050, the interval
of strike prices on SPY and DIA options will be $1 or greater. By
having smaller strike intervals in SPY and DIA, investors will have
more efficient hedging and trading opportunities due to the higher $1
interval ascension. The proposed $1 intervals, particularly above a 200
strike price, will result in having at-the-money series based upon the
underlying SPY or DIA moving less than 1%, which falls in line with
slower price movements of a broad-based index. Furthermore, the
proposed $1 intervals will allow currently employed option trading
strategies (such as, for example, risk reduction/hedging strategies
using SPY weekly options) to remain in play. Considering that $1
intervals already exist below the 200 price point and that SPY and DIA
are approaching the 200 level, continuing to maintain the artificial
200 level (above which intervals increase 500%, to $5), will have a
negative effect on investing, trading and hedging opportunities and
volume. The continued demand for highly liquid options such as SPY and
DIA, and the investing, trading, and hedging opportunities they
represent, far outweighs any potential negative impact of allowing SPY
and DIA options to trade in more finely tailored intervals above a 200
price point.
    With the proposal, for example, investors and traders would be able
to roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in
conjunction with the price movement of the underlying. Under the
current rule, where the next higher available series would be $5 away
above a 200 strike price, the ability to roll such positions is
effectively negated. Thus, to move a position from a 200 strike to a
205 strike under the current rule, an investor would need for the
underlying product to move 2.5%, and would not be able to execute a
roll up until such a large movement occurred. With the proposed rule
change, however, the investor would be in a significantly safer
position of being able to roll his open options position from a 200 to
a 201

strike price, which is only a 0.5% move for the underlying.
    By allowing SPY and DIA options in $1 intervals over a 200 strike
price, the proposal will moderately augment the total number of options
series available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange has analyzed
its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price Reporting
Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems capacity to handle any
potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that its members will not have a capacity issue
as a result of this proposal. The Exchange also represents that it does
not believe this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity. The
Exchange's beliefs are supported by the limited nature of the proposal,
which applies to two symbols rather than to all ETF products. Moreover,
while under the current rule-set there is ample liquidity, it is
constricted above 200. This proposal only enhances liquidity at more
rational strike intervals necessary to benefit investors as the stock
market improves in value.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like the other
strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit
investors by giving them more flexibility to more closely tailor their
investment and hedging decisions by allowing SPY and DIA options to
trade in finer $1 intervals.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\8\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
particular, in that it is 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 facilitating 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change would add consistency to
the SPY and DIA options markets and allow investors to use SPY and DIA
options more easily and effectively. Moreover, the proposed rule change
would allow investors and traders, whether big or small, to better
trade and hedge positions in SPY and DIA options where the strike price
is greater than 200, and ensure that SPY and DIA options investors and
traders are not at a disadvantage simply because of the strike price.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\10\ which provides that the Exchange
be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of
the Exchange. The rule change proposal allows the Exchange to respond
to customer demand to allow SPY and DIA options to trade in $1
intervals above a 200 strike price. The Exchange does not believe that
the proposed rule would create additional capacity issues or affect
market functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, ETF options trade in wider $5 intervals above a 200
strike price, whereby options at or below a 200 strike price trade in
$1 intervals. This creates a situation where contracts on the same
option class, namely SPY and DIA options, effectively may not be able
to execute certain strategies such as, for example, rolling to a higher
strike price, simply because of the arbitrary 200 strike price above
which options intervals increase by 500%. This proposal remedies the
situation by establishing an exception to the current ETF interval
regime, for SPY and DIA options only, to allow such options to trade in
$1 or greater intervals at all strike prices.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like other
strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit
investors by giving them increased flexibility to more closely tailor
their investment and hedging decisions. Moreover, the proposed rule
change is consistent with changes proposed by at least one other
exchange.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72482 (June
26, 2014), 79 FR 37825 (July 2, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-051) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness modifying the strike price regime
for Mini-S&P 500 Index (XSP) options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and OPRA have
the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional
traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange
believes that its members will not have a capacity issue as a result of
this proposal.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated
above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a
competitive response to a filing submitted by Phlx.\12\ The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair
competition among the options exchange with respect to strike intervals
for SPY and DIA options. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change will result in additional investment options and opportunities
to achieve the investment and trading objectives of market participants
seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of
investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that SPY and DIA option investors
and traders will significantly benefit from the availability of finer
strike price intervals above a 200 price point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement will ensure
fair

competition among the exchanges by allowing the Exchange to establish
smaller strike intervals in SPY and DIA options with a strike price
above 200 at the same time as another options exchange. For these
reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change presents
no novel issues and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest;
and will allow the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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-BOX-2014-20 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-BOX-2014-20. 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 the filing also will 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-BOX-2014-20 and should be
submitted on or before October 1, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21526 Filed 9-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43964-43965]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17432]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0075; Notice 2]

BMW of North America, LLC, a Subsidiary of BMW AG, Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: BMW of North America, LLC \1\ a subsidiary of BMW AG.\2\ has
determined that certain model year (MY) 2012 BMW X6M SAV multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPV) manufactured between April 1, 2011 and March
23, 2012, do not fully comply with paragraph S4.3 (b) of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims and
motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity
information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or less. BMW has filed an appropriate report dated April 4,
2012,

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ BMW of North America, LLC is a U.S. company that
manufacturers and imports motor vehicles.
    \2\ BMW AG is a German company that manufactures motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, BMW has petitioned
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of the
petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on June
25, 2012 in the Federal Register (77 FR 37956.) No comments were
received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto
the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0075.''
    Contact Information: For further information on this decision
contact Ms. Amina Fisher, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202)
366-1018, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 364 MY 2012 BMW X6M
SAV MPVs manufactured between April 1, 2011 and March 23, 2012.
    Rule Text: Section S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 110 specifically states:

    S4.3 (b) Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or
incomplete vehicle, shall show the information specified in S4.3(a)
through (g), and may show, at the manufacturer's option, the
information specified in S4.3(h) and (i), on a placard permanently
affixed to the driver's side B-pillar. * * *
    b) Designated seated capacity (expressed in terms of total
number of occupants and number of occupants for each front and rear
seat location); * * *

    Summary of BMW'S Analyses: BMW explains that the noncompliance is
that the tire placard on the affected vehicles incorrectly identifies
the rear designated seating capacity as ``2'' when in fact it should be
``3,'' and the total designated seating capacity as ``4'' when in fact
it should be ``5.''
    BMW states that while the tire placard incorrectly identifies the
vehicle seating capacity, this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    1. It would become clear to a vehicle owner that the rear seat of
the affected vehicles contains three sets of seat belts, and provides
adequate space for three people to occupy the rear seat and that the
vehicle in fact does accommodate five passengers not four as labeled.
    2. The tire pressure value on the tire placard is correct. In fact,
the recommended tire inflation pressure for both the five passenger and
the four passenger vehicles is the same. Therefore, there is no risk of
under-inflation.
    3. The vehicle capacity weight listed on the tire placard is
correct, and is the same for X6M model vehicles built for four or five
occupants. Therefore, there is no risk of overloading.
    4. The vehicle's Monroney label contains a listing of all options
that have been equipped on the affected vehicles. The option regarding
the rear seat for three occupants is noted on the Monroney label;
therefore, an owner would have been notified at time of purchase of the
vehicle that the rear seat is equipped to accommodate three occupants.
    5. The vehicle Owner's Manual contains information pertaining to
the vehicle's tires, tire pressure, and the vehicle capacity weight.
Therefore, if owners check the Owner's Manual, correct information is
available for their use.
    6. BMW also offers Roadside Assistance\TM\ and BMW Assist\TM\ which
are available 24 hours/day with representatives that are available to
provide drivers with all of the available tires sizes and
specifications for the affected vehicles.
    7. BMW has received no customer complaints and are unaware of any
accidents or injuries regarding this noncompliance of the affected
vehicles.
    BMW has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected future
production and that all other required markings are present and
correct.
    BMW also expressed its belief that NHTSA has previously granted
similar petitions.
    In summation, BMW believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA Decision: NHTSA has reviewed and accepts BMW's analyses that
the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. BMW has
provided sufficient documentation that other than the labeling error,
the vehicles comply with all other safety performance requirements of
FMVSS No. 110. Since the correct information is provided in other
locations, BMW has met its burden of persuasion. Accordingly, BMW's
petition is hereby granted, and BMW is exempted from the obligation of
providing notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    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, this decision
only applies to the 364 vehicles that BMW no longer controlled at the
time it determined that a noncompliance existed. However, the granting
of this petition does not relieve distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles
under their control after BMW 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)

    Issued on: July 9, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-17432 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24022]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09524]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0196]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Red River, Alexandria, LA

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 US 165 (Jackson Street) Drawbridge
across the Red River, mile 88.6, at Alexandria, Louisiana. The
deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner time to install new
pinion bearings essential to the continued safe operation of the
drawbridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-
to-navigation position for approximately 6 days spanning a 2-week
period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from May 31, 2016 through June 9,
2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, (USCG-2016-0196) 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 Eric A. Washburn, Bridge
Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development requested a temporary deviation for the US 165 (Jackson
Street) Drawbridge, across the Red River, mile 88.6, at Alexandria,
Louisiana. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-
navigation position from 8 a.m. on May 31, 2016 to 8 p.m. on June 2,
2016 and from 8 a.m. on June 7, 2016 to 8 p.m. on June 9, 2016. This
deviation is necessary for the bridge owner to install new pinion
bearings.
    The US 165 (Jackson Street) Drawbridge currently operates in
accordance with 33 CFR 117.491(b).
    The US 165 (Jackson Street) Drawbridge provides a vertical
clearance of 40.0 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation
position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial
tows and recreational watercraft and will not be significantly
impacted. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway
users. No objections were received.
    The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there are
no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Red
River. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways
through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in
operating schedule for the bridge so the 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: April 20, 2016.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
[FR Doc. 2016-09524 Filed 4-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P