mikeojai:
I must apologize for the incorrect response I posted yesterday. I printed out your drawing yesterday. It was on my desk and this morning and I inadvertently noticed the lower frame on the right had .003 and not .030 position tolerance. This changes my response. Unfortunately I am not CAD literate to create a sketch for you of a revise drawing, so words will have to suffice.
I still consider that since the upper FCFs for the two .653 holes are the same, the two are a considered a pattern. However, because the lower frame has a smaller tolerance I assume this is attempting to tighten the relationship between the holes (features) in the pattern. Given this assumption I consider this an application for Composite Position Tolerance per Y14.5 para 7.5.1. With Composite the FCF shows ONE position symbol followed by an upper and lower FCF. The upper frame called the Pattern Relation Tol Zone or PLTZF, would be the same as that on the drawing. However the lower frame, which by definition controls ONLY relationship between the holes (features) in the pattern - called FRTZF - would only repeat the Datum D and not have secondary Datum F.
Like I communicated before, this pattern of two holes would be become as single datum feature as per Y14.5-2009 para 4.12.4. A single Datum Feature Symbol would be attached directly to the top or bottom horizontal edge of the Composite FCF. In order to not confuse this "new" datum with other datums on the drawing I will call it Datum H for this discussion. Since the pattern of two holes are now Datum H, Datums E and F would not be necessary and deleted. Datums E-F in the FCF for the 1.936 hole would be replaced with a single letter H.
The "cartoon" inspection fixture and the inspection procedure I described earlier would still apply.
Might I ask why the MMC material condition modifier is not specified for this design. RFS (the default by Rule #2) is rarely necessary from a function and fitup design standpoint. And it adds lots of complication and cost to verification?