[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9717-9721]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3911]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0271]
RIN-2126-AB30

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Saddle-Mount
Braking Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)
by eliminating the requirement for operational brakes on the last
saddle-mounted truck or tractor in a triple saddle-mount combination,
except when a full mount is present. This is in response to a petition
for rulemaking from the Automobile Carriers Conference (ACC) of the
American Trucking Associations. Currently, the FMCSRs require
operational brakes on any wheel of a saddle-mounted vehicle that is in
contact with the roadway. ACC contends that this requirement degrades
the braking performance of these combinations because the lightly
loaded axle of the last vehicle tends to lock up under heavy braking,
and submitted test results supporting this position.

DATES: Send your comments on or before April 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket ID Number
FMCSA-2010-0271 by any of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday except Federal holidays.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian J. Routhier, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
III. Background
IV. Agency Analysis
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you provide.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (FMCSA-2010-0271), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop-down menu, select
``Proposed Rules,'' insert ``FMCSA 2010-0271'' in the ``Keyword'' box,
and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Submit a
Comment'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble,
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and click on
the ``Read Comments'' box in the upper right-hand side of the screen.
Then, in the ``Keyword'' box, insert ``FMCSA-2010-0271'' and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions''
column. Finally, in the ``Title'' column, click on the document you
would like to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone may search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19476).

II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is based on the authority
of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of
1984.
    The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 provides that ``The Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe requirements for--(1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours
of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor
private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation'' [49
U.S.C. 31502(b)].
    The braking amendments proposed deal directly with the ``safety of
operation and equipment of * * * a motor carrier'' [49 U.S.C.
31502(b)(1)] and ``standards of equipment of * * * a motor private
carrier'' [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(2)]. The proposal, adoption, and
enforcement of such rules were authorized by the Motor Carrier Act of
1935. This proposal rests squarely on that authority.
    The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (the 1984 Act) provides
concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle
equipment. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to ``prescribe
regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall
prescribe minimum safety standards for commercial motor vehicles.''
Although this authority is very broad, the Act also includes specific
requirements: ``At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that--(1)
commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and
operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of
commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the
vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial
motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles
safely * * *; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does
not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the
operators'' [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)].
    This proposal is based on the authority of the 1984 Act and
addresses the specific mandates of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1). Neither Sec.
31136(a)(2), which deals almost entirely with the operational demands
placed on drivers, nor Sec.  31136(a)(3), which addresses driver
physical qualification standards, is covered by this rulemaking.
Section 31136(a)(4) deals with the effect of driving on driver health,
a subject this proposal addresses indirectly: brake lockup on saddle-
mount combinations, which the NPRM is intended to prevent, might under
some circumstances cause the driver to lose control of the commercial
motor vehicle.
    Before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must also consider their
``costs and benefits'' [49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)]. Those
factors are discussed in the RegulatoryAnalyses section of this
proposal.

III. Background

    ACC of the American Trucking Associations represents motor carriers
that transport motor vehicles ranging from automobiles to Class 8
trucks. ACC states that its members transport more than 96 percent of
all trucks moved by the saddle-mount method.
    On January 16, 2007, ACC submitted a petition for rulemaking
requesting that the requirements for operational brakes on the last
saddle-mounted truck (the fourth truck) in a triple saddle-mount
combination be eliminated. ACC contends that this requirement actually
degrades the braking performance of these combinations because the
lightly loaded axle of the last vehicle tends to lock up under heavy
braking, potentially increasing stopping distance.
    Stopping distances are specified in the vehicle brake performance
table at Sec.  393.52(d) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations,
which requires many combination vehicles, including triple saddle-
mounts, to be able to stop within 40 feet or less from an initial speed
of 20 mph. The FMCSRs do not specify

minimum stopping distances from higher speeds. They do, however,
specify performance requirements for the emergency brakes, after the
service braking system has failed. Under the Sec.  393.52(d) emergency
braking requirements, triple saddle-mounts must be able to stop within
90 feet or less from a speed of 20 mph. Further, Sec.  393.71(a)(3)
currently requires operational brakes on any wheel of a saddle-mounted
vehicle that is in contact with the highway.
    Based on the results of braking tests performed on various triple
saddle-mount combinations, as described below, ACC requested that FMCSA
make two regulatory changes: (1) Amend Sec.  393.71(a)(3) to eliminate
the requirement for operational brakes on the last saddle-mounted truck
in a triple saddle-mount combination; and (2) amend Sec.  393.71(c)(4)
to require that a triple saddle-mount with any vehicle full-mounted on
it have effective brakes acting on those wheels in contact with the
roadway.
    ACC presented brake performance results from tests conducted by
Radlinski & Associates, Inc. [RAI] (now known as Link-Radlinski, Inc.)
in 1996 and 2002 in East Liberty, Ohio, on behalf of the National
Automobile Transporters Association (NATA), as well as supporting tests
RAI conducted for ATC Leasing Company (ATC) in 2003. RAI tested a total
of 24 triple saddle-mount combinations in the two tests conducted for
NATA and two additional combinations in the ATC test. Braking tests
were conducted on various saddle-mount combinations, with overall
lengths ranging from 53 to 96.9 feet, total weights ranging from 37,580
to 79,380 pounds, and with and without antilock braking systems (ABS)
on the lead unit. Some of the combinations tested exceeded 75 feet in
length--the Federal overall length limit then in effect for triple
saddle-mount combinations--since the RAI tests were conducted in part
to support increases in the overall length limits for saddle-mount
combinations. An overview of the tests and corresponding results from
RAI is presented below, and a copy of each test report is available in
the docket referenced at the beginning of this document.

1996 Test: ``Braking and Offtracking Tests on Longer Saddlemount
Driveaway Combinations'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Radlinski & Associates, Inc., Vehicle Systems Consultants
(August 1996). ``Braking and Offtracking Tests on Longer Saddlemount
Driveaway Combinations.'' Test conducted for the National Automobile
Transporters Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stopping distance tests on five triple saddle-mount vehicle
combinations were conducted at speeds of 20, 40, and 55 mph. Three runs
were made at each speed, and the results were averaged. In the 20 mph
stops, the driver was instructed to apply full braking force, but at
higher speeds he was told to make a ``best effort,'' or modulated
application, to avoid wheel lockup and skidding. Combinations were
tested both with all brakes operational and with the brakes on the
rearmost axle disconnected.
    All five vehicle combinations, both with and without the rearmost
axle brakes connected, met the Sec.  393.52(d) requirement that
combinations be able to stop within 40 feet or less from 20 mph.
Further, in all tests completed at 40 and 55 mph, stopping distance was
reduced when the rearmost axle brakes were disabled. An exception was
noted in which a vehicle stopped 1 foot shorter with all brakes
operational than with rearmost axle brakes disconnected (164 feet
versus 165 feet, respectively), but RAI did not consider the difference
(less than 1 percent) significant given the variability in the data.

2002 Test: ``Accident Avoidance Performance of More Productive
Saddlemount Driveaway Combinations'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Radlinski & Associates, Inc., Vehicle Systems Consultants
(January 2002). ``Accident Avoidance Performance of More Productive
Saddlemount Driveaway Combinations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stopping distance tests on 19 triple saddle-mount vehicle
combinations were conducted from a speed of 20 mph, with a reported
average of two or three test runs per combination vehicle. In addition,
emergency brake tests were performed that require combination vehicles
to be able to stop from 20 mph within 90 feet or less. Three types of
failures were introduced: front brake circuit failure in the towing
vehicle, rear brake circuit failure in the towing vehicle, and a failed
towing line (i.e., the brakes on the towed unit were not operational).
    All 19 triple saddle-mount combinations were tested with the
rearmost axle brakes connected, and 12 were tested with the rearmost
axle brakes disabled. In the latter group, all of the units met the
Sec.  393.52(d) stopping distance requirement of a maximum of 40 feet
from 20 mph. Five units were then tested for stopping distances from
both 40 and 55 mph. In all but one case, stopping distance was reduced
significantly with the brakes on the rearmost unit disabled. The
exception involved a 4 percent increase in stopping distance with the
brakes on the last axle disconnected--a difference RAI did not consider
significant given the variability in the data.
    In the emergency braking tests, 12 combinations were tested in each
of two failure scenarios: failed front brakes and failed rear brakes.
Two of the units were also tested with a third failure mode of a failed
towing control line. All of the vehicles were able to stop within much
shorter distances than the 90-foot maximum specified in Sec.
393.52(d).

2003 Test: ``Braking Performance of Saddlemount Driveaway
Combinations'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Radlinski & Associates, Inc. Vehicle Systems Consultants
(May 2003). ``Braking Performance of Saddlemount Driveaway
Combinations.'' Test conducted for ATC Leasing Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stopping distance tests were conducted on one triple saddle-mount
combination vehicle from 20, 40, and 55 mph.\4\ Three runs were made at
each speed, and the results were averaged. In the 20 mph stops, the
driver was instructed to apply full braking force, but at the higher
speeds he was directed to make a ``best effort,'' or modulated
application, to avoid wheel lockup and skidding. The combination was
tested with all brakes operational, and also with the brakes on the
rearmost axle in the combination disconnected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 2003 test also included a double saddle-mount
configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The triple saddle-mount combination, both with and without the
rearmost unit braked, was able to stop shorter than the 20 mph service
brake stopping distance criterion of 40 feet or less in Sec.
393.52(d). Additionally, in all but one test conducted at 40 and 55
mph, stopping distance was reduced when the rearmost axle brakes were
disabled.

IV. Agency Analysis

    These test results demonstrate that triple saddle-mount driveaway
combinations (1) are able to meet the performance requirements of Sec.
393.52(d) at various combinations of vehicle weight and length with the
brakes disconnected on the rearmost towed units (fourth truck), and (2)
at higher speeds, perform better when there are no brakes on the
rearmost towed unit. Because the rearmost unit (fourth truck) axle
weight is less than half the axle weight on the other towed units,
connecting the brakes on the rearmost axle increases the likelihood of
premature wheel lockup and loss of control due to skidding, and limits
the maximum deceleration of the overall combination. Without brakes on
the rearmost unit, the driver can apply the brakes harder on the lead
unit and the forward towed units, achieving a higher deceleration.
Disconnecting the brakes

on the rearmost unit also reduces the total volume of air that must be
delivered to the towed vehicles, which in turn reduces brake
application time and stopping distance.
    In addition, ACC's request to amend the braking requirements for
triple saddle-mount combinations is based on the same considerations
FMCSA cited in a final rule that permits motor carriers to disconnect
the service brakes on unladen converter dollies manufactured on or
after March 1, 1998.\5\ (70 FR 48008, Aug. 15, 2005). The axle weight
of an unladen dolly is so low that the wheels lock up under hard
braking. To ensure stability and control, which are especially critical
during emergency braking, it is better to disconnect the dolly's
brakes. Based on testing performed in 1990 at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Vehicle Research and Test Center, FMCSA
stated in its final rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FMCSA noted that with NHTSA's March 10, 1995, final rule on
ABS (60 FR 13216), the long-term need for this exception for unladen
converter dollies will diminish. An ABS-equipped converter dolly
will not have the stability and control problems observed with
unladen converter dollies not equipped with ABS. Therefore,
converter dollies manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, the
effective date of the NHTSA requirement for ABS on converter
dollies, are not covered by the exception.

    Stability and control during braking is an important
consideration in determining braking requirements for commercial
motor vehicles. While stopping distances for a bobtail tractor
towing an unladen converter dolly could be improved in some
situations by requiring operable dolly brakes, they could be
significantly degraded in others. When consideration is given to the
possibility of the converter dolly swinging out as a result of wheel
lock up, the FMCSA believes the FMCSRs should be amended to include
an exception to the requirement for operable brakes on unladen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
converter dollies.

    The last unit in a saddle-mount combination has higher axle weights
than a converter dolly but behaves in much the same way--i.e., the axle
in contact with the road locks up under heavy braking, reducing
controllability and increasing the stopping distance of the vehicle.
    As noted previously, ACC requested FMCSA to address this brake-
performance issue by amending both Sec. Sec.  393.71(a)(3) and
393.71(c)(4). The latter provision requires that if a motor vehicle
towed by means of a double saddle-mount has any vehicle full-mounted on
it, the saddle-mounted vehicle must at all times while so loaded have
effective brakes acting on those wheels that are in contact with the
roadway. But Sec.  393.71(c)(4) does not currently apply to triple
saddle-mount combinations having a full-mounted vehicle. In this
situation, the weight on the rearmost axle will be increased, so the
brakes on the rearmost unit need to be connected to ensure adequate
braking capability--unlike the circumstances described earlier in which
the lightly loaded rear axle tends to skid and lose control due to
premature wheel lockup.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Given the potential for increased brake performance efficiencies
demonstrated in the test results submitted by ACC, FMCSA agrees that
eliminating the requirement for operational brakes on the last (or
fourth) saddle-mounted truck or tractor in a triple saddle-mount
combination would likely produce safety benefits. We also agree that
when one or more vehicles are full-mounted on a triple saddle-mount
combination, the FMCSRs should continue to require operative brakes on
all wheels in contact with the roadway.
    As ACC requested, this proposed rule would amend Sec.  393.71(a)(3)
to except the last truck or tractor in a triple saddle-mount
configuration from the requirement to have brakes acting on all wheels
in contact with the roadway. Further, the proposal would apply to any
truck tractor being towed as the last truck in a triple saddle-mount
configuration, regardless of whether it is equipped with ABS (as
required by Sec.  393.55(c) for truck tractors manufactured on or after
March 1, 1997). Although Sec.  393.55(c) excepts truck tractors engaged
in driveaway-towaway operations from the requirement to have ABS, the
exception is moot for truck tractors built on or after March 1, 1997.
In saddle-mount towing configurations, these truck tractors have only
an air line connection between each vehicle, so no power is available
to operate the antilock sensors and control modules in the towed
vehicles. The Agency recommends, therefore, that the rearmost axle
brakes in a triple saddle-mount configuration be disconnected even if
equipped with ABS.
    This proposal also would broaden the applicability of Sec.
393.71(c)(4) to include motor vehicles towed by means of a triple
saddle-mount configuration. Under the proposed regulation, if a motor
vehicle towed by means of either a double or triple saddle-mount has
any vehicle full-mounted on it, the saddle-mounted vehicle would be
required at all times to have effective brakes acting on those wheels
in contact with the roadway.
    In addition, the proposed rule would revise Sec.  393.42 to read,
``Any combination of motor vehicles with one or two saddle-mounts.''
This effectively excepts triple saddle-mount combinations in driveaway-
towaway operations from the requirement to have brakes acting on all
wheels. These proposed changes are consistent with the Agency's mission
of increasing highway safety.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Agency does not believe
implementing this proposed rule would create new costs or cause an
adverse economic impact on the industry or the public. Therefore, a
full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.
    FMCSA anticipates that this rule could result in several benefits,
chief among them the increased safety performance of triple saddle-
mount combination CMVs. By improving the braking performance of these
CMVs, the proposed rule could reduce the number of crashes in which
they are involved. This improved braking ability would also increase
the mechanical integrity of these CMVs, providing an ancillary safety
benefit.
    Tests conducted by Radlinski & Associates, Inc. (now known as Link-
Radlinski, Inc.) in 1996, 2002, and 2003, discussed in the Background
section of this document, support the argument that disconnecting the
rearmost axle brakes of triple saddle-mount combination CMVs improves
their braking performance. FMCSA does not have quantifiable data,
however, that would allow for an estimation of the number of CMV
crashes this change in practice would prevent, and cannot quantify this
potential benefit.
    This proposed rule would also reduce regulatory burden on motor
carriers by eliminating the requirement to connect the rearmost axle
brakes on triple saddle-mount CMVs. As with any proposed elimination of
an existing regulation, reducing regulatory burden on motor carriers
has the potential to lower associated compliance costs. These cost
savings are, however, likely to be modest because the proposed rule
simply amends a practice that is not particularly laborious or time-
consuming.

    In addition, FMCSA does not expect that this proposed rule would
impose costs upon affected motor carriers, because the elimination of
the current requirement would not require motor carriers to purchase
new equipment, parts, or accessories or to modify or alter existing
equipment or vehicles.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
Federal agencies to determine whether proposed rules could have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Agency's economic assessment demonstrates that the proposed rule
will yield minor benefits while imposing no new costs. Consequently, I
certify that this proposed action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rulemaking does not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et
seq.), that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $140.8
million (which is the value of $100 million in 2009 after adjusting for
inflation) or more in any 1 year.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. We determined that this rulemaking does not pose an
environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately
affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

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

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rulemaking has implications for Federalism under Executive Order
13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or
local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a
substantial direct cost of compliance on them. FMCSA analyzed this
proposed action in accordance with Executive Order 13132. The proposal
would not have a substantial direct effect on States, nor would it
limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document
preempts any State law or regulation.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this action.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that FMCSA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We determined that no new
information collection requirements are associated with this proposed
rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1, issued
March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this proposed action has the potential
to produce a very small benefit to the environment if any reduction in
crashes is realized. Therefore, this NPRM is categorically excluded
from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment
or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1, paragraph
6(bb) of Appendix 2. The Categorical Exclusion under paragraph 6(bb)
relates to regulations concerning vehicle operation safety standards
that would apply to how these vehicles are operated. The Categorical
Exclusion determination is available for inspection or copying in the
Regulations.gov Web site listed under ADDRESSES.
    We also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended
(CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity
requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of
criteria pollutants.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that Executive Order because it is not
economically significant and is not likely to have an adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

    Highways and roads, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle equipment, Motor
vehicle safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, subchapter B, chapter III, as follows:

PART 393 [AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31136, 31151, and 31502; Sec. 1041(b)
of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.73.

    2. Amend Sec.  393.42 by revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  393.42  Brakes required on all wheels.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Any combination of motor vehicles utilizing one or two saddle-
mounts.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec.  393.71 by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (c)(4) to
read as follows:

Sec.  393.71  Coupling Devices and towing methods, driveaway-towaway
operations.

    (a) * * *
    (3) When motor vehicles are towed by means of triple saddle-mounts,
all but the final towed vehicle must have brakes acting on all wheels
in contact with the roadway.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) If a motor vehicle towed by means of a double or triple saddle-
mount has any vehicle full-mounted on it, such saddle-mounted vehicle
must at all times while so loaded have effective brakes acting on all
wheels in contact with the roadway.
* * * * *

    Issued on: February 11, 2011.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-3911 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 147 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45762-45765]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0208; Product Identifier 2019-NM-209-AD; Amendment
39-21177; AD 2020-15-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-13-
06, which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and 747-
400F series airplanes. AD 2015-13-06 required repetitive inspections of
the longeron extension fittings for cracking;

repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of any
modified, repaired, or replaced longeron extension fitting for
cracking; and applicable on-condition actions. This AD retains the
requirements of AD 2015-13-06. This AD also requires, for certain
additional airplanes, repetitive inspections of the longeron extension
fittings for cracking and repair if necessary. This AD was prompted by
the FAA's determination that additional airplanes are affected by the
identified unsafe condition. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 3, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 3,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0208.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.govby searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0208; 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, 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: Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-13-06, Amendment 39-18193 (80 FR
44835, July 28, 2015) (``AD 2015-13-06''). AD 2015-13-06 applied to
certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2020 (85 FR
17510). The NPRM was prompted by a report that an operator found a
cracked longeron extension fitting on an airplane not included in the
applicability of AD 2015-13-06. The NPRM proposed to continue to
require repetitive inspections of the longeron extension fittings for
cracking; repetitive HFEC inspections of any modified, repaired, or
replaced longeron extension fitting for cracking; and applicable on-
condition actions. The NPRM also proposed to add Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400D,
747SR, and 747SP series airplanes to the applicability, and for those
additional airplanes, repetitive inspections of the longeron extension
fittings for cracking and repair if necessary. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address cracks in the longeron extension fittings, which can
become large and adversely affect the structural integrity of the
airplane.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Boeing stated that it had no comment regarding the NPRM and Hasan
Ashour expressed support for the NPRM.

Request To Expand the Applicability of the NPRM

    Addison Hull requested that the FAA expand the applicability of the
NPRM to include all airplanes. The commenter expressed concern that the
NPRM only identified 67 affected airplanes. The commenter also pointed
out their belief that all airplanes should have the same minimum
requirements, and that this method would be more efficient compared
with publishing specific rules to mandate the inspection and
maintenance of other types of airplanes that are not affected by the
NPRM.
    The FAA disagrees with the request. The FAA issues ADs to address
potential unsafe conditions in airplanes with similar designs. The FAA
has worked closely with the design approval holder (DAH) to determine
the group of affected airplanes that may develop this particular unsafe
condition. The group of affected airplanes for this particular unsafe
condition is an expansion to the group of airplanes addressed by AD
2015-13-06. Therefore, the FAA believes that the entire number of
affected airplanes have been captured by this AD. This AD has not been
changed in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial
changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 3,
dated November 11, 2019. This service information describes procedures
for repetitive inspections of the longeron extension fittings for
cracking; repetitive HFEC inspections of any modified, repaired, or
replaced longeron extension fitting for cracking; and applicable on-
condition actions. On-condition actions include replacement, repair,
and modification. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                      Labor cost          Parts cost    Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFEC inspection (retained         32 work-hours x $85 per            $0  $2,720 per           $111,520 per
 actions from AD 2015-13-06) (41   hour = $2,720 per                      inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
 airplanes).                       inspection cycle.
HFEC inspection (new action) (26  32 work-hours x $85 per             0  2,720 per            70,720 per
 airplanes).                       hour = $2,720 per                      inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                   inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required. The FAA has no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition
actions:

                                      Estimated Costs of On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                        Labor cost               Parts cost            Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement, repair, modification,  Up to 908 work-hours x $85  Up to $99,950.......  Up to $177,130.
 or preventative modification.       per hour = Up to $77,180.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The FAA has 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) 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.

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)
2015-13-06, Amendment 39-18193 (80 FR 44835, July 28, 2015), and adding
the following new AD:

2020-15-14 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-21177; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0208; Product Identifier 2019-NM-209-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 3, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-13-06, Amendment 39-18193 (80 FR 44835,
July 28, 2015) (``AD 2015-13-06'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in
any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860,
Revision 3, dated November 11, 2019.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the outboard
flange of the longeron extension fittings and the FAA's
determination that additional airplanes are affected by the
identified unsafe condition. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
cracks in the longeron extension fittings, which can become large
and adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 3, dated November 11,
2019, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance
with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2860, Revision 3, dated November 11, 2019.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 3, dated
November 11, 2019, uses the phrase ``the Revision 3 date of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires using ``the effective date of
this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 3, dated
November 11, 2019, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2860, Revision 1,

dated March 18, 2014, which was incorporated by reference in AD
2015-13-06; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 2,
dated July 12, 2016, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the repetitive
inspections, and inspection of temporary repair and corrective
actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before September 1, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-
13-06) using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, dated
December 4, 2012, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2013-14-
05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013).

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously for the actions specified in
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of AD 2015-13-06 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2860, Revision 3, dated November 11, 2019, that are required
by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Lin,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(l) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 3, dated
November 11, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information 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_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 16, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-16483 Filed 7-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61138-61139]
[DOCID:fr15oc08-104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0038]

Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the
Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on December 11, 2008, from
8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Location: Gaithersburg Holiday Inn, Walker/Whetstone Salons, Two
Montgomery Village Ave., Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact Person: Michael Bailey, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health (HFZ-470), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd.,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about
last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site
and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to
learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss, make recommendations, and vote
on a premarket approval application for the FC2 Female Condom,
sponsored by the Female Health Company. This device is indicated to
help prevent HIV/AIDS and unintended pregnancy.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee

meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site
after the meeting. Background material is available at http://
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on the year 2008 and
scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
November 26, 2008. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 8:30 a.m. and 9 a.m., and between approximately
3:30 p.m. and 4 p.m. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations
should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the
general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the
names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
November 18, 2008. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by November 19,
2008.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams,
Conference Management Staff, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least 7 days in
advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2)

    Dated: October 6, 2008.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-24357 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

As an individual consumer, I hereby request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises many significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks a number different questions I want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but the allotted time simply isn't enough.  My devotion to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent countless hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. One year ago I quit using combustible cigarettes and switched to e-cigarettes. As an individual that suffers from asthma I haven't had the need to use my rescue inhaler since then.  I wish to provide you with my complete personal story as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37368-37371]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13274]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95107; File No. SR-C2-2022-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend
the Fees Schedule

June 15, 2022.
    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 June 1, 2022, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend the fees schedule. 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 its fee schedule in connection with
its discount program for Bulk BOE Logical Ports, effective June 1,
2022.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of

16 options venues to which market participants may direct their order
flow. Based on publicly available information, no single options
exchange has more than approximately 16% of the market share and
currently the Exchange represents approximately 4% of the market
share.\3\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive
market, no single options exchange, including the Exchange, possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. The
Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
by Month (May 24, 2022), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently offers BOE Bulk Logical Ports (``BOE Bulk
Ports''), which provide users with the ability to submit single and
bulk order messages to enter, modify, or cancel orders designated as
Post Only Orders with a Time-in-Force of Day or GTD with an expiration
time on that trading day. Bulk BOE Ports are assessed $1,500 per port,
per month for the first five Bulk BOE Ports and thereafter assessed
$2,500 per port, per month for each additional Bulk BOE Port. Each Bulk
BOE Port also incurs the logical port fee indicated in the table above
when used to enter up to 30,000,000 orders per trading day per logical
port as measured on average in a single month. Each incremental usage
of up to 30,000,000 orders per day per Bulk BOE Port will incur an
additional logical port fee of $2,500 per month (``incremental usage
fees''). The Exchange also offers a discount program for Bulk BOE Ports
which provides an opportunity for Market-Makers to obtain credits on
their monthly Bulk BOE Port fees (excluding incremental usage fees).\4\
Currently, under the Bulk BOE Ports discount program, Market-Makers
will receive a 30% discount on its monthly Bulk BOE Port fees
(excluding incremental usage fees) where a Market-Maker has (1) a Step-
Up ADAV \5\ equal to or greater than 0.025% of average OCV \6\ from
February 2021 and (2) a ``Make Rate'' equal to or greater than 85%.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ While BOE Bulk Ports are available to all market
participants, they are used primarily by Market Makers or firms that
conduct similar business activity.
    \5\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of contracts added per day. ADAV is calculated on a monthly
basis, excluding contracts added or removed on any day that the
Exchange's system experiences a disruption that lasts for more than
60 minutes during regular trading hours (``Exchange System
Disruption'') and on any day with a scheduled early market close.
    \6\ ``OCV'' (or ``OCC Customer Volume'' means, the total equity
and ETF options volume that clears in the Customer range at the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for the month for which the
fees apply, excluding volume on any day that the Exchange
experiences an Exchange System Disruption and on any day with a
scheduled early market close.
    \7\ The ``Make Rate'' shall be derived from a Market-Maker's
volume the previous month in all symbols using the following
formula: (i) the Market-Maker's total simple add volume divided by
(ii) the Market-Maker's total simple volume. Trades on teh open and
complex orders will be excluded from the Make Rate calculation. The
Exchange will aggregate the trading activity of separate Market-
Maker firms for purposes of the discount tier and make rate
calculation if there is at least 75% common ownership between the
firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the current criteria under the Bulk
BOE Port discount program and add another tier of criteria the discount
program. The proposed rule change amends the current criteria in prong
one by slightly increasing the Step-Up ADAV over the average OCV from
0.025% to 0.03%, changing the base ``step-up'' month from February 2021
to June 2021, and increasing the percentage of ``Make Rate'' from 85%
to 97%. The 30% discount remains the same. The proposed rule change
also adopts a new tier of criteria under the Bulk BOE Port discount
program, which provides that a Market-Maker will receive a 40% discount
on its monthly Bulk BOE Logical Port fees, excluding incremental usage
fees, where the Market-Maker (1) has a Step-Up ADAV equal to or greater
than 0.05% of OCV from June 2021 and (2) has a ``Make Rate'' equal to
or greater than 97%.
    The proposed Bulk BOE Port discount program, currently and as
amended, is designed to attract liquidity from traditional Market-
Makers and encourage Market-Makers to grow their volume. The discount
program mitigates costs incurred by traditional Market-Makers that
focus on adding liquidity to the Exchange (as opposed to those that
provide and take, or just take). The proposed increase in percentage of
ADAV over OCV (0.03%) to receive the current 30% discount on monthly
Bulk BOE Port fees in the existing tier and proposed new tier offering
a 40% discount for reaching an even higher percentage of ADAV over OCV
(0.05%) will encourage Market Makers to strive to provide increased
levels of liquidity. The proposed increase in the percentage of ``Make
Rate'' to 97%, and addition of the same ``Make Rate'' prong of criteria
in the proposed new tier, is intended to encourage Market Makers with
significant Make Rates to continue to participate on the Exchange and
add liquidity, or otherwise increase their Make Rates by streaming more
quotes. Increased liquidity and enhanced quote streaming from Market
Makers generally provide greater trading opportunities and tighter
spreads, which tends to signal additional corresponding increase in
order flow from other market participants. This, in turn, benefits all
investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially
providing even greater execution incentives and opportunities, offering
additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings,
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\9\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and issuers and
other persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) \10\ 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, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to amend the Bulk
BOE Ports discount program is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. The proposed rule changes to increase the percentage of
ADAV over OCV (0.03%) to receive the current 30% discount on monthly
Bulk BOE Port fees in the existing tier and to adopt a new tier
offering a 40%

discount for reaching an even higher percentage of ADAV over OCV
(0.05%) are reasonably designed to encourage Market Makers to strive to
provide increased levels of liquidity. Similarly, the proposed rule
changes to increase the percentage of ``Make Rate'' to 97% and to add
the same ``Make Rate'' prong of criteria in the proposed new tier are
reasonably designed to encourage Market Makers with significant Make
Rates to continue to participate on the Exchange and add liquidity, or
otherwise increase their Make Rates by streaming more quotes. As
described above, increased liquidity and enhanced quote streaming from
Market Makers generally provide greater trading opportunities and
tighter spreads, signaling an additional corresponding increase in
order flow from other market participants. This potentially deepens the
Exchange's liquidity pool, provides increased execution incentives and
opportunities, offers additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy
cost savings, supports the quality of price discovery, promotes market
transparency and improves investor protection. The Exchange believes
the proposed discount of 40% included in the proposed new tier is
reasonable in that it is an incremental increase over the discount rate
of 30% offered in the existing tier, which is reasonably commensurate
with the incremental increase in percentage of ADAV over OCV that a
Market Maker must achieve to receive the proposed 40% discount as
compared to the percentage of ADAV over OCV that a Market Maker must
achieve to receive the existing 30% discount. The Exchange notes that
the proposed discount under the proposed new tier is in line with the
discount offered to Market Makers on its affiliate exchange, Cboe
Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe Options'').\11\ Additionally, the Exchange
believes it is reasonable to update the baseline month to a month that
is closer in time, therefore a more relevant measure for ``step-up''
volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker Access Credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to amend the Bulk BOE Port discount
program, which is offered only to Market Makers, is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers are valuable market
participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs
that other market participants do not incur. For example, Market Makers
have a number of obligations, including quoting obligations and fees
associated with appointments that other market participants do not
have. The Exchange also believes that the discount program, currently
and as amended, provides an incentive for Market Makers to provide more
liquidity to the Exchange. Generally, greater liquidity benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to provide credits to those Market Makers that
primarily provide and post liquidity to the Exchange, as the Exchange
wants to continue to encourage Market Makers with significant Make
Rates to continue to participate on the Exchange and add liquidity.
Moreover, the Exchange notes that Market Makers with high Make Rate
percentages generally require higher amounts of capacity than other
Market Makers. Particularly, Market Makers with high Make Rates are
generally streaming significantly more quotes than those with lower
Make Rates. As such, Market Makers with high Make Rates may incur more
costs than other Market Makers as they may need to purchase multiple
Bulk BOE Ports in order to accommodate their capacity needs. The
Exchange believes the proposed credits for Bulk BOE Ports encourages
Market Makers to continue to provide liquidity for the Exchange,
notwithstanding the costs incurred by purchasing multiple ports.
Particularly, the discount program, currently and as proposed, is
intended to mitigate the costs incurred by traditional Market Makers
that focus on adding liquidity to the Exchange (as opposed to those
that provide and take, or just take). Additionally, while the Exchange
has no way of predicting with certainty how many and which Market
Makers will satisfy the proposed criteria to receive the discount, the
Exchange anticipates at least two Market Makers will satisfy the
criteria across the two tiers to receive the applicable discounts. The
Exchange does not believe the proposed discount will adversely impact
any Market Maker's pricing. Rather, should a Market Maker not meet the
proposed criteria, the Market Maker will merely not receive the
proposed discount.

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 intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change to amend the Bulk
BOE Port discount program offered to Market Makers will impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because Market Makers are
valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace
and incur costs that other market participants do not incur. As
described above, Market Makers have a number of obligations, including
quoting obligations and fees associated with appointments that other
market participants do not have. The Exchange does not believe the
proposed rule change does will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in
a highly competitive market. Trading Permit Holders have numerous
alternative venues that they may participate on and director their
order flow, including 15 other options exchanges and off-exchange
venues. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the
overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single
options exchange has more than 16% of the market share. Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of option
order flow. Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their
orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee
levels at those other venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' The fact that this market is
competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''. Accordingly, the

Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-C2-2022-012 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-C2-2022-012. 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-C2-2022-012 and should be submitted on
or before July 13, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13274 Filed 6-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17297-17299]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06161]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0004; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-01-AD;
Amendment 39-17390; AD 2013-05-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 500 series turbofan engines.
That AD currently requires a one-time inspection of the fuel tubes and
fuel tube clips for evidence of damage, wear, and fuel leakage. This AD
requires the same inspection, and adds additional repetitive
inspections. This AD was prompted by additional RR engineering
analysis. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine fuel leaks, which
could result in engine damage and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective April 5, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 5,
2013.
    We must receive any comments on this AD by May 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce
plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ;
phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; or email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 street address for
the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Green, 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>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On January 19, 2012, we issued AD 2012-02-04, Amendment 39-16927
(77 FR 6668, February 9, 2012), for all RR RB211 Trent 500 series
turbofan engines. That AD requires a one-time inspection of the fuel
tubes and fuel tube clips for evidence of damage, wear, and fuel
leakage. That AD resulted from reports of wear found between the
securing clips and the low-pressure (LP) fuel tube outer surface, which
reduces the fuel tube wall thickness, leading to fracture of the fuel
tube and consequent fuel leakage. We issued that AD to prevent engine
fuel leaks, which could result in engine damage and damage to the
airplane.

Actions Since AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2012-02-04, Amendment 39-16927 (77 FR 6668,
February 9, 2012), RR engineering determined that additional repetitive
inspections are required. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
has notified us of this unsafe condition and corrective actions in EASA
AD 2012-0237R1, dated November 14, 2012.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB)
RB.211-73-AG948, dated September 28, 2012. The NMSB describes
procedures for inspection and possible removal and replacement of the
LP fuel tubes, fuel

tube clips, and fuel-to-oil heat exchanger mounts.

FAA's Determination

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

AD Requirements

    This AD requires a one-time inspection, and additional repetitive
inspections of the fuel tubes, fuel tube clips, and fuel-to-oil heat
exchanger mounts for evidence of damage, wear, and fuel leakage.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    The FAA has found that notice and comment prior to adoption of this
rule is unnecessary because no engines are used on U.S. registered
airplanes. Therefore, we find that good cause exists for making this
amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
the docket number FAA-2012-0004 and directorate identifier 2012-NE-01-
AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments
on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects
of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will not affect any engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. Therefore, we estimate the cost of this AD
to U.S. operators to be $0.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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 part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (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)
2012-02-04, Amendment 39-16927 (77 FR 6668, February 9, 2012) and
adding the following new AD:

2013-05-18 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-17390; Docket No. FAA-2012-
0004; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-01-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 5, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2012-02-04, Amendment 39-16927 (77 FR
6668, February 9, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 553-61,
RB211 Trent 553A2-61, RB211 Trent 556-61, RB211 Trent 556A2-61,
RB211 Trent 556B-61, RB211 Trent 556B2-61, RB211 Trent 560-61, and
RB211 Trent 560A2-61 turbofan engines that have any of the following
fuel tube part numbers installed: FW57605, FW17689, FW57604,
FK30710, FW57578, or FK30713.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of wear found between the
securing clips and the low-pressure (LP) fuel tube outer surface,
which reduces the fuel tube wall thickness, leading to fracture of
the fuel tube and consequent fuel leakage. We are issuing this AD to
prevent engine fuel leaks, which could result in engine damage and
damage to the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Inspect the LP fuel system of engines that are on wing
within 1,600 flight hours after February 24, 2012, or before the
next flight after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later. Use the procedures in the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraph 3.A, of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB)
RB.211-73-AG948, dated September 28, 2012, to do the inspection.
    (2) For engines that are in shop for any reason, after the
effective date of this AD, inspect the LP fuel system. Use the
procedures in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B, of RR
Alert NMSB RB.211-73-AG948, dated September 28, 2012, to do the
inspection.
    (3) Thereafter, reinspect the LP fuel system within every 6,000
flight hours since last inspection. Reinspection may be on-wing or
in the shop. Use the procedures in the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraph 3.A or 3.B, as appropriate, of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-73-
AG948, dated September 28, 2012, to do the inspection.
    (4) If the LP fuel system fails the inspections required by this
AD, replace the part(s) that failed the inspection with hardware
eligible for installation.

(f) Definitions

    For the purpose of this AD, a shop visit is the induction of an
engine into the shop for maintenance or overhaul. The separation of
engine flanges solely for the purposes of transporting the engine
without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine
shop visit.

(g) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the initial inspection required by
paragraph (e)(1) of this AD if you performed the initial inspection
before the effective date of this AD using RR Alert NMSB RB.211-73-
AG948, dated September 28, 2012; RR NMSB RB.211-73-G723, dated
September 26, 2011, or Revision 1, dated January 31, 2012; or RR
Alert NMSB RB.211-73-AG797, dated October 26, 2011, or Revision 1,
dated January 31, 2012, or Revision 2, dated June 13, 2012.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCS
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact: Robert Green,
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>    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2012-0237R1,
dated November 14, 2012, for related information.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin
RB.211-73-AG948, dated September 28, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
England, DE248BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-
249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 7, 2013.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-06161 Filed 3-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P