[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30885-30886]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0628]

Clarification of Prior Interpretations of the Seat Belt and
Seating Requirements for General Aviation Flights

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Clarification of prior interpretations.

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

SUMMARY: This action clarifies prior interpretations of FAA's seat belt
and seating requirements. These prior interpretations state that the
shared use of a single restraint may be permissible. This clarification
states that the use of a seat belt and/or seat by more than one
occupant is permitted only if the seat usage conforms to the
limitations contained in the approved portion of the Airplane Flight
Manual (AFM). In addition, before multiple occupants use the same seat
and/or seat belt, if the pertinent information is available, the pilot
in command (PIC) must also check whether: The seat belt is approved and
rated for such use; and the structural strength requirements for the
seat are not exceeded. This clarification also emphasizes that, because
it is safer for each individual person to have his or her own seat and
seat belt, whenever possible, each person onboard an aircraft should
voluntarily be seated in a separate seat and be restrained by a
separate seat belt.

DATES: May 24, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Zektser, Attorney, Regulations
Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
3073; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 22, 2009, a Pilatus PC-12/45 descended and impacted the
ground near the approach end of a runway at Bert Mooney Airport in
Butte, Montana. After investigating this incident, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined the following.
    At the time of the impact, the Pilatus PC-12/45 airplane was
operating as a personal flight under the provisions of 14 CFR part 91.
The pilot and the 13 airplane passengers were killed, and the airplane
was destroyed by impact forces and the postcrash fire. Among the 13
passengers were six adults and seven children. Because the flight was a
single-pilot operation, eight seats in the cabin and one seat in the
cockpit were available to the 13 passengers. Thus, the number of
passengers exceeded the number of available seats. The NTSB was unable
to determine the original seating position for most of the occupants,
but the bodies of four children, ages 3 to 9 years, were found farthest
from the impact site, indicating that these children were likely thrown
from the airplane because they were unrestrained or improperly
restrained. The NTSB noted that if the accident had been less severe
and the impact had been survivable, any unrestrained occupant or
occupants sharing a single restraint system would have been at a much
greater risk of injury or death.

NTSB Request and Proposed Clarification

    As a result of the March 22, 2009 incident described above, the
NTSB has requested that the FAA withdraw its prior interpretations of
14 CFR 91.107(a)(3), which permit the shared use of a single restraint
system. In response to the NTSB's request, the FAA proposed to clarify
that Sec.  91.107(a)(3) permits multiple occupants to use one seat belt
and/or seat, but that such use is only appropriate if: (1) The belt is
approved and rated for this type of use; (2) the structural strength
requirements for the seat are not exceeded; and (3) the seat usage
conforms with the limitations contained in the approved portion of the
AFM (14 CFR 23.1581(j)).
    The FAA received six comments in response to its proposed
clarification. After considering the information provided in the
comments, the FAA clarifies its prior interpretations of the seat belt
and seating requirements of 14 CFR 91.107(a)(3) as follows.

Discussion of the Final Clarification

    For part 91 operations, Sec.  91.107(a)(3) requires that ``each
person on board a U.S. registered civil aircraft * * * must occupy an
approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder
harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the
surface, takeoff, and landing.'' For commercial operations under part
121, Sec.  121.311 requires that each person ``occupy an approved seat
or berth with a separate safety belt properly secured about him.''
Under both parts, children under the age of two may be held by an adult
who is occupying an approved seat or berth and no restraining device
for the child is used.
    When Sec.  121.311 and Sec.  91.107 (previously Sec.  91.14) were
first promulgated in 1971, the FAA clarified that the separate use
provision for safety belts under part 121 was not intended to apply to
part 91 operations. Rather, part 91 ``requires only that each person on
board occupy a seat or berth with a safety belt properly secured about
him.'' 36 Federal Register 12511 (July 1, 1971). The FAA has previously
interpreted this provision as not requiring separate use of safety
belts. See Legal Interpretation 1990-14. At the time, this allowance
was permissible because seat belts were generally rated in terms of
strength and some were rated for more than one occupant to accommodate
side-by-side seating arrangements (i.e., bench seats) in certain
aircraft that are commonly used in operations conducted under part 91.
Thus, under the previous interpretations, the use of a seat belt and
seat by more than one occupant may have been appropriate only if: (1)
The belt was approved and rated for such use; (2) the structural
strength requirements for the seat were not exceeded; and (3) the seat
usage conformed with the limitations contained in the approved portion
of the Airplane Flight Manual (14 CFR 23.1581(j)). See 36 FR 12511; see
also 14 CFR 23.562, 23.785; Legal Interpretation 1990-14; Legal
Interpretation to Mr. C.J. Leonard from Hays Hettinger, Associate
Counsel (July 26, 1966).
    In its comment, the NTSB stated that the shared use of a single
seat belt by multiple occupants is never appropriate because this type
of use drastically reduces the safety of the occupants. The NTSB asked
the FAA to interpret Sec.  91.107(a)(3) in a way that discourages the
``unsafe practice of allowing multiple occupants to share a single seat
and/or restraint system that [is] not certified for more than one
occupant.''
    Because this is a clarification of prior interpretations and not a
rulemaking, the FAA is limited in what it can do in this matter. An
interpretation of a regulation cannot ignore the ``indications of the
agency's intent at the time of the regulation's promulgation.'' Air
Transport Ass'n of America, Inc. v. F.A.A., 291 F.3d 49, 53 (DC Cir.
2002). As discussed above, when the FAA first promulgated the section
that ultimately became Sec.  91.107(a)(3), the agency stated that, in
contrast to part 121, part 91 did not require that each person have a
separate seat and/or seat belt. See 36 FR 12511. Because the FAA cannot
rewrite Sec.  91.107(a)(3) through interpretation, the FAA is bound in
this matter by the agency's stated intent at the time of this section's
promulgation--that a separate

seat and/or seat belt for each person is not required in all
circumstances for part 91 operations.
    In addition, the FAA notes that changing Sec.  91.107(a)(3) may
have far-reaching consequences that would best be addressed through a
rulemaking. For example, in its comment, the NTSB acknowledged that
some older airplanes currently have bench-style seating that can
accommodate multiple passengers with one restraint system. The FAA
notes that airplanes with these bench-style seats make up a significant
portion of the part 91 community. In addition, aircraft with these
types of seating have a significant diversity in their specific seating
restraint arrangements--some aircraft with bench seats have a seat belt
equipped for each individual passenger while other aircraft with bench
seats have a single shared seat belt for use by everyone in the bench
seat. Because a significant portion of the part 91 community currently
uses some manner of a shared seat/seat belt, the FAA would need to
consider, as part of a rulemaking, the effects that changing Sec.
91.107(a)(3) would have on those members of the part 91 community.
    Nevertheless, even though Sec.  91.107(a)(3), as previously
interpreted by the agency, may allow for shared use of a single
restraint in certain situations, the FAA agrees with NTSB that having
each passenger use a separate seat and a separate seat belt can be
significantly safer than having passengers share a seat and/or seat
belt. Accordingly, the FAA strongly encourages PICs in part 91
operations to ensure, whenever possible, that each passenger is seated
in a separate seat and restrained by a separate restraint system. With
regard to children, the FAA also strongly encourages children to be
restrained in a separate seat by an appropriate child restraint system
during takeoff, landing, and turbulence.
    In its comments, the NTSB also expressed a concern that this
clarification could be interpreted to permit multiple occupants to
share a single shoulder harness. In response to NTSB's concern, the FAA
emphasizes that the proposed clarification was drafted to address the
shared use of seats and/or seat belts--not shoulder harnesses. Because
the proposed clarification did not address shoulder harnesses, this
clarification is limited solely to the shared use of seats and/or seat
belts in part 91 operations.
    In their comments, the NTSB and an individual commenter also
asserted that the structural strength requirements for a seat and the
approval and rating for a seat belt are not always available to a
general aviation pilot because this information is typically not
included in the AFM. The individual commenter added that many older
aircraft do not have an AFM, but instead have an owner's manual that
contains even less information.
    In response to these comments, the FAA notes that, even though the
pertinent information is sometimes not contained in the AFM,
information about seat usage limitations and seat belt approval and
rating can, in many cases, be obtained from the equipment manufacturer.
However, the FAA agrees with the commenters that this information
cannot always be obtained from the equipment manufacturer. Accordingly,
before multiple occupants are permitted to use the same seat and/or
seat belt, if the pertinent information is available, the PIC should
check whether: (1) The seat belt is approved and rated for such use;
and (2) the structural strength requirements for the seat are not
exceeded.
    In addition, before seating multiple occupants in the same seat
and/or seat belt, PICs should always check to ensure that the seat
usage conforms to the limitations contained in the approved portion of
the AFM or the owner's manual. Owner's manuals for older aircraft
typically show the permissible seating arrangements that are to be used
for the aircraft, and the number of people using a seat and/or seat
belt should not exceed the number of people shown in the owner's manual
seating arrangement.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2012.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200.
[FR Doc. 2012-12554 Filed 5-23-12; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 207 (Thursday, October 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65241-65244]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26279]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68074; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-092]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Weekly Program

October 19, 2012.
    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 October 10, 2012, the 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 and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to modify its Short Term Option Series Program
(``Weekly options'') to allow CBOE to initiate strike prices in more
granular intervals for Weekly options in the same manner as two other
option exchanges.\5\ CBOE

also proposes to permit, during the expiration week of a non-Weekly
option, a non-Weekly option on a class that is selected to participate
in the Weekly Program to have the same strike price interval setting
parameters as Weekly options. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at
the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Weekly options are series in an options class that are
approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series
are opened for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business
day and that expire on the Friday of the next business week. If a
Thursday or Friday is not a business day, the series may be opened
(or shall expire) on the first business day immediately prior to
that Thursday or Friday, respectively. See CBOE Rules 5.5(d) and
24.9(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is amend CBOE's Rules 5.5
and 24.9 to amend the strike price interval setting parameters for
Short Term Option Series (``Weekly options'') and to permit, during the
expiration week of a non-Weekly option, a non-Weekly option on a class
that is selected to participate in the Weekly Program to have the same
strike price interval setting parameters as Weekly options.
    This is a competitive filing that is based on two recently approved
filings submitted by the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'') and NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC (``Phlx'').\6\ The ISE and Phlx
filings both made changes to the strike price interval setting
parameter rules for their respective Weekly Programs. Weekly options
are not listed to expire during the same week as non-Weekly options. As
a result, both ISE and Phlx amended their rules to permit non-Weekly
options on classes that participate in the Weeklys Program to have the
same strike price interval setting parameters as Weekly options during
the week that non-Weekly options expire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67754 (August 29,
2012), 77 FR 54629 (September 5, 20120) (order approving SR-ISE-
2012-33) (``ISE filing'') and 67753 (August 29, 2012) 77 FR 54635
(September 5, 2012) (order approving SR-Phlx-2012-78) (``Phlx
filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE and Phlx also both amended the strike price interval setting
parameters for their Weekly Programs, but the revisions to their
respective rules differ. Specifically, ISE permits $0.50 strike price
intervals for Weekly options for option classes that trade in one
dollar increments and are in the Weekly Program.\7\ Phlx permits $0.50
strike price intervals when the strike price is below $75, and $1
strike price intervals when the strike price is between $75 and $150.
Phlx also provides that related non-Weekly option series may be opened
during the week prior to expiration week pursuant to the same strike
price interval parameters that exist for Weekly options. Thus a related
non-Weekly option may be opened in Weekly option strike price intervals
on a Thursday or a Friday that is a business day before the non-Weekly
option expiration week.\8\ If the Exchange is not open for business on
the respective Thursday or Friday, however, the non-Weekly option may
be opened in Weekly option intervals on the first business day
immediately prior to that respective Thursday or Friday.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The permissible $0.50 strike price intervals may only be
opened on the Weekly option Opening Date that expire on the Weekly
option Expiration date and no additional series, including
additional series of the related non-Weekly option, may be opened
during expiration week in classes that are listed pursuant to the
newly amended ISE rules.
    \8\ This opening timing is consistent with the principle that
CBOE may add new series of options until five business days prior to
expiration. See CBOE Rules 5.5.04 and 24.9.01(c).
    \9\ The Weekly option opening process is set forth in CBOE Rules
5.5(d) and 24.9(a)(2)(A): After an option class has been approved
for listing and trading on the Exchange, the Exchange may open for
trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day (``Short
Term Option Opening Date'') series of options on that class that
expire on the Friday of the following business week that is a
business day (``Short Term Option Expiration Date''). If the
Exchange is not open for business on the respective Thursday or
Friday, the Short Term Option Opening Date will be the first
business day immediately prior to that respective Thursday or
Friday. Similarly, if the Exchange is not open for business on the
Friday of the following business week, the Short Term Option
Expiration Date will be the first business day immediately prior to
that Friday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE highlighted the differences between the two filings during the
notice and comment period and submitted a comment letter on that
subject.\10\ CBOE is proposing to adopt both of the strike price
interval setting parameters that are currently in effect for both ISE
and Phlx in order to remain competitive. CBOE notes that while it
believes that there is substantial overlap between the two strike price
interval setting parameters, the Exchange believes there are gaps that
would enable Phlx to initiate a series that ISE would not be able to
initiate and vice versa.\11\ Since uniformity is not required for the
Weekly Programs that have been adopted by the various options
exchanges, CBOE proposes to revise its strike price intervals setting
parameters so that it has the ability to initiate strike prices in the
same manner (i.e., intervals) as both ISE and Phlx. Accordingly, CBOE
proposes to adopt both the ISE rule text language and the Phlx rule
text language that the SEC recently approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A copy of CBOE's comment letter may be accessed at: http://sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2012-78/phlx201278-1.pdf. For example, in
the comment letter CBOE noted its belief that the Phlx strike price
interval setting parameters were broader since they applied to all
classes that participate in the Weekly Program where the ISE
proposal provided increased granularity only to those classes in
which $1 strike price intervals are currently permitted.
    \11\ The Exchange is making a distinction between initiating
series and cloning series. The Exchange and the majority, if not
all, of the other options exchanges that have adopted a Weekly
Program have a similar rule that permits the listing of series that
are opened by other exchanges. See Rule 5.5(d)(1) and
24.9(A)(2)(A)(i). This filing is concerned with the ability to
initiate series.
    For example, if a class is selected to participate in the Weekly
Program and non-Weekly options on that class do not trade in dollar
increments, CBOE believes that Phlx would be permitted to initiate
$0.50 strikes on that class and ISE would not. Similarly, the strike
price interval for exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') options is
generally $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less. If,
an ETF class is selected to participate in the Weekly Program, CBOE
believes that ISE would be permitted to initiate $0.50 strike price
intervals where the strike price is between $151 and $200, but Phlx
would not be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of this proposal, CBOE states that the principal reason
for the proposed expansion is in response to market and customer demand
to list actively traded products in more granular strike price
intervals and to provide CBOE Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') and
their customers increased trading opportunities in the Weekly Program.
There are substantial benefits to market participants in the ability to
trade eligible option classes at more granular strike price intervals.
Furthermore, CBOE supports the objective of responding to customer
demand for harmonized listing between Weekly and non-Weekly options and
the availability of more granular strike price intervals.
    The Exchange notes that the Weekly Program has been well-received
by market participants, in particular by retail investors. The Exchange
believes that the current proposed revisions to the Weekly Program will
permit the

Exchange to meet increased customer demand for more granular strike
prices and the harmonization between of strike prices between Weekly
and non-Weekly options on the same classes.
    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, 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 current amendment to the Weekly Program. The Exchange believes
that its TPHs will not a capacity issue as a result of this proposal.
CBOE represents that it will monitor the trading volume associated with
the additional options series listed as a result of this proposal and
the effect (if any) of these additional series on market fragmentation
and on the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\ In particular, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that
giving the Exchange the ability to initiate strike prices in $0.50 and
$1 intervals (as provided for in the proposed rule text) for Weekly
options is reasonable because it will benefit investors by providing
them with the flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and
hedging decisions. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to
harmonize strike prices between Weekly options and non-Weekly options
during expiration week for non-Weekly options because doing so will
ensure conformity between Weekly and non-Weekly options that are on the
same class. While the proposed rule change may generate additional
quote traffic, the Exchange does not believe that any increased traffic
will become unmanageable since the proposal remains limited to a fixed
number of classes. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change will ensure competition because CBOE will be put in a position
to initiate series in the same strike intervals as ISE and Phlx are
currently able to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is 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 recently
approved ISE and Phlx filings. CBOE believes this proposed rule change
is necessary to permit fair competition among the options exchanges.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule 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 if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory
organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to
file 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 proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay period for non-controversial proposed rule changes to allow the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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 Commission believes it is consistent with the public interest
to waive the 30-day operative delay. Waiver of the operative delay will
allow CBOE to initiate strikes prices in more granular intervals for
Weekly options in the same manner as ISE and Phlx, and permit, during
the expiration week of a non-Weekly option, a non-Weekly option on a
class that is selected to participate in the Weekly Program to have the
strike price interval setting parameters as Weekly options. In sum, the
proposed rule change presents no novel issues, and waiver will allow
the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the
Commission grants such waiver and designates the proposal operative
upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has 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 such 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.

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-2012-092 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-2012-092. 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 office of CBOE. 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-2012-092 and should be submitted on
or before November 15, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26279 Filed 10-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24407-24410]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08837]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1164; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00975-E;
Amendment 39-22019; AD 2022-08-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce Plc) Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-20-07
for certain Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Trent 1000-AE3,
Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3, Trent
1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3,
Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, Trent 1000-R3, Trent 7000-72, and Trent
7000-72C model turbofan engines. AD 2020-20-07 required initial and
repetitive borescope inspections (BSIs) or visual inspections of the
intermediate-pressure compressor (IPC) shaft assembly and, depending on
the results of the inspection, replacement of the IPC shaft assembly.
This AD was prompted by the manufacturer providing optional terminating
actions for the required repetitive inspections and alternative
inspection instructions. This AD continues to require initial and
repetitive BSIs but allows modification of the engine in accordance
with RRD service information as a terminating action to these
inspections, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 31, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 31,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221
8999 000; email: [email protected]. You may find this material on the
EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material
at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1164.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1164; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
EASA AD, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Paine, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0282R1, dated August 25, 2021
(EASA AD 2019-0282R1), to address an unsafe condition for all RRD Trent
1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3,
Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-
N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, Trent 1000-R3, Trent 7000-72, and
Trent 7000-72C model turbofan engines. The EASA AD includes exceptions
that limit the applicability for certain engines.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-20-07, Amendment 39-21263 (85 FR
62975, October 6, 2020), (AD 2020-20-07). AD 2020-20-07 applied to all
RRD Trent 1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent
1000-H3, Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3,
Trent 1000-N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, Trent 1000-R3, Trent 7000-
72, and Trent 7000-72C model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on December 28, 2021 (86 FR 73690). The NPRM was
prompted by a report of crack findings in the front air seal on the IPC
shaft assembly during the stripping of a flight test engine. The NPRM
was also prompted by the manufacturer's publication of service
information that provides optional terminating actions for the required
repetitive inspections and alternative inspection instructions. In the
NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require initial and repetitive
BSIs of the IPC shaft assembly. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to
require compliance with the required actions from November 10, 2020,
the effective date of AD 2020-20-07. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed
to allow modification of the engine in accordance with Rolls-Royce
service information as a terminating action to the initial and
repetitive BSIs of the IPC shaft assembly. In the NPRM, the FAA also
proposed to require accomplishing

the actions specified in EASA AD 2019-0282R1, described previously, as
incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as
exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. See EASA AD 2019-
0282R1 for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from two commenters. The commenters were
Delta Air Lines, Inc. (DAL), and The Boeing Company (Boeing). The
following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response to each comment.

Request To Reevaluate the Need for This FAA AD

    DAL requested that the FAA reevaluate the need for the proposed AD.
DAL noted that after EASA revised EASA AD 2019-0282, RRD requested, and
the FAA granted, a global Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) that
includes the changes in EASA AD 2019-0282R1. DAL reasoned that the
regulatory requirements in the proposed NPRM are captured by AD 2020-
20-07 and the global AMOC.
    The FAA disagrees with withdrawing the NPRM. Issuing this AD
addresses the unsafe condition, incorporates an optional terminating
action, and incorporates by reference the required actions and
compliance times specified in EASA AD 2019-0282R1. The FAA did not
change the AD as a result of this comment.

Request To Recognize AMOCs Approved for AD 2020-20-07

    DAL requested that the FAA update paragraph (i) of this AD to
recognize AMOCs previously approved under AD 2020-20-07. DAL received
an FAA-approved AMOC to AD 2020-20-07 for deviations in the on-wing
inspection procedure, material, and tooling as specified in Rolls-Royce
Trent 1000 Alert NMSB 72-AK451, Initial Issue, dated November 14, 2019.
DAL used this AMOC to comply with AD 2020-20-07 and will need to
continue to use the provisions in this AMOC to comply with this AD. DAL
reasoned that since the AD retains all the requirements of AD 2020-20-
07, AMOCs granted for AD 2020-20-07 should also be applicable to this
AD.
    The FAA agrees and has revised paragraph (i) of this AD to include
that AMOCs approved previously for AD 2020-20-07 are approved as AMOCs
for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

Support for the AD

    Boeing expressed support for the AD as written.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and
any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on
any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2019-0282R1. EASA AD 2019-0282R1 describes
actions for initial and repetitive BSIs of the IPC shaft assembly. This
material is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in ADDRESSES.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 Alert Non-Modification
Service Bulletin (NMSB) 72-AK451, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2021
(Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 Alert NMSB 72-AK451); Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 SB
72-K570; and Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 SB 72-K571.
    Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 Alert NMSB 72-AK451 describes procedures for
initial and repetitive BSIs of the IPC shaft assembly. Rolls-Royce
Trent 1000 SB 72-K570 and Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 SB 72-K571,
differentiated by engine model, describe procedures for the
modification of the engine as a terminating action to the initial and
repetitive BSIs of the IPC shaft assembly.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 22 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. Registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSI or visual inspection of IPC shaft   3.5 work-hours x $85 per              $0         $297.50          $6,545
 assembly.                               hour = $297.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacement that is required based on the results of the inspection.
The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might
need this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace IPC shaft assembly....................  1,080 work-hours x $85 per hour       $1,365,219      $1,457,019
                                                 = $91,800.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and

procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2020-20-07, Amendment 39-21263 (85
FR 62975, October 6, 2020); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2022-08-16 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate
previously held by Rolls-Royce plc): Amendment 39-22019; Docket No.
FAA-2021-1164; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00975-E.

 (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 31, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-20-07, Amendment 39-21263 (85 FR 62975,
October 6, 2020) (AD 2020-20-07).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD)
Trent 1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent
1000-H3, Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3,
Trent 1000-N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, Trent 1000-R3, Trent
7000-72, and Trent 7000-72C model turbofan engines installed as
identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-
0282R1, dated August 25, 2021 (EASA AD 2019-0282R1).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine
Engine Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of crack findings in the front
air seal on the intermediate-pressure compressor (IPC) shaft
assembly during the stripping of a flight test engine. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IPC shaft assembly. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of thrust
control and reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Perform all
required actions within the compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0282R1.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0282R1

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0282R1 requires compliance from November
27, 2019, the effective date of EASA AD 2019-0282, this AD requires
compliance from November 10, 2020, the effective date of FAA AD
2020-20-07.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2019-0282R1 requires contacting Rolls-Royce
for approved corrective actions if a crack is detected during any
on-wing inspection and in-shop inspection, this AD requires removing
the IPC shaft assembly and replacing it with a part eligible for
installation before further flight.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2019-0282R1 defines a serviceable part as an
IPC shaft assembly which is not an affected part; or an affected
part which is new (never previously installed on an engine); or an
affected part that, before (re)installation, has passed (no crack
detected) an inspection in accordance with the instructions of the
NMSB, this AD also includes in that definition an IPC shaft assembly
that, before (re)installation, has passed a visual inspection (no
crack detected) of the exposed part using FAA-approved maintenance
procedures.
    (4) Where EASA AD 2019-0282R1 references on-wing inspections,
this AD allows for a visual inspection of the IPC shaft assembly
using FAA-approved maintenance procedures as a substitute for any
on-wing borescope inspection if the affected part is exposed,
provided that the compliance times specified in this AD are not
exceeded.
    (5) This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2019-0282R1.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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
ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j)(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) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2020-20-07 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nicholas Paine,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate
Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone:
+44 (0)1332 242424 fax: +44 (0)1332 249936; website: https://www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us.aspx. You may view this material at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0282R1,
dated August 25, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For more information about EASA AD 2019-0282R1, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221
8999 000; email: [email protected]. You may find this material on
the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found
in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1164.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National

Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, email [email protected],
or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on April 8, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-08837 Filed 4-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P