[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77379-77384]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0366; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-024-AD;
Amendment 39-18038; AD 2014-24-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B,
747-200C, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747SR series airplanes. This
AD was prompted by a report of a cracked reveal made from a casting
found within a group of airplanes that should have machined reveals
made only from 6061 aluminum. This AD requires an inspection to
determine the material of the number 3 main entry door (MED) corner
reveal, repetitive inspections of certain reveals for cracking, and
corrective action if necessary. This AD also requires repetitive
inspections for cracking of 6061 machined aluminum one-piece corner
reveals, and replacement with 6061 machined aluminum two-piece corner
reveals if necessary, which terminates certain repetitive inspections.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the
lower forward corner reveal of the number 3 MEDs, which could lead to
the door escape slide departing the airplane when the door is opened
and the slide is deployed, and consequent injuries to passengers and
crew using the door escape slide during an emergency evacuation.

DATES: This AD is effective January 28, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 28,
2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. 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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0366; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6432; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2008-18-07, Amendment 39-15664 (73 FR 56960,
October 1, 2008). AD 2008-18-07 applies to certain The Boeing Company
Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-300,
747-400, 747-400D, and 747SR series airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on May 8, 2013 (78 FR 26720). The NPRM was
prompted by a report of a cracked reveal made from a casting found
within a group of airplanes that should have machined reveals made only
from 6061 aluminum. The NPRM proposed to retain all the requirements of
AD 2008-18-07. The NPRM also proposed to add, for certain airplanes, an
inspection to determine the material of the number 3 MED corner reveal,
repetitive inspections for cracking of 6061 machined aluminum one-piece
corner reveals, and replacement with 6061 machined aluminum two-piece
corner reveals if necessary, which terminates certain repetitive
inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking of the lower forward corner reveal of the number 3 MEDs, which
could lead to the door escape slide departing the airplane when the
door is opened and the slide is deployed, and consequent injuries to
passengers and crew using the door escape slide during an emergency
evacuation.

Related AD

    AD 2008-18-07, Amendment 39-15664 (73 FR 56960, October 1, 2008),
requires, for The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD,
747-200B, 747-200C, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747SR series
airplanes, an inspection to determine the material of a number 3 MED
corner reveal, repetitive inspections of certain reveals for cracking,
a detailed inspection of certain reveals for a sharp edge and cracking,
and corrective action if necessary. AD 2008-18-07 allows reveal
replacement as an option to certain inspections. AD 2008-18-07 was
prompted by reports of cracking and/or a sharp edge in the lower
forward corner reveal of the number 3 MEDs. AD 2008-18-07 refers to
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 1,
dated February 13, 2007, as the appropriate source of service
information for the required actions specified in that AD.

Explanation of Difference in Requirements Between the NPRM (78 FR
26720, May 8, 2013) and This Final Rule

    In the NPRM (78 FR 26720, May 8, 2013), the FAA proposed to
supersede AD 2008-18-07, Amendment 39-15664 (73 FR 56960, October 1,
2008), to reflect the changes in airplane groups specified in revised
service information, Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-
2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010. However, based on the
comments received on the NPRM, it became evident that it was difficult
to follow the numerous changes between Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 1, dated February 13, 2007, and Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated
December 22, 2010, as well as in following the corresponding actions
specified in the NPRM.
    There are only two significant changes in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010: (1)
Airplanes having line numbers 1038 through 1270 were moved from Group 2
to Group 4; and (2) for Group 4 airplanes, there are additional
actions. Therefore, for clarity, we have determined that a less
burdensome approach is to revise this final rule to include only the
new actions for Group 4 airplanes. Instead of superseding AD 2008-18-
07, Amendment 39-15664 (73 FR 56960, October 1, 2008), this final rule
is a stand-alone AD, applicable

only to Group 4 airplanes as identified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010,
except for those airplanes that have been converted to an all-cargo
configuration. Airplanes identified in the applicability of AD 2008-18-
07 are still required to continue to comply with the requirements of
that AD.
    Since this AD does not supersede AD 2008-18-07, Amendment 39-15664
(73 FR 56960, October 1, 2008), paragraphs (g) through (m), (p), (q),
and (v) of the NPRM (78 FR 26720, May 8, 2013) are not included in this
AD. Also, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have been
redesignated in this final rule, as listed in the following table:

                   Redesignated Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement in the proposed AD (78
      FR 26720, May 8, 2013)        Corresponding requirement in this AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 paragraph (t)                       paragraph (g).
 paragraph (s)                       paragraph (h).
 paragraph (r)                       paragraph (i).
 paragraph (u)                       paragraph (j).
 paragraph (n)                       paragraph (k).
 paragraph (o)                       paragraph (l).
 paragraph (w)                       paragraph (n).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also revised paragraphs (n) and (o) of the proposed AD (78
FR 26720, May 8, 2013) (redesignated as paragraphs (k) and (l) of this
AD) that referred to ``AD 2008-18-07.'' In paragraphs (k) and (l) of
this AD, we have referred to the current service information, Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated
December 22, 2010, instead of AD 2008-18-07, Amendment 39-15664 (73 FR
56960, October 1, 2008), for the locations where cast 356 aluminum
reveals and machined 6061 aluminum reveals may not be installed.
Paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD state that the parts installation
prohibition ends the parts installation prohibitions specified in
paragraphs (n) and (o) of AD 2008-18-07, Amendment 39-15664 (73 FR
56960, October 1, 2008).

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (78
FR 26720, May 8, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Clarify the Cause of the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing asked that we clarify the cause of the unsafe condition
identified in paragraph (e) of the proposed AD (78 FR 26720, May 8,
2013). Boeing stated that the report that prompted the proposed
supersedure of AD 2008-18-07, Amendment 39-15664 (73 FR 56960, October
1, 2008), involved a cracked casting on an airplane that should have
machined reveals made from only 6061 aluminum.
    We agree that the unsafe condition should be clarified for the
reason provided. We have changed the wording for the unsafe condition
identified in the SUMMARY section and in paragraph (e) of this final
rule to specify that ``This new AD was prompted by a report of a
cracked reveal made from a casting found within a group of airplanes
that should have machined reveals made only from 6061 aluminum.'' We
have also clarified the Discussion section of this final rule to
specify that the NPRM (78 FR 26720, May 8, 2013) was prompted by that
report.

Request To Revise Wording in the NPRM (78 FR 26720, May 8, 2013)

    Boeing requested numerous changes related to the wording in
paragraphs (g), (h), (j), (u) and (v) of the NPRM (78 FR 26720, May 8,
2013).
    We acknowledge the commenter's concerns for clarity. However, as
stated previously, this AD does not supersede AD 2008-18-07, Amendment
39-15664 (73 FR 56960, October 1, 2008). The changes requested by the
commenter referred to the ``retained'' paragraphs of AD 2008-18-07,
which are not restated in this AD; therefore, no action is necessary in
this regard.

Request To Revise Service Information

    Delta Airlines (Delta) requested that Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010, be
revised prior to the issuance of this final rule. Delta stated that
paragraphs (r) and (s) of the proposed AD (78 FR 26720, May 8, 2013)
(redesignated as paragraphs (i) and (h) of this AD) are clear and
understandable; however, when Delta reviewed the required actions in
Table 1 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460,
Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010, Delta was not able to clearly
determine which conditions were linked with which actions. Delta stated
that Boeing also agrees that the compliance tables of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22,
2010, should be clarified for operators' use.
    We disagree with delaying this AD to wait for revised service
information in light of the urgency of the identified unsafe condition.
As Delta stated, the tables contained in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010, are
complicated and could be misinterpreted; however, we have addressed
this concern by specifying the requirements and clarifying the
appropriate actions in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD. When the
service information is revised, we might consider approving it as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for these actions. We have not
changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Address an Error in Service Information

    Delta stated that, in the last row under the ``Action'' column of
Table 8 of paragraph 1.E., Compliance, of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010,
there is a reference to ``Table 9,'' which does not exist. Delta stated
that the correct paragraph reference is ``Paragraph 3.B., Part 2,'' as
confirmed in Delta's correspondence with Boeing. Delta requested that
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2,
dated December 22, 2010, be revised prior to the issuance of this final
rule, or that we address this error in this final rule, or, at a
minimum, address this error in a global AMOC.
    We partially agree. We disagree to wait for revised service
information in light of the urgency of the identified unsafe condition.
However, we agree that the reference to Table 9 in paragraph 1.E.,
Compliance, of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460,
Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010, is incorrect. To address this
error, we have added a new paragraph (m) in this AD to state that,
where the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010,
specify a post-repair detailed inspection in accordance with Table 9,
this AD requires a detailed inspection in accordance with paragraph
3.B., Part 2, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22,
2010. When revised service information becomes available, we might
consider approving it as an AMOC for the actions required by this AD.

Request To Revise the Proposed AD To Include an Inspection for a Sharp
Edge for Group 4 Airplanes

    Boeing asked that we revise paragraph (r)(2) of the proposed AD (78
FR 26720, May 8, 2013) (redesignated as paragraph (i)(2) of this AD) to
include an inspection for a potential sharp edge

common to the reveal. Boeing stated that this inspection might be the
first inspection performed and, therefore, it is possible that a sharp
edge could be found on a machined reveal.
    We do not agree to revise the wording of paragraph (i)(2) of this
AD (designated as paragraph (r)(2) of the proposed AD (78 FR 26720, May
8, 2013)). Paragraph (i)(2) of this AD requires, for previously
inspected Group 4 airplanes, a material-type inspection to determine if
the corner reveal is a casting, and, if a casting is found, continued
inspections or replacement of the reveal with a two-piece machined
reveal. Castings do not have sharp edges. Group 4 airplanes that were
not previously inspected or changed, that have corner reveals found not
to be castings, require inspections for a sharp edge in paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request for Alternative Corrective Action for Group 4 Airplanes

    Boeing asked that we revise paragraph (t)(1) of the proposed AD (78
FR 26720, May 8, 2013) (redesignated as paragraph (g)(1) of this AD) to
allow a weld repair for a cracked reveal made from a casting on Group 4
airplanes. Boeing stated that this would allow operators to repair the
casting if they cannot obtain a machined reveal.
    We agree that paragraph (g)(1) of this AD should allow a weld
repair as an alternative corrective action since this was a permitted
action for Group 2 airplanes in AD 2008-18-07, Amendment 39-15664 (73
FR 56960, October 1, 2008). This alternative corrective action for
Group 4 airplanes was contained in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010, but was
inadvertently omitted in the proposed AD (78 FR 26720, May 8, 2013).
Paragraph (t) of the NPRM is redesignated as paragraph (g) in this AD
and we have revised paragraph (g)(1) by adding new paragraphs (g)(1)(i)
and (g)(1)(ii) in order to allow a weld repair as an option to
replacing the reveal if any cracking is found. In paragraph (g)(1)(ii)
of this AD we specify repairing in accordance with Part 4 of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated
December 22, 2010. The inspection for cracking specified in paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD is to be repeated thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 3,000 flight cycles until a new two-piece reveal is installed in
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD.

Request To Reference Service Bulletin Information Notices or Revise
Service Bulletin

    Delta requested that Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice
747-53-2460 IN 03, dated March 24, 2011, be referenced as an approved
deviation from Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460,
Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010. Alternatively, Boeing requested
that we delay the issuance of this final rule until Boeing revises
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2,
dated December 22, 2010, to incorporate the changes outlined in that
information notice.
    We partially agree. We agree that Boeing Service Bulletin
Information Notice 747-53-2460 IN 03, dated March 24, 2011, contains
acceptable information for the inspection and modification mandated in
this AD. However, we disagree with delaying issuance of this final rule
until revised service information becomes available. We have determined
that to delay this final rule would be inappropriate, because the
inspections of the number 3 MED reveals and corrective actions are
needed to reduce the risk of the identified unsafe condition addressed
in this AD. The information that Boeing Service Bulletin Information
Notice 747-53-2460 IN 03, dated March 24, 2011, clarifies is for
reference only and is not required to address the identified unsafe
condition. When revised service information becomes available, we might
consider approving it as an AMOC for the actions required by this AD.
We have made no change to this AD in this regard.

Explanation of Additional Changes Made to This Final Rule

    We redesignated paragraphs (r) and (r)(2) of the NPRM (78 FR 26720,
May 8, 2013) as paragraphs (i) and (i)(2) of this final rule and
removed the phrase ``Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-
2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010,'' from the initial
compliance times listed in those paragraphs. In the proposed AD, we
stated that the compliance times could be calculated from the most
recent work performed in accordance with Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 1, dated February 13, 2007; or
Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010; but this would introduce an error
in paragraph (i) of this AD since it would require operators to
complete the inspections required by Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010, for a second
time, if the reference to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010, remained.
    Paragraph (i)(1) of this final rule specifies inspections for
cracking of any corner reveal found to be a one-piece or two-piece
casting. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460,
Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010, provides inspection procedures for
one-piece corner reveals, but not for the two-piece corner reveals.
Because the inspection procedures for the two-piece corner reveals were
not included in the service information, operators would have been
unable to comply with the proposed requirement to inspect a two-piece
corner reveal, and in this case would have been required to obtain
approval of an alternative method of compliance for this inspection. We
have therefore revised paragraph (i)(1) of this AD to provide the
appropriate procedures for both scenarios.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 26720, May 8, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 26720, May 8, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 166 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material type inspection and      14 work-hours x $85              $0   $1,190 per           $197,540 per
 inspection for cracks.            per hour = $1,190                     inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                   per inspection
                                   cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition
actions that would be required based on the results of the inspections.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Action                          Labor cost             Parts cost         Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corner reveal removal and replacement..  17 work-hours x $85 per             $9,525   $10,970 per inspection
                                          hour = $1,445 per                            cycle.
                                          inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-24-05 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18038; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0366; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-024-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 28, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    Certain requirements of this AD terminate certain requirements
of AD 2008-18-07, Amendment 39-15664 (73 FR 56960, October 1, 2008).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and
747SR series airplanes, certificated in any category, identified as
Group 4 airplanes in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-
53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010, except airplanes that
have been converted to an all-cargo configuration. Also, the
requirements of this AD are applicable when a converted airplane
operating in an all-cargo configuration is converted back to a
passenger or passenger/cargo configuration.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a cracked reveal made from a
casting found within a group of airplanes that should only have
machined reveals made from 6061 aluminum. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of the lower forward corner
reveal of the number 3 main entry doors (MEDs), which could lead to
the door escape slide departing the airplane when the door is opened
and the slide is deployed, and consequent injuries to passengers and
crew using the door escape slide during an emergency evacuation.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Actions for Group 4 Airplanes: Not Previously Inspected or Changed

    For Group 4 airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010,
that have not been previously inspected or changed in accordance
with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision
1, dated February 13, 2007: Before the accumulation of 1,500 total
flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a material type
inspection to determine if the lower forward corner reveal is made
from 6061 machined aluminum plate or 356 aluminum casting, in
accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated
December 22, 2010. Doing the inspection specified in this paragraph
terminates the inspections required by paragraph (j) of AD 2008-18-
07, Amendment 38-15664 (73 FR 56960, October 1, 2008), for that
airplane only.
    (1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, any corner reveal is found to be a casting: Before the
accumulation of 7,000 total flight cycles; within 2,000 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD; or within 3,000 flight
cycles after the most recent inspection of the

number 3 MED corner reveal was done in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53A2378, Revision 4, dated June 10, 2010;
whichever occurs later; do a detailed inspection for cracking of the
corner reveal, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-
2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010. Repeat the inspection for
cracking thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles
until a new two-piece reveal is installed in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD. If any cracking is
found, do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii)
of this AD.
    (i) Replace the cast reveal with a new 6061 machined aluminum
two-piece corner reveal, before further flight, in accordance with
Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December
22, 2010.
    (ii) Repair all cracking, before further flight, in accordance
with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December
22, 2010.
    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, a corner reveal is found that is not a casting: Before further
flight, do a detailed inspection for a sharp edge, in accordance
with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December
22, 2010; and do a detailed inspection for cracking of the corner
reveal, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision
2, dated December 22, 2010. Repeat the inspection for cracking
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles until the
corner reveal is replaced with a 6061 machined aluminum two-piece
corner reveal in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (j)
of this AD.
    (i) If any sharp edge is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, before further flight, rework the
corner reveal, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-
2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010.
    (ii) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, before further flight, replace the
corner reveal with a 6061 machined aluminum two-piece corner reveal,
in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2,
dated December 22, 2010.

(h) Actions for Previously Inspected Group 4 Airplanes: Corner Reveal
Replaced With One-Piece Reveal

    For Group 4 airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010,
that have been inspected previously in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 1, dated February 13, 2007,
and on which the corner reveal has been replaced with a one-piece
reveal: Within 10,000 flight cycles after the date the reveal was
replaced with a one-piece corner reveal, do a detailed inspection
for cracking of the corner reveal, in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010. Repeat
the inspection for cracking thereafter at intervals not to exceed
6,000 flight cycles until the corner reveal is replaced with a 6061
machined aluminum two-piece corner reveal, in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD. If any cracking is found
during any inspection required by this paragraph, before further
flight, replace the one-piece corner reveal with a 6061 machined
aluminum two-piece corner reveal, in accordance with Part 3 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010.

(i) Actions for Previously Inspected Group 4 Airplanes: Corner Reveal
Not Replaced, or Replaced With Two-Piece Reveal

    For Group 4 airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010,
that have been inspected previously in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 1, dated February 13, 2007; and on
which the corner reveal either has not been replaced, or has been
replaced with a two-piece reveal that was made by reworking an
existing one-piece reveal: Before the accumulation of 7,000 total
flight cycles; within 3,000 flight cycles after the most recent
inspection or rework done in accordance with Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 1, dated February
13, 2007; or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD; whichever occurs later; do a material type inspection to
determine if the corner reveal is a casting, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010. Doing the
inspection specified in this paragraph terminates the inspections
required by paragraph (j) of AD 2008-18-07, Amendment 39-15664 (73
FR 56960, October 1, 2008), for these airplanes.
    (1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this
AD, any corner reveal is found to be a casting: Before further
flight, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the corner reveal.
For one-piece reveals, inspect in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010; for two-
piece reveals, inspect using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles
until a new two-piece reveal is installed in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this AD. If any cracking is
found, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii)
of this AD.
    (i) Replace the cast reveal with a new 6061 machined aluminum
two-piece corner reveal, before further flight, in accordance with
Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December
22, 2010.
    (ii) Repair all cracking, before further flight, in accordance
with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December
22, 2010.
    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this
AD, any one-piece corner reveal is found to be installed and is not
a casting: Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles; or
within 6,000 flight cycles after the most recent inspection done in
accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-
2460, Revision 1, dated February 13, 2007; whichever occurs later;
do a detailed inspection of the corner reveal for cracking, in
accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated
December 22, 2010. Repeat the inspection for cracking thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles until the corner reveal
is replaced with a 6061 machined aluminum two-piece corner reveal.
If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this
paragraph, before further flight, replace the corner reveal with a
6061 machined aluminum two-piece corner reveal, in accordance with
Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated December
22, 2010.

(j) Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections

    Installation of a 6061 machined aluminum two-piece corner reveal
in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2,
dated December 22, 2010, terminates the repetitive inspections
required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition: (Cast 356 Aluminum) Reveals

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
door lower forward corner reveal made of cast 356 aluminum on any
airplane at a location specified in the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision
2, dated December 22, 2010. This parts installation prohibition ends
the parts installation prohibition specified in paragraph (n) of AD
2008-18-07, Amendment 39-15664 (73 FR 56960, October 1, 2008), for
the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD.

(l) Parts Installation Limitation: (Machined 6061 Aluminum) Reveals

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
door lower forward corner reveal made of machined 6061 aluminum on
any airplane at a location specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-
2460, Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010, unless it has been
confirmed/reworked to be without a sharp edge, in accordance with
Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing

Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2, dated
December 22, 2010. This parts installation prohibition ends the
parts installation prohibition specified in paragraph (o) of AD
2008-18-07, Amendment 39-15664 (73 FR 56960, October 1, 2008), for
the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD.

(m) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460,
Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010, specifies a post-repair
detailed inspection in accordance with Table 9, this AD requires a
detailed inspection in accordance with paragraph 3.B., Part 2, of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460, Revision 2,
dated December 22, 2010.

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (o) 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 required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(o) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(p) 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 Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2460,
Revision 2, dated December 22, 2010.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 19, 2014.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-30132 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2000]
[FR Doc No: 2011-356]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0903; Airspace Docket No. 10-AWP-16]

Modification of Class E Airspace; Show Low, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will amend Class E airspace at Show Low, AZ, to
accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at
Show Low Regional Airport. This will improve the safety and management
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, March 10, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On October 22, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend controlled airspace at Show Low,
AZ (75 FR 65255). Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal
to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by adding additional Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface, at Show Low Regional Airport, to accommodate
IFR aircraft executing new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach
procedures at the airport. This action is necessary for the safety and
management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A,
subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
additional controlled airspace at Show Low Regional Airport, Show Low,
AZ.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AWP AZ E5 Show Low, AZ [Modified]

Show Low Regional Airport, AZ
    (Lat. 34[deg]15'56'' N., long. 110[deg]00'20'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of the Show Low Regional Airport and within
3 miles each side of the 038[deg] bearing of the Show Low Regional
Airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10 miles northeast of
the airport, and within 2.1 miles each side of the 085[deg] bearing
of the Show Low Regional Airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius
to 7.9 miles east of the airport; that airspace extending upward
from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 34[deg]35'00'' N., long. 109[deg]51'00'' W.; to
lat. 34[deg]14'00'' N., long. 109[deg]22'00'' W.; to lat.
33[deg]49'00'' N., long. 110[deg]36'00'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]10'00''
N., long. 110[deg]37'00'' W.; thence to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 5, 2011.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-356 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 82 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23844-23846]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09916]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74791; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-040]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Submission of Financial Reports

April 23, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 15, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding the submission
of financial reports. The text of the proposed rule change is provided
below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in
brackets.
* * * * *

Rule 15.5. Financial Reports

    Each Trading Permit Holder shall submit to the Exchange answers
to financial questionnaires, reports of income and expenses and
additional financial information in the type, form, manner and time
prescribed by the Exchange.

. . . Interpretations and Policies:

.01 [Reserved.

.02 ]Trading Permit Holders [which]who are net capital computing
must file electronically with the Exchange[`s Department of
Financial and Sales Practice Compliance] any required monthly and
quarterly FOCUS Reports utilizing the [WinJammer \TM\ ]system[,] or
[such other ]software [as required]prescribed by the Exchange, which
will be announced via Regulatory Circular.

.0[3]2 Trading Permit Holders who file an annual FOCUS Report and
who are not net capital computing [have the option to ]must file
electronically with the Exchange the annual FOCUS Report and
Schedule 1 [by sending a hard copy to the Exchange or by filing
electronically to]utilizing the system or software prescribed by the
Exchange, which will be announced via Regulatory Circular.
* * * * *

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 II.A., II.B., and II.C. below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding the submission
of financial reports. CBOE Rule 15.5 requires each Trading Permit
Holder to submit to the Exchange answers to financial questionnaires,
reports of income and expenses, and additional financial information in
the type, form, manner, and time prescribed by the Exchange. With
respect to FOCUS Reports \5\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``FOCUS Report'' is the Financial and Operational Combined
Uniform Single Report that broker-dealers file with their designated
examining authority (``DEA'') pursuant to Rule 17a-5 under the Act.
The FOCUS Report filing requirements for Trading Permit Holders for
whom CBOE is the DEA are set forth in CBOE Rule 15.5,
Interpretations and Policies .02 and .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 15.5, Interpretation and Policy .02 requires Trading
Permit Holders which are net capital computing to file electronically
with the Exchange's Department of Financial and Sales Practice
Compliance any required monthly and quarterly FOCUS Reports utilizing
the WinJammer\TM\ system,\6\ or such other software as required by the
Exchange; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The WinJammer system is an internet-based system that
Trading Permit Holders can log into and then input relevant FOCUS
Report information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 15.5, Interpretation and Policy .03 requires Trading
Permit Holders who file an annual FOCUS Report and who are not net
capital computing to, at their option, file the annual FOCUS Report and
Schedule 1 by sending a hard copy to the Exchange or by filing
electronically to the Exchange.
    The Exchange recently entered into a Regulatory Services Agreement
(the ``RSA'') with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''). FINRA provides its members and the members of exchanges
for which it provides regulatory services access to its Firm Gateway
system, which is a portal that provides consolidated access to various
FINRA regulatory systems, including its financial reporting systems.\7\
One of these systems is the e-FOCUS system, through which members may
submit their FOCUS Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Prior to the RSA, all Trading Permit Holders were able to
submit Forms BD, U4, and U5 filings through WebCRD, which is
accessible through the Firm Gateway, and Trading Permit Holders who
are also FINRA members had access to the Firm Gateway in their
capacity as FINRA members. Beginning on February 20, 2015, FINRA
provided Trading Permit Holders who are not FINRA members with
access to the Firm Gateway Request Manager, which streamlines the
execution document request and production process and creates an
audit trail of requests and productions. Beginning on March 16,
2015, certain Firm Gateway financial filing and notification
functions became available to Trading Permit Holders that are
required to submit the financial information to the Exchange. As of
that date, Trading Permit Holders may submit the information on a
voluntary basis through the Firm Gateway system (or they may still
submit directly to the Exchange). The Exchange will announce via
Regulatory Circular the date on which it will require Trading Permit
Holders to submit this financial information through Firm Gateway.
FINRA has not yet made available to Trading Permit Holders that are
required to file FOCUS Reports with the Exchange access to the Firm
Gateway eFOCUS system. The Exchange will announce via Regulatory
Circular the date on which it will begin to require the submission
of FOCUS Reports through that system. See Regulatory Circular RG15-
026. Any changes to the form and manner of other financial filings
required to be submitted by Trading Permit Holders to the Exchange
in light of the RSA with FINRA will also be announced via Regulatory
Circular pursuant to Rule 15.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the RSA, FINRA is making the Firm Gateway
available to Trading Permit Holders for the submission of various
regulatory filings, including certain financial filings, such as FOCUS
Reports. As a result, CBOE intends to require Trading Permit Holders
that are required to submit FOCUS Reports to the Exchange to submit
their FOCUS Reports through the Firm Gateway system, including Trading
Permit Holders that are not net capital computing. Therefore, CBOE is
proposing to amend Rule 15.5, Interpretations .02 and .03 to provide
that FOCUS Reports must be filed electronically with the Exchange
utilizing the system or software prescribed by the Exchange.\8\ CBOE

believes that requiring Trading Permit Holders to submit FOCUS Reports
in this manner will streamline the processing of these reports.
Additionally, CBOE believes the submission of these reports directly
into the system of the Exchange's regulatory services provider, into
which Trading Permit Holders will submit other financial reports, will
provide for a more efficient and effective process for the collection,
tracking, consolidation, and review of Trading Permit Holders'
financial reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ CBOE does not believe it is necessary to name the system in
the Rules, as the Rules already provide CBOE with the flexibility to
use a system or software other than WinJammer and do not include the
manner of filing for other financial reports. See Rule 15.5,
Interpretation and Policy .02; see also, e.g. BATS Exchange, Inc.
Rule 24.3; International Securities Exchange, LLC Rule 1402; and
Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (which rules do not
specify an electronic system for the submission of any financial
reports).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many Trading Permit Holders are FINRA members and thus already have
access to and submit reports via the Firm Gateway system. Additionally,
the majority of Trading Permit Holders that currently submit FOCUS
Reports to the Exchange do so electronically, and CBOE understands that
the FINRA e-FOCUS system operates in a similar manner to the WinJammer
system, as they are both web-based systems into which Trading Permit
Holders sign in and input the relevant information. Thus, the Exchange
does not anticipate that Trading Permit Holders who currently submit
FOCUS Reports through WinJammer will experience any significant
systemic or operational burden in order to submit FOCUS Reports via the
Firm Gateway system.
    The proposed rule change also makes technical, nonsubstantive
changes to:
     Conform language in current Rule 15.5, Interpretations and
Policies .02 and .03;
     renumber Interpretations and Policies .02 and .03 to .01
and .02, respectively, as current .01 is only reserved; and
     specify in the Rules that CBOE will announce the
applicable system or software by Regulatory Circular (as is specified
in Rule 15.5 for other financial reports).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirement in Section
6(b)(5) of the Act that the rules of an exchange not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed change will
create a more efficient and effective process for the Exchange's
regulatory services provider, FINRA, to collect and review Trading
Permit Holders' FOCUS Reports required to be filed with the Exchange,
which fosters cooperation and coordination with FINRA in its
performance of regulatory services with respect to Trading Permit
Holders and CBOE's markets. By enhancing the process through which the
Exchange (through its regulatory services provider) receives FOCUS
Reports and allowing consolidation with other financial reports for
electronic review, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
promote just and equitable principles of trade and ultimately protect
investors. Additionally, upon implementation, all Trading Permit
Holders that are required to submit FOCUS Reports to the Exchange will
be required to submit them in the same (and thus nondiscriminatory)
electronic manner. Regulation of Trading Permits Holders continues to
be performed by electronic processes, and thus the Exchange believes it
is appropriate to require electronic submission of these reports so
that they may be incorporated into these processes. By maintaining the
flexibility within the rules for the Exchange to prescribe by
Regulatory Circular which system or software will be used for the
submission of FOCUS Reports, the Exchange believes it will be able to
adjust, as necessary, its standards of financial reporting in a timely
manner, particularly to the extent that new or enhanced software or
systems are developed for this purpose.\11\ As discussed above, CBOE's
and other exchanges' rules maintain this flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To the extent CBOE changes the FOCUS Report submission
software or system in the future, CBOE represents it will provide
Trading Permit Holders with sufficient notice to comply with any
such changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
requires all Trading Permit Holders that are required to submit FOCUS
Reports to submit those reports in the same electronic manner. Many
Trading Permit Holders are also FINRA members and thus already have
access to the Firm Gateway system. The majority of Trading Permit
Holders that are required to submit FOCUS Reports to the Exchange
currently do so electronically in a manner similar to what will be
required when submission through the Firm Gateway system becomes
mandatory, thus resulting in minimal additional burden. While some
Trading Permit Holders will no longer be able submit hard copies of
FOCUS Reports, the Exchange believes that any burden imposed by the
proposed rule change is minimal and outweighed by the regulatory
efficiencies that may be gained through electronic submission directly
to the Exchange's regulatory services provider, who will be able to
more efficiently and effectively review FOCUS Reports together with
other financial reports in its system. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intermarket
competition, as the proposed rule change is for regulatory purposes to
enhance the process for Trading Permit Holders' submission and the
Exchange's collection, tracking, consolidation, and review (through its
regulatory services provider) of FOCUS Reports.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 \13\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii)
for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-040 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-040. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-040 and
should be submitted on or before May 20, 2015.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09916 Filed 4-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 30232]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12732]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation Safety Approval
Performance Criteria

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notification of criteria used to evaluate the Zero Gravity
Corporation (Zero Gravity) safety approval application.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA issued Zero Gravity a safety approval, subject to the
provisions of Title 51 U.S.C Subtitle V, ch. 509, and the orders, rules
and regulations issued under it. Pursuant to 14 CFR 414.35, this Notice
publishes the criteria that were used to evaluate the safety approval
application.
    Background: Zero Gravity applied for, and received, a safety
approval for its capability to provide a reduced gravity environment
using a Boeing 727 aircraft. The performance criteria for this safety
approval are applicant developed per 14 CFR 414.19 (a)(4). Zero Gravity
is capable of replicating three reduced gravity levels associated with
suborbital space flight. The reduced gravity levels are:

--0.00 g  0.05 g for 17 continuous seconds.
--0.16 g  0.05 g for 20 continuous seconds.
--0.38 g  0.05 g for 20 continuous seconds.

    Criteria Used To Evaluate Safety Approval Application: The reduced
gravity environment provided by Zero Gravity was evaluated by the FAA
as a component of a flight crew qualification and training process. The
evaluation included the FAA's assessment of Zero Gravity's ability to
accurately replicate the specified reduced gravity levels.
    Zero-G submitted the following data to show how they were in
compliance with the criteria:

--Parabolic Aircraft Acceleration Measurement System (PAAMS) power and
calibration procedures,
--Parabolic Aircraft Acceleration Flight Data, and
--Gravity Level Reports.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For questions about the performance
criteria, you may contact Randy Maday, Licensing and Evaluation
Division (AST-200), FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation
(AST), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 331, Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2011.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2011-12732 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="07/07/2008 11:55:44 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register: October 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 54622-54623]
[DOCID:fr22oc09-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Applications for Modification of Special Permit

AGENCY: Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This
notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because
the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications,
they are not repeated here. Requests for modification of special
permits (e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging
design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described
in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the
suffix ``M'' denote a modification request. These applications have
been separated from the new application for special permits to
facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 6, 2009.
    Address Comments to: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://
regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2009.
Delmer F. Billings,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Regulation(s)       Nature of special
    Application No.           Docket No.             Applicant            affected            permit thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Modification Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14298-M...............  ......................  Air Products and     49 CFR 180.209(a)   To modify the special
                                                 Chemicals, Inc.,     and (b).            permit to authorize
                                                 Allentown, PA.                           more cycle fillings of
                                                                                each cylinder (tube)
                                                                                from 300 to 600 in a
                                                                                10 year period.
14523-M...............  ......................  Pacific Bio-         49 CFR 173.196(b);  To modify the special
                                                 Material             173.1               permit to authorize
                                                 Management, Inc.,    96(e)(2)(ii).       the transportation of
                                                 Fresno, CA.                              material in other than
                                                                                the specific make and
                                                                                model of the freezers
                                                                                described in the
                                                                                special permit and to
                                                                                change the advance
                                                                                notice time from 1
                                                                                month to 48-72 hours.
14894-M...............  ......................  Department of        49 CFR 172.10 1     To reissue the special
                                                 Defense, Scott Air   Table Column (9B).  permit originally
                                                 Force Base, IL.                          issued on an emergency
                                                                                basis to the one-time,
                                                                                one-way transportation
                                                                                in commerce of certain
                                                                                explosives that are
                                                                                forbidden for
                                                                                transportation by
                                                                                cargo only aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-25279 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25548-25550]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10930]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0324]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Coast Guard Use of Force Training Exercises, San
Pablo Bay, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will establish a safety zone in San Pablo Bay
for Coast Guard Use of Force Training exercises. This safety zone will
be established to ensure the safety of the public and participating
crews from potential hazards associated with fast-moving Coast Guard
small boats and/or helicopters taking part in the exercise.
Unauthorized persons or vessels will be prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission
of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective June 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2009-0324 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0324 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Lieutenant Simone Mausz, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On November 6, 2009, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Coast Guard Use of Force Training
Exercises, San Pablo Bay, CA in the Federal Register (74 FR 214). We
received four comments on the proposed rule from the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), Audubon California,
Beth Huning, and San Francisco Joint Venture. No public meetings were
requested or held as part of this rulemaking.

Basis and Purpose

    The U.S. Coast Guard will establish a safety zone in the navigable
waters of the San Pablo Bay, California that will apply to the
navigable waters encompassing an area beginning at position
38[deg]01'44'' N, 122[deg]27'06'' W; 38[deg]04'36'' N, 122[deg]22'06''
W; 38[deg]00'35'' N, 122[deg]26'07'' W; 38[deg]03'00'' N,
122[deg]20'20'' W (NAD 83) and back to the starting point. U.S. Coast
Guard Maritime Safety and Security Team (MSST) San Francisco, U.S.
Coast Guard Air Station San Francisco, and various Coast Guard small
boat stations will be conducting Use of Force training runs in the
waters of San Pablo Bay. The exercises are designed to train and test
Coast Guard personnel in the decision-making processes necessary to
safely and effectively employ Use of Force from a small boat or
helicopter during Homeland Security operations. The training will
generally involve the use of several Coast Guard small boats and/or a
helicopter to intercept fast-moving, evasive target vessels on the
water. The small boat and helicopter crews will fire weapons at the
target vessels using blank ammunition and catch bags to ensure that
cartridges and other debris do not fall to the water. This safety zone
is issued to establish a restricted area in San Pablo Bay around the
training site.

Background

    The CG's primary missions include homeland security, search and
rescue, and drug and environmental enforcement, and it is in the public
interest for CG personnel to be trained and ready to serve the public
at all times. Among the homeland security missions is port security
training to develop the tactical qualifications and expertise necessary
to fulfill this mission requirement. The small boats that conduct port
security operations throughout San Francisco Bay are unable to conduct
such training offshore due to conditions that often exceed the assets'
operational parameters, frequent visibility restrictions, and
unsuitability for the offshore environment. The San Pablo Bay safety
zone provides an ideal location for the Coast Guard to conduct Use of
Force training since it is at least 1.5 miles away from shore as well
as a safe distance from shipping lanes, wildlife refuges, water trails
and access points.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The CG conducted Use of Force training at this very same location
in San Pablo Bay on average twice a month in 2009. The training went on
as planned, without incidents or interference with public access,
except for one occasion where the CG rescheduled one of its training
sessions to avoid potential interference with a San Francisco Flyway
Festival bird-watching group.
    On July 29, 2009, the CG sent an email to various potentially
interested parties including BCDC informing those parties of our
intention to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination under NEPA for the establishment of a safety
zone for Use of Force training in San Pablo Bay. In January 2010, in a
letter to the CG, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission raised concerns about the possible ``effect on both
motorized and non-motorized recreational boat traffic,

and on wildlife habitat that San Francisco Bay supports, especially the
habitat of both migratory and non-migratory waterfowl as well as that
of the wide variety of fish species'' and requested the CG prepare a
Consistency Determination or Negative Determination. In December and
January, the CG received comments from the San Francisco Bay Joint
Venture and Audubon California that addressed possible disturbances to
waterfowl and referenced a study by the USGS confirming foraging areas
in San Pablo Bay are used by diving ducks. In the Consistency
Determination, the USGS was contacted and determined that the proposed
area is too deep to affect any shorebirds. Additionally, a response
from FWS reveals that the proposed safety zone is not expected to have
any impacts on any of the endangered species in the San Pablo Bay that
are under the jurisdiction of the FWS.
    In December 2010, the CG completed and sent the Consistency
Determination to BCDC that determined the proposed safety zone and AUF
training in San Pablo Bay is consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies of BCDC's San Francisco Bay
Plan. BCDC concurred with this determination in December 2010 and
determined it was ``complete'' and acceptable.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This 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 Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule 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. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule 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.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and

have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. The rule involves establishing a
safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.1184 to read as follows:

Sec.  165-1184  Safety Zone; Coast Guard Use of Force Training
Exercises, San Pablo Bay, CA

    (a) Location. This safety zone will apply to the navigable waters
in the San Pablo Bay, and will encompass an area beginning at position
38[deg]01'44'' N, 122[deg]27'06'' W; 38[deg]04'36'' N, 122[deg]22'06''
W; 38[deg]00'35'' N, 122[deg]26'07'' W; 38[deg]03'00'' N,
122[deg]20'20'' W (NAD 83) and back to the starting point.
    (b) Enforcement. The Coast Guard will notify the public via a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners prior to the activation of this safety
zone. The safety zone will be activated on average two times per month,
but could be activated up to six times per month. It will be in effect
for approximately three hours from 9 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. If the
exercises conclude prior to the scheduled termination time, the Coast
Guard will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that
fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Persons and vessels may also
contact the Coast Guard to determine the status of the safety zone on
VHF-16 or the 24-hour Command Center via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in Sec.  165.23,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Persons and
vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-16 or
the 24-hour Command Center via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 31, 2011.
Cynthia L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2011-10930 Filed 5-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 4076]
[DOCID:fr22ja09-97]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Union Pacific Railroad Company

[Docket Number FRA-2008-0165]

    The Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) seeks a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of of 49 CFR Part 232, Brake System
Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and
Equipment. Specifically, UP is requesting a waiver of 49 CFR 232.213,
Extended Haul Trains, to the extent necessary to allow UP to operate
certain trains up to 1,800 miles between Class I brake inspections. The
current regulation restricts extended haul train movements to 1,500
miles.
    UP states that if this request is granted, they would utilize it to
operate approximately 50 such trains each day. Most of these trains are
coal and intermodal trains, along with some automotive trains. UP
commits to complying with all other provisions of Sec.  232.213 using
qualified UP mechanical inspectors. UP also states that if this waiver
is approved, no UP employee in active service at points where train
inspections will no longer be performed, due to this waiver, will be
furloughed as a result of the waiver. UP claims that they have provided
this commitment in writing to the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen.
However, UP retains the right to relocate such employees if necessary.
    UP believes this request is justified because they experience low
defect rates on extended haul trains that are currently operating in
coal, intermodal, and automotive service. Of the 15,911 inspections
performed on extended haul trains during a three year period, only 0.49
percent of the inspections revealed FRA defects. UP's expanded use of
wayside detection technologies has allowed UP to further improve safety
by enabling it to identify defects not readily identified by train
inspections. Of further note, UP points out that Canadian rail
operators have been permitted to operate certain trains from origin to
destination within Canada, without undergoing intermediate brake test
and train inspections. While this allows Canadian operators to operate
some trains distances of more than 2,000 miles without undergoing
intermediate inspections, the change has not resulted in adverse safety
effects.
    UP claims that granting this request will give UP the flexibility
it needs to concentrate its train inspections at terminals with
greatest resources, which are best equipped to perform inspections in a
safe expeditious manner. It would also lead to improved operating
efficiencies and increased train velocities. The resulting decrease in
en route delays would have the added benefit of allowing train crews to
complete their journeys in shorter amounts of time and reduce fuel
consumption. UP estimates that if this waiver is granted, they will
save approximately 350,000 gallons of fuel annually through the
elimination of certain inspections at Elko, NV, Pocatello, ID, and Salt
Lake City, UT.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2008-0165) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
      Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.--5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and 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 published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 14, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-1218 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P