[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35421-35422]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12577]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP20-468-000; CP20-474-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Central Kentucky Transmission
Company; Notice of Applications

    Take notice that on May 29, 2020, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700,
filed in Docket No. CP20-468-000 an application pursuant to section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157

of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to acquire by
purchase of: (1) Central Kentucky Transmission Company's (Central
Kentucky) 25 percent undivided interest in the KA-1 North Facilities
and related facilities in Fayette and Madison Counties, Kentucky; and
(2) the associated capacity totaling 28,000 dekatherms per day.
Columbia states that the subject facilities total approximately 28.6
miles of pipeline and the acquisition has a de minimus cost.
    Additionally, on June 3, 2020, Central Kentucky, 2001 Mercer Road,
Lexington, Kentucky 40511, filed in Docket No. CP20-474-000 an
application pursuant to section 7(b) of the NGA and Part 157 of the
Commission's regulations requesting authorization to: (1) Abandon by
sale to Columbia its interest in the KA-1 North Facilities and related
facilities; (2) abandon all services and work performed under its
blanket certificates; (3) terminate its blanket certificates; (4)
cancel its FERC Gas Tariff; and (5) waiver of section 201 accounting
and reporting requirements, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning Columbia's application may be directed to
Richard Bralow, Sr., Legal Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700
Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by telephone at
(832) 320-5177 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
questions concerning Central Kentucky's application may be directed to
Kenneth W. Christman, Assistant General Counsel, 121 Champion Way,
Suite 100, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317, by telephone at (724) 416-
6315 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to
notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of
all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in
Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice
concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new NGA section 3 or
section 7 proceeding.\1\ Persons desiring to become a party to a
certificate proceeding are to intervene in a timely manner. If seeking
to intervene out-of-time, the movant is required to show good cause why
the time limitation should be waived, and should provide justification
by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d)(1) of the Commission's
Rules and Regulations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC 61,167 at
50 (2018).
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.214(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on June 25, 2020.

    Dated: June 4, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12577 Filed 6-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 164 (Friday, August 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48263-48267]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18464]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92729; File No. SR-CBOE-2021-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend Rule 5.33

August 23, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 10, 2021, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``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 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 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend Rule 5.33. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in
Exhibit 5.

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.33 regarding complex orders.
Specifically, the proposed rule change makes certain clarifying changes
to add detail to the Rule and nonsubstantive changes, including to make
certain provisions plain English and to conform certain language in the
rule to that in corresponding rules of its affiliated options
exchanges, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') Rule 21.20 and Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') Rule 5.33.
    First, the Exchange proposes to make the following clarifying or
codifying changes:
     The definition of ``complex strategy'' in Rule 5.33(a)
currently provides that the Exchange may limit the number of new
complex strategies that may be in the System at a particular time. The
proposed rule change codifies that the Exchange may also limit the
number of new complex strategies that may be entered for any EFID
(which EFID limit would be the same for all users) at a particular
time. This proposed change is identical to the definition of ``complex
strategy'' in C2 Rule 5.33(a).\5\ Similar to the authority for the
Exchange to limit the number of new complex strategies that may be in
the System, the proposed rule change codifies another manner in which
the Exchange may limit complex strategies in the System at a particular
time. The Exchange believes limiting complex strategies per EFID will
allow the Exchange to manage System capacity in a fair and reasonable
manner by limiting each EFID to the same number of complex strategies
they may have in the System at one time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See C2 Rule 5.33(a) (definition of complex strategy, which
permits the Exchange to limit the number of new complex strategies
that may be in the System or entered for any EFID (which EFID limit
would be the same for all Users) at a particular time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed rule change specifies in the definition of
each of ``synthetic best bid or offer'' (``SBBO'') and ``synthetic
national best bid or offer'' (``SNBBO'') that each is comprised of the
best ``net'' bid and ``net'' offer (on the Exchange or nationally,
respectively). The SBBO and SNBBO each use the BBO or NBBO,
respectively, of each component to determine the best synthetic bid or
offer, which is done by calculating the best net bid or offer. The
proposed rule change merely clarifies that ``netting'' the BBOs or
NBBOs, as applicable, is how the SBBO or SNBBO, respectively, is
calculated. This proposed change is identical to the definition of
``SNBBO'' in C2 Rule 5.33(a).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See C2 Rule 5.33(a) (definition of SNBBO, which states that
the NBBO for each component of a complex strategy establishes the
best net bid and offer for a complex strategy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In Rule 5.33(b)(2), the proposed rule change deletes the
parenthetical after the term ``Capacities,'' which parenthetical states
that Capacities means, in other words, non-broker-dealer customers,
broker-dealers that are not maker-makers on an options exchange, or
market-makers on an options exchange. The Rule does permit the Exchange
to determine which Capacities are eligible for the complex order
auction (``COA'') or for entry into the COB, but this parenthetical is
not consistent with the definition of Capacities. Rule 1.1 defines
``Capacity'' as the capacity in which a user submits an order, which
the user specifies by applying the corresponding code to the order. The
Capacity codes available are: B (for the account of a broker or
dealer), C (for the account of a public customer), F (for an OCC
clearing member firm proprietary account), J (for a joint back office
account), L (for the account of a non-Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'')
affiliate), M (for the account of a Market-Maker), N (for the account
of a market-maker on another options exchange), and U (for the account
of a professional). However, there is no Capacity code for the three
categories listed in the parenthetical in Rule 5.33(b)(2), so the
proposed rule change deletes the inaccurate parenthetical to maintain
consistency throughout the Rules. As noted above, the Exchange does
determine which Capacities are eligible for COA or entry into the COB
(which the Exchange previously announced to TPHs in accordance with
Rule 1.5 \7\), so the proposed rule change has no impact on trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rule 1.5 states the Exchange announces to TPHs all
determinations it makes pursuant to the Rules via specifications,
notices, or regulatory circulars with appropriate advanced notice,
which are posted on the Exchange's website or as otherwise provided
in the Rules, among other manners of announcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed rule change changes the term ``Queuing
Period'' to ``order entry period'' in Rule 5.33(c)(1). ``Queuing
Period'' is a defined term used for the Opening Process for simple
orders set forth in Rule 5.31. The Queuing Period, as defined, is the
time period prior to the initiation of an opening rotation during which
the System accepts simple orders and quotes in the book for
participation in the opening rotation for the applicable trading
session--in other words, the order entry period. However, the COB
Opening Process described in Rule 5.33(c) differs from the Opening
Process for simple orders described in Rule 5.31--for example, there is
no rotation (i.e., auction)--and does not use the same terminology. The
proposed rule change merely updates Rule 5.33(c)(1) to use the
appropriate terminology (as used in the heading for that subparagraph)
for the COB Opening Process.
     The proposed rule change amends Rule 5.33(d)(3)(B) and (C)
(which describe certain circumstances that will cause the Response Time
Interval of a COA to terminate early) to clarify that subparagraph (B)
applies to the receipt of a non-Priority Customer Order in a leg of the
complex order that would improve the SBBO on the same side as the COA-
eligible order that initiated the COA. Subparagraph (C) explicitly
applies to the receipt of a Priority Customer Order that would improve
(or join) the SBBO on the same side as the COA-eligible order that
initiated the COA. Currently, subparagraph (B) only references receipt
of an order, but receipt of a Priority Customer Order is covered by
subparagraph (C) and thus the intent of subparagraph (B) was to apply
only to non-Priority Customer Orders. Additionally, because a COA will
terminate early when the System receives a non-Priority Customer Order
in a leg that would improve the SBBO on the same side as the COA-
eligible order that initiated the COA, it would only do so if the price
was better than

the COA price, not equal to or better than the COA price, so the
proposed rule change deletes ``equal to or'' prior to better in
subparagraph (B). This is consistent with the definition of ``COA-
eligible'' order in Rule 5.33(b)(5), which provides that a COA-eligible
order may initiate a COA if it has a price equal to or better than the
SBBO. In other words, a COA-eligible order may execute at a price equal
to the SBBO (as long as there is no Priority Customer Order on a leg of
the SBBO) and thus a COA should not terminate if non-Priority Customer
Order is received at a price equal to the COA-eligible order. However,
if an order is received during a COA that is better than the COA price,
it is appropriate to terminate the COA because that COA would not have
been able to begin at the COA price had that new order been on the book
at the time the COA-eligible order was received by the System. This is
consistent with how the System functions today and merely adds clarity
to the Rules. The proposed rule change also adds to subparagraph
(d)(3)(C) that it applies when the System receives a Priority Customer
Order ``in a leg of the complex order,'' which is consistent with the
language in subparagraph (B) and implied by the fact it would join or
improve the SBBO (and thus it must relate to a simple order in the
book, as simple orders in the book in the legs of the complex order are
used to calculate the SBBO). The proposed rule change also changes the
phrase ``COA in progress'' to ``COA-eligible order that initiated the
COA'' to conform to the language in subparagraph (B).
     The proposed rule change adds ``during the Response Time
Interval'' to the end of the penultimate sentence of the introductory
paragraph of Rule 5.33(d)(4). This is consistent with the definition of
Response Time Interval, which Rule 5.33(d)(3) defines as the period of
time during which users may submit COA responses. This change merely
adds detail to the rule that is consistent with the current rule and
conforms the language to corresponding provisions in the C2 and EDGX
Rules.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See C2 Rule 5.34(d)(4) and EDGX Rule 21.20(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed rule change clarifies in Rule 5.33(d)(4)(B)
that COA Responses may be larger than the COA-eligible order. This is
identical to C2 Rule 5.33(d)(4)(B) and is implied by the current
provision, which states that the System caps the size of aggregated COA
Responses at the EFID-level (which cap would apply if an EFID submitted
a single COA Response larger than the COA-eligible order). This merely
codifies current functionality in the Rules, which functionality is
consistent with the remainder of the rule provision. Current Rule
5.33(d)(5)(B) states that the System routes to PAR for manual handling
any COA-eligible order (or unexecuted portion) that does not execute at
the end of the COA if not eligible for entry in the COB or in
accordance with the User's instructions. The proposed rule change
amends this provision to provide that the System (i) routes to PAR for
manual handling or (ii) cancels or rejects any COA-eligible order (or
unexecuted portion) that does not execute at the end of the COA if not
eligible for entry into the COB, subject to the user's instructions.
Similarly, current Rule 5.33(e) states that the System routes to PAR
for manual handling any complex order (or unexecuted portion) that does
not execute upon entry and is not eligible for entry into the COB,
subject to the User's instructions. The proposed rule change amends
this provision to provide that the System (i) routes to PAR for manual
handling or (ii) cancels or rejects any complex order (or unexecuted
portion) that does not execute upon entry and is not eligible for entry
into the COB, subject to the user's instructions. The addition of the
language to each of these provisions that the System may cancel or
reject such COA-eligible order or do-not-COA order, respectively (or
unexecuted portion), is consistent with the end of each provision that
states how the System handles an order is subject to a user's
instructions and the definitions of such instructions. While orders on
the Exchange are primarily ``Default'' orders, which are orders
designated for electronic processing and are routed to PAR for manual
handling if not eligible for electronic processing, users may also
designate orders as ``Electronic Only,'' which are orders designated
for electronic processing but do not route to PAR for manual handling
if not eligible for electronic processing (and thus would be cancelled
if not executed electronically).\9\ Therefore, if a COA-eligible or do-
not-COA order, as applicable, was designated as Electronic Only, the
System would cancel that order (or unexecuted portion) if it did not
execute at the end of the COA or upon entry, respectively, and was not
eligible for COB entry, as instructed by the user. The proposed rule
change merely adds this clarifying detail to the Rule, which is
consistent with the Rules and current System functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 5.6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed rule change clarifies in Rule
5.33(f)(2)(A)(v) that the System does not execute a complex order at a
net price that would cause any component of the complex strategy to be
executed at a price ahead of a priority customer order resting in the
Simple Book without improving the BBO of at least one component of the
complex strategy ``by at least one minimum increment.'' This is merely
a clarification, as trades may only occur in the permissible minimum
increment, so improvement of one component of the complex strategy
would have to be by at least one minimum increment. This is consistent
with language in C2 Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(v).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ C2 Rule 5.33(f)(2)(A)(v) provides that improvement of one
component must be by at least $0.01, which is the minimum increment
for all complex orders on C2. The proposed rule change uses the term
``minimum increment'' as Rule 5.4(b) permits the Exchange to
designate the minimum increment for complex orders by class, and
thus the minimum increment may not be $0.01 on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed rule change clarifies in Rule 5.33(i) that
the System evaluates incoming complex orders upon receipt ``after the
open of trading'' to determine whether it is a COA-eligible order or a
do-not-COA order (and thus how to process it). This is merely a
clarification and consistent with the System, as prior to the opening,
there is no need to conduct such evaluation since orders entered during
the complex order entry period prior to the open rest in the COB until
the COB opening process, during which all complex orders received
during the order entry period are eligible to be matched.\11\ This is
merely clarifying language that is consistent with current System
functionality and C2 Rule 5.33(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 5.33(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed rule change amends Rule 5.33(k)(1) to clarify
that when trading in a complex strategy is suspended, the System queues
a user's complex orders ``during a halt for participation in the COB
Opening process'' as set forth in Rule 5.33(k)(3).\12\ This language is
consistent with the language in Rule 5.33(k)(3) and identical to C2
Rule 5.33(k)(1). The proposed rule change also clarifies in
subparagraph (k)(1) that the COB remains available for users to enter
and manage complex orders ``that are not cancelled,'' which is
consistent with the prior sentence, pursuant to which users may cancel
complex orders upon a trading halt. This language is also identical to
C2 Rule 5.33(k)(1). These proposed rule changes are not substantive but
rather make clarifications to subparagraph (k)(1) that are consistent
with current

System functionality and the remainder of paragraph (k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The proposed rule change also adds a period after
``suspended'' to prevent the amended sentence from being too long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to make the following other
nonsubstantive changes:
     Currently, Rule 5.33(a) states the term ``complex order''
has the meaning set forth in Rule 1.1. The proposed rule change amends
this definition to state that the term ``complex order'' is defined in
Rule 1.1 to make the provision plain English and to conform the
language to that in other definitions in the Exchange's rulebook.
     Currently, Rule 5.33(a) defines the complex order book
(``COB'') as the Exchange's electronic book of complex orders
maintained by the System, which single book is used during both the
Regular Trading Hours (``RTH'') and Global Trading Hours (``GTH'')
trading sessions. The proposed rule change defines COB as the
Exchange's electronic book of complex orders used for all trading
sessions. The Exchange believes this proposed change streamlines the
definition and eliminates unnecessary terminology.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The phrase ``all trading sessions'' would incorporate both
RTH and GTH--currently the only two trading sessions on the
Exchange--so it is unnecessary to list both of those in the
definition. See Rule 1.1 (definition of ``trading session'').
Additionally, the definition implies that the COB is maintained by
the Exchange's trading system and is a single book because it is an
``electronic book,'' making the language proposed to be deleted
unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed rule change amends the definitions of ``All
Sessions,'' ``MTP Modifiers,'' and ``RTH Only'' in Rule 5.33(b)(5) and
applicable provisions in Rule 5.33(d)(2)(A), (3), (3)(B), and (3)(C),
(5), (5)(A)(i) and (ii), and (5)(B), (e), (e)(1) and (2), (f)(2)(A)(v)
and (2)(B), (g), (i) and (i)(3)(C), (j)(3), and (k)(2) to state that
orders ``rest in'' or are otherwise ``in'' the simple book or COB
rather than ``on'' the simple book or COB. The majority of the
provisions in Rule 5.33 state that orders are ``in'' the book or COB,
so the Exchange proposes to amend these provisions to maintain
consistency throughout Rule 5.33.
     The proposed rule change amends the definitions of ``Book
Only'' and ``Post Only'' in Rule 5.33(b)(5) to state that the order is
``subject to a user's instructions'' rather than ``in accordance with
the user's instructions.'' The phrases mean the same thing in the
context of these rule provisions, but the majority of Rule 5.33 uses
the phrase ``subject to a user's instructions,'' so the Exchange
proposes to amend these provisions to maintain consistency throughout
Rule 5.33.
     The proposed rule change proposes to delete the term
``complex order'' prior to ``Capacities'' in the definition of
``Complex Only'' in Rule 5.33(a). Rule 5.33 relates solely to the
trading of complex orders and generally does not specify that certain
terms relate to complex orders (for example, just prior to Capacities,
the term ``Times-in-Force'' is not qualified to be complex order
``Times-in-Force''). Therefore, the proposed rule change deletes
``complex order'' prior to ``Capacities,'' as it is redundant and
unnecessary.
     The proposed rule change amends Rule 5.33(d)(2)(A) to use
the term ``subparagraph'' rather than ``paragraph'' for the cross-
reference to subparagraph (d)(3) in that provision. This merely
conforms to terminology used throughout the Rules.
     The proposed rule change amends Rule 5.33(d)(3)(A) through
(C) and (j)(3) to replace ``posts'' with ``enters'' when describing an
order entering into the COB or the Book. This merely changes the term
used to describe an order entering a book to conform to the terminology
used elsewhere in the Rules.
     The proposed rule change deletes an inadvertent
grammatically incorrect comma after ``EFID'' in Rule 5.33(d)(4)(B),
after ``class in Rule 5.33(d)(5)(A)(ii), after the second parenthetical
in Rule 5.33(d)(5)(B), and after the second parenthetical in the last
paragraph of Rule 5.33(e).
     The proposed rule change deletes inadvertent extra spaces
prior to the hyphen in the term ``contra-side'' in Rule 5.33(d)(5)(A)
and (e).
     The proposed rule change replaces ``pursuant to'' with
``which the System allocates in accordance with'' in Rule
5.33(d)(5)(A)(ii) and (e)(2). The provision has the same meaning, but
the new language is consistent with language used in the remainder of
Rule 5.33. The proposed rule change also adds ``as'' prior to
``determined'' at the end of Rule 5.33(d)(A)(ii) to similarly be
consistent with language used in the remainder of Rule 5.33.
     The proposed rule change replaces ``if eligible to rest''
with ``if eligible for entry'' in Rule 5.33(d)(5)(B), the last
paragraph of Rule 5.33(e), and (k)(1) and (2). This is consistent with
the language in Rule 5.33(b)(2) regarding the Exchange's authority to
determine which Capacities are eligible for entry into the Book.
     The proposed rule change amends the heading of Rule
5.33(g) to be ``Legging'' rather than ``Legging Restrictions,'' as the
Exchange believes it to be more appropriate given that paragraph (g)
describes how a complex order may leg into the simple book, in addition
to certain restrictions that apply to legging.
     The proposed rule change adds subheading names to
subparagraphs (h)(1) through (3) to be consistent with the remainder of
Rule 5.33, as subparagraphs in the rule generally have subheadings. The
proposed rule change also moves current subparagraph (2) to proposed
subparagraph (3) \14\ and renumbers current subparagraph (3) as
subparagraph (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The proposed rule change makes a nonsubstantive change to
proposed subparagraph (3) (current subparagraph (2) to move the word
``resting'' after the term ``complex order'' rather than before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed rule change amends the last to sentences of
Rule 5.33(k)(1) to eliminate the passive voice in each sentence, thus
making each sentence more plain English.
    The proposed rule change adds a heading to Interpretation and
Policy .03 to be consistent with the other Interpretations and Policies
in Rule 5.33.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\15\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and 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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \17\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
protect investors and the public interest by adding clarifications and
detail to the Rules, as well as conforming and simplifying certain rule
provisions. The proposed clarifying and nonsubstantive rule changes
will have no impact on trading, as they codify or are otherwise
consistent with current functionality

and rules. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change
will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, as several proposed changes are
based on corresponding complex order rules of Cboe Options' affiliated
exchanges, C2 and EDGX (as described above). The Exchange believes
greater harmonization of Rules of affiliated exchanges that describe
the same functionality will simplify the rulebook for users of the
Exchange that are also participants on Cboe affiliated exchanges, thus
benefiting investors.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
will not burden intramarket competition because it will apply in the
same manner to all TPHs that submit complex orders to the Exchange. The
proposed rule change will not burden intermarket competition because it
is not intended to be a competitive filing but is rather intended to
add clarity and detail to the Rules, as well as harmonize the
Exchange's rules regarding complex orders with those of its affiliated
exchanges, C2 and EDGX. The proposed rule changes, as described above,
are consistent with current rules and functionality and will have no
impact on trading on the Exchange.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
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 prior to
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, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and 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 satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \22\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\23\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. As discussed above, Cboe
states that the proposal makes non-substantive changes that clarifying
Cboe's rules or harmonize Cboe's rules with those of its affiliated
exchanges. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposed changes do not raise novel issues and are
designed to clarify the Exchange's rules and enhance their internal
consistency, correct inaccurate terminology, and conform the Exchange's
rules to the rules of its affiliated exchanges. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \24\ For purposed 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 this 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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-CBOE-2021-047 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-2021-047. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2021-047, and should be submitted
on or before September 17, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18464 Filed 8-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


September 11, 2009

COMPUTATIONAL TOXICOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE

DRAFT AGENDA

Friday, September 25, 2009

12:00 noon – 1:00 p.m. eastern time

CONFERENCE CALL

Participation by Teleconference Only

12:00 noon	Welcome and Overview	Dr. George Daston, Chair

	- Purpose of Teleconference Call	Computational Toxicology

	- New Member Introductions	Subcommittee

	- Draft Charge

12:15 –12:20 p.m.	DFO Remarks	Lori Kowalski, Office of

		Research and Development

12:20–12:50 p.m.	Overview of the Computational Toxicology	Dr. Robert Kavlock, Director

	Research Program	National Center for

	- Materials for the Review 	Computational Toxicology (NCCT)

12:50–12:55 p.m.	Public Comment

12:55-1:00 p.m.	Face-to-Face Meeting	Dr. George Daston, Chair,

- Outstanding Issues	Computational Toxicology

		Subcommittee

1:00 p.m.	Adjourn

bosc computational toxicology Subcommittee June 2006 draft meeting agenda

  PAGE  3

            A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61473-61474]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25590]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2011-36]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of title 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice
is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this
aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this
notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is
intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before October 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2011-
0824 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or

signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Staples,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Keira
Jones,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Tyneka L. Thomas,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 29, 2011.
Dennis R. Pratte,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2011-0824.
    Petitioner: American Eurocopter. Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR
60 Table C2A, paragraph 4.b.3.
    Description of Relief Sought: American Eurocopter is seeking relief
from the requirement that any geometric error between the image
generator eye point and the pilot eye point must be 8 degrees or less
for the EC175 Level D FFS currently being designed. American Eurocopter
requests that a geometric error of 10 to 12 degrees be allowed subject
to justification and agreement with the National Simulator Program
Manager (NSPM) in accordance with helicopter characteristics and
training needs.

[FR Doc. 2011-25590 Filed 10-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68634-68636]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28671]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1151; Directorate Identifier 95-ANE-10-AD;
Amendment 39-16855; AD 2011-23-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company (GE) CF6
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the engines identified above. That AD currently requires initial
and repetitive visual inspections of the forward engine mount assembly
side links for cracks, stripping and reapplying the Sermetel W coating
on the side links at every exposure of the side link. This new AD
requires those same inspections, stripping and reapplying the Sermetel
W coating, and adds two part numbers

to the applicability. This AD was prompted by a review of the
inspection program, which revealed that GE had omitted two affected
side link part numbers from the applicability. We are issuing this AD
to prevent failure of the side links and possible engine separation
from the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective December 12, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of December 12,
2011.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact GE
Aviation M/D Rm. 285, One Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:
(513) 552-3272; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781)
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-
7735; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2006-12-24, amendment 39-14650 (71 FR 34807,
June 16, 2006). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2010 (75 FR 77570).
That NPRM proposed to continue to require inspecting, stripping, and
reapplying the Sermetel W coating on the side links every time one or
more of the bolts attaching the side links to the fan frame front high-
pressure compressor case or the bolt attaching each side link to the
mount platform are removed. That NPRM also proposed to add a left-hand
side link, P/N 9346M99P03 and a right-hand side link, P/N 9346M99P04,
to the applicability section.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following is the comment received and our response.

Request To Add MD-10-30F to the ``Used on But Not Limited to'' List of
Airplanes

    One commenter, Propulsion & Fuel Systems Design & Analysis, asked
us to add the MD-10-30F to the list of airplanes in paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD (75 FR 77570, December 13, 2010). The commenter states
that MD-10-30F airplanes are equipped with CF6-50C2 model engines.
    We agree that the AD may apply to engines installed on the MD-10-
30F airplane. However, to avoid confusion, we recently changed our
applicability statement and no longer list the aircraft that use the
product to which an engine or propeller AD applies. We did not change
the AD in response to this comment.

Editorial Change to the Applicability Paragraph (c) for Clarity

    We changed paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (75 FR 77570, December
13, 2010) from ``(c) This AD applies to * * * and CF6-80A3 turbofan
engines with left-hand links * * *.'' to ``(c) This AD applies to * * *
and CF6-80A3 turbofan engines, including engines marked on the engine
data plate as CF6-50C2-F and CF6-50C2-R, with left-hand links * * *''
This change improves clarity regarding what engines this AD applies to.
This change does not change the engines that are affected by this AD;
this change is editorial only.

Minor Change to the Economic Evaluation

    We made a minor change to the economic analysis to include the pro-
rated cost of a replacement part.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed except for the minor editorial changes we made for
clarity. These minor changes are consistent with the intent that we
proposed in the NPRM (75 FR 77570, December 13, 2010) and do not add
any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the
NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 194 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 8
work-hours per engine to perform the actions and that the average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. We estimate that one side link assembly will
fail the inspections of this AD and require replacement every 4 years
at a pro-rated parts cost of $1,800 per year. Based on these figures,
we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $133,720
per year.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2006-12-24, Amendment 39-14650 (71 FR 34807, June 16, 2006), and adding
the following new AD:

2011-23-04 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-16855; Docket No.
FAA-2010-1151; Directorate Identifier 95-ANE-10-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 12,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-12-24, Amendment 39-14650 (71 FR
34807, June 16, 2006).

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to General Electric (GE) CF6-45A, CF6-45A2,
CF6-50A, CF6-50C, CF6-50CA, CF6-50C1, CF6-50C2, CF6-50C2B, CF6-
50C2D, CF6-50E, CF6-50E1, CF6-50E2, CF6-50E2B, CF6-80A, CF6-80A1,
CF6-80A2, and CF6-80A3 turbofan engines, including engines marked on
the engine data plate as CF6-50C2-F and CF6-50C2-R, with left-hand
side links part numbers (P/Ns) 9204M94P01, 9204M94P03, 9346M99P01,
and 9346M99P03, and right-hand side links, P/Ns 9204M94P02,
9204M94P04, 9346M99P02, and 9346M99P04, installed on the forward
engine mount assembly (also known as Configuration 2).

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report that GE had omitted two
affected side link part numbers from the applicability of the
original AD. We are issuing this AD to include those part numbers
and to prevent failure of the side links and possible engine
separation from the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed at every exposure of the side link.

Inspecting and Stripping and Reapplying the Sermetel W Coating on the
Side Links

    (f) Inspect, strip, and reapply the Sermetel W coating on each
side link at every exposure of the side link. Use the following GE
service bulletins (SBs):
    (1) For CF6-45/-50 series engines, use paragraphs 3.A. through
3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of CF6-50 S/B 72-1255,
Revision 1, dated June 17, 2009.
    (2) For CF6-80A series engines, use paragraphs 3.A. through 3.E.
of the Accomplishment Instructions of CF6-80A S/B72-0797, Revision
1, dated June 17, 2009.

Definition of Exposure of Side Link

    (g) A side link is exposed when one or more bolts that attach
the side links to the fan frame-front high-pressure compressor case
are removed or when the bolt attaching the side link to the mount
platform is removed.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (h) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve
alternative methods of compliance for this AD. Use the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.

Related Information

    (i) For more information about this AD, contact Tomasz Rakowski,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the
following service information on the date specified:
    (1) GE CF6-50 S/B 72-1255, Revision 1, dated June 17, 2009,
approved for IBR December 12, 2011.
    (2) GE CF6-80A S/B 72-0797, Revision 1, dated June 17, 2009,
approved for IBR December 12, 2011.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact GE
Aviation M/D Rm. 285, One Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:
(513) 552-3272; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 26, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-28671 Filed 11-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P