[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9797-9801]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04614]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0020; Product Identifier 2016-NE-33-AD; Amendment
39-19209; AD 2018-04-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Honeywell International Inc. AS907 series turbofan engines. This AD was
prompted by seven loss-of-thrust-control events attributed to water
intrusion of the engine electronic control unit (ECU). This AD requires
applying sealant to identified areas of the ECU and requires inserting
a copy of certain airplane operating procedures into the applicable
flight manuals. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 12, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 12,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ
85034-2802; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal/!ut/. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0020.

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-2017-
0020; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Operations, 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: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Honeywell
International Inc. AS907 series turbofan engines. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on August 2, 2017 (82 FR 35914). The NPRM was
prompted by seven loss-of-thrust-control events attributed to water
intrusion of the engine ECU with one event having two in-flight
shutdowns (IFSDs) during the same flight. All loss-of-thrust-control
events occurred with engines within three years in service. The NPRM
proposed to require applying sealant to identified areas of the ECU and
to require inserting a copy of certain airplane operating procedures
into the applicable flight manuals. We are issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

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

Request To Change Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service
Information

    Honeywell requested changing the recommended compliance time stated
in the ``Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service
Information'' paragraph. Honeywell stated the compliance time started
with the issuance of its initial Service Bulletin (SB) AS907-76-9021,
Revision 0, dated May 13, 2016.
    We partially agree. We agree it would have been appropriate to
reference the correct compliance time in this discussion within the
NPRM. We do not agree to revise this final rule because this discussion
does not exist in the final rule. Further explanation in this final
rule is not necessary. We did not change this AD.

Request To Remove Interim Action

    Honeywell requested that we remove interim action from this AD.
Honeywell reasoned that the redesigned ECU, which is equivalent to an
ECU sealed with external sealant, is outside the scope of this AD.
    We agree since Honeywell does not plan to retrofit or repair older
ECUs. The older ECUs will be sealed with external sealant for the life
of the ECU. We removed the Interim Action paragraph from this AD.

Request To Revise Number of Affected Engines

    Honeywell requested that the number of engines affected be changed.
Honeywell stated the current number of affected engines worldwide is
680 engines installed in airplanes.
    We partially agree. We agree with Honeywell's current accounting of
680 affected engines worldwide. We disagree with changing the number of
affected engines in this AD because our requirement is to estimate the
number of engines installed on U.S. airplanes. Therefore, we are
maintaining the estimate made in the NPRM that 477 engines are
installed on airplanes in the U.S. Registry.

Request To Clarify Applicability

    Honeywell requested that we remove references to ECU Mod Record
numbers from this AD. Honeywell reasoned that the affected ECUs Mod
Record numbers are only advanced for production sealed ECUs; therefore,
ECU Mod Record numbers are not a consistent indication of ECU sealing
service bulletin compliance.
    We agree. Mod Record numbers are not a good indicator of ECU
sealing. We revised the applicability of this AD to refer to the engine
model, serial numbers, and listed ECU part numbers (P/Ns) that are not
sealed in the areas identified in Figures 1 through 13 of Honeywell SB
AS907-76-9021, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017. This change revises
the method for operators to determine applicability but does not expand
the scope of this AD since the affected populations of ECUs are the
same in this final rule as in the NPRM.

Request To Change the Unsafe Condition

    Honeywell requested we revise the unsafe condition statement with
updated field event information.
    We agree because the unsafe condition in paragraph (e) of the NPRM
did not include four prior similar loss-of-thrust-control field events
noted in the Discussion section. We changed the unsafe condition
paragraph to refer to seven low-time loss-of-thrust control events
attributed to water intrusion of the engine ECU.

Request To Add Inspection for Application of Sealant

    Honeywell requested that we revise the compliance section of this
AD by requiring that applicable ECU P/Ns be inspected for application
of sealant. The requested change would clarify the method of
determining whether ECU sealing had been complied with.
    We partially agree. As noted in our response, we have clarified the
Applicability section of this AD to refer only to affected ECUs that
are not sealed in the areas identified in Figures 1 through 13 of
Honeywell SB AS907-76-9021, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017. We
therefore, do not need to add an inspection for the application of
sealant to the compliance section of this AD.

Request To Eliminate Re-Application of ECU Sealant

    Honeywell requested that we remove references to re-application of
ECU sealant from this final rule. Honeywell commented that this step
will be accomplished through its continued airworthiness documents.
    We agree that normal maintenance instructions make it unnecessary
to re-apply the ECU sealant. We revised this final rule by removing the
references to re-application of the ECU sealant.

Request To Change Compliance

    NetJets questioned whether paragraphs (g)(4), (g)(5), and (g)(6)
were intended to be subparagraphs of paragraph (g)(3). They justified
the request by saying that the crew should only be alerted to Cyan
warning per the AFM (Airplane Flight Manual) Emergency Procedures.
    We agree. We redesignated paragraphs (g)(4), (g)(5), and (g)(6) in
the NPRM as paragraphs (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), and (g)(2)(iii) in this
AD to clarify the intent of the Cyan warning.

Request To Change Credit for Previous Actions

    NetJets requested that Honeywell SB AS907-76-9021, Revision 1,
dated April 20, 2017, be added to the Credit for Previous Actions
paragraph. They indicated that an AMOC (alternative method of
compliance) might be needed to take credit for this previous action if
Revision 1 of the SB was complied with prior to the effective date of
the AD.
    We disagree because paragraph (f) already states that compliance is
necessary unless already done. We did not change this AD.

Revision to Installation Prohibition

    We revised the Installation Prohibition, paragraph (h) of this AD,
to reflect changes to the applicability and to paragraph designations
discussed previously.

Miscellaneous Comments

    An individual commenter asked who is responsible for the
enforcement of this final rule.
    The FAA, Flight Standards Division, is responsible for enforcing
regulatory violations arising from noncompliance with ADs. We did not
change this AD.
    An individual commenter suggested that the FAA is not taking into
account the costs associated with improving the standards of the
turbofan engines.
    We have taken into account the costs associated with this
rulemaking as indicated within the Costs of Compliance section of the
NPRM. We did not change this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     [Agr]re consistent with the intent that was proposed in
the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Honeywell SB AS907-76-9021, Revision 1, dated April 20,
2017. The SB describes procedures for applying sealant to identified
areas of the ECU to prevent water from entering the ECU on AS907 series
engines. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Information

    We also reviewed Honeywell Operating Information Letter (OIL)
OIAS907-0001R00, dated March 14, 2017. The OIL provides instructions
for interrogating the onboard Maintenance Data Computer to clear engine
electronic fault conditions.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this ECU sealing affects 477 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inserting copy of Figure 1, into the    2 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $170         $81,090
 AFM.                                    hour = $170.
Application of sealant for ECUs in      5.5 work-hours x $85 per              50          517.50      246,847.50
 airplane.                               hour = $467.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do a visual inspection of the
ECUs. We estimate that 20 engines will need this inspection.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fault Check of Maintenance Data Computer......  5 work-hours x $85 per hour =                 $0            $425
                                                 $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we

have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

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):

2018-04-13 Honeywell International Inc.: Amendment 39-19209; Docket
No. FAA-2017-0020; Product Identifier 2016-NE-33-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 12, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Honeywell International Inc. AS907-1-1A
model turbofan engines with engine electronic control unit (ECU),
part numbers (P/Ns) 2119576-1001 through -1011, installed; AS907-2-
1A model turbofan engines with ECU, P/N 2119576-1102, installed;
AS907-2-1G model turbofan engines with ECU, P/Ns 2119576-3002 and -
3102, installed; and AS907-3-1E model turbofan engines with ECU, P/
Ns 2119576-4102 and -4103, installed with applicable engine serial
numbers (S/Ns) in Table 3 of Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) AS907-
76-9021, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017 that are not sealed in the
areas identified in Figures 1 through 13 of Honeywell SB AS907-76-
9021, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7600, Engine
Controls Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by seven low-time loss-of-thrust-control
events attributed to water intrusion of the engine ECU. We are
issuing this AD to prevent a dual engine power loss. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of thrust control,
damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For applicable engines and ECUs, within 200 hours time in
service, or 9 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first, do the following:
    (i) If no sealant has been applied to the ECU in the areas
identified in Figures 1 through 13 of Honeywell SB AS907-76-9021,
Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017, apply sealant to the ECU using the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C., of Honeywell SB AS907-
76-9021, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (2) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, for all
airplanes that have an affected engine installed with an affected
ECU not in compliance with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, insert a
copy of Figure 1, 2, or 3 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable
to your airplane, into the Emergency Procedures Section of the
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) and perform the following steps as
necessary:
    (i) If a cyan warning is announced, before next flight, check
the current fault messages in the Maintenance Data Computer (MDC)/
Onboard Messaging System (OMS) for any of the following:

    (A) FADEC ECU A
    (B) FADEC ECU B
    (C) THROTTLE LEVER 1A
    (D) THROTTLE LEVER 1B
    (E) THROTTLE RIGGING 1A
    (F) THROTTLE RIGGING 1B

    (ii) Replace the ECU if any of the fault messages listed in
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD are in the MDC OMS. Refer to
Honeywell Operating Information Letter OIAS907-0001R00, dated March
14, 2017, for guidance on returning and replacing the ECU.
    (iii) Continued flight is permitted if none of the fault
messages listed in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD are in the MDC
OMS, or if paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD was accomplished.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08MR18.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08MR18.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08MR18.002

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(h) Installation Prohibition

    (i) Do not install an ECU if any of the fault messages listed in
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD are in the MDC OMS.
    (ii) Do not install an ECU that has a P/N listed in paragraph
(c) of this AD unless it was sealed as specified in paragraph
(g)(1)(i) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action

    Remove from the AFM, Figure 1, 2, or 3 to paragraph (g) of this
AD, after paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD is accomplished.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the actions required by paragraph
(g)(1)(i) of this AD, if you performed those actions before the
effective date of this AD using Honeywell SB AS907-76-9021, Revision
0, dated May 13, 2016.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
    (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.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa,
Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount
Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email: [email protected].

(m) 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) Honeywell Service Bulletin AS907-76-9021, Revision 1, dated
April 20, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Honeywell service information identified in this AD,
contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix,
AZ 85034-2802; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal/!ut/.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 23, 2018.
Karen M. Grant,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-04614 Filed 3-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 14436-14437]
[DOCID:fr25mr10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket Nos. EC10-52-000; ES10-29-000; EL10-48-000]

Ameren Corporation, Illinois Power Company, Central Illinois
Light Company, Central Illinois Public Service Company, Ameren Energy
Resources Company, LLC, AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company;
Notice of Filing

March 18, 2010.
    Take notice that on March 15, 2010, Ameren Corporation (Ameren),
together with and on behalf of its directly or indirectly owned
subsidiaries, filed pursuant to section 203(a) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA) and Part 33 of the Regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), 16 U.S.C. 824b(a) (2009); 18 CFR Part 33
(2009), section 305(a) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 825d(a) (2009), and
section 204 of the FPA and Part 34 of the Commission's Regulations, 16
U.S.C. 824c (2009); 18 CFR Part 34 (2009), an application requesting
the Commission to issue an order approving: (1) Its internal corporate
reorganization (Reorganization Transaction) without modification,
condition, or a trial-type hearing; (2) a declaratory order that the
Reorganization Transaction is not barred

under FPA section 305(a); (3) the limited securities issuances and
assumption of liabilities; and (4) all other approvals and waivers as
necessary for final Commission approval of the Reorganization
Transaction by June 17, 2010.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 5, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6572 Filed 3-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 59242]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. OST-2012-0031]

Extension of a Previously Approved Collection; Public Charters

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), this notice announces that the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) will forward the Information
Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for renewal of currently approved Public Charters, 14
CFR Part 380. Earlier, a Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period was published April 9, 2012 (77 FR 21144). The agency did not
receive any comments to its previous notice.

DATES: Comments on this notice should be received by October 26, 2012:
attention OMB/OST Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Reather Flemmings, Office of the
Secretary, Office of International Aviation, Department of
Transportation, Special Authorities Division-X46,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., W-86-445, Washington, DC, 20590 and Torlanda
Archer, Office of the Secretary, OIA,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment: Comments should be sent to OMB at the address that appears
above and should identify the associated OMB Approval Number 2106-0005
and Docket No. OST-2012-0031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2106-0005.
    Title: Public Charters, 14 CFR Part 380.
    Form Numbers: 4532, 4533, 4534 4535.
    Type of Review: Extension of a Previously Approved Collection.
    Respondents: Private Sector: Air carriers; tour operators; the
general public (including groups and individuals, corporations and
Universities or Colleges, etc.).
    Number of Respondents: 245.
    Number of Responses: 1782.
    Total Annual Burden: 891.
    Needs and Uses: 14 CFR part 380 establishes the regulations of the
Department's terms and conditions governing Public Charter operators to
conduct air transportation using direct air carriers. Public Charter
operators arrange transportation for groups of people on chartered
aircraft. This arrangement is less expensive for the travelers than
individually buying a ticket. Part 380 exempts charter operators from
certain provisions of the U.S. code in order that they may provide this
service. A primary goal of Part 380 is to seek protection for the
consumer. Accordingly, the rule stipulates that the charter operator
must file evidence (a prospectus--consisting of OST Forms 4532, 4533,
4534 and 4535) with the Department for each charter program certifying
that it has entered into a binding contract with a direct air carrier
to provide air transportation and that it has also entered into
agreements with Department-approved financial institutions for the
protection of charter participants' funds. The prospectus must be
approved by the Department prior to the operator's advertising, selling
or operating the charter. If the prospectus information were not
collected it would be extremely difficult to assure compliance with
agency rules and to assure that public security and other consumer
protection requirements were in place for the traveling public. The
information collected is available for public inspection (unless the
respondent specifically requests confidential treatment). Part 380 does
not provide any assurances of confidentiality.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 19, 2012.
Patricia Lawton,
Department of Transportation PRA Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-23555 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55707-55708]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24332]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2883-009]

Notice of Scoping Meetings and Environmental Site Review and
Soliciting Scoping Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2883-009.
    c. Date filed: May 30, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Aquenergy Systems, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Fries Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the New River in the Town of Fries, Grayson County,
Virginia. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located
within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Beth E. Harris, P.E., Southeast Regional
Manager, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., 11 Anderson Street,
Piedmont, SC 29673, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 100, Email:
[email protected], or Mr. Kevin Webb, Hydro Licensing Manager, Enel
Green Power North America, Inc., 100 Brickstone Square, Suite 300,
Andover, MA 01810, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email: [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Brandi Sangunett, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: January 7, 2019.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket number P-2883-009.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that

may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The existing Fries Hydroelectric Project (Fries Project)
consists of: (1) A 41-foot-high, 610-foot-long rock masonry dam with a
500-foot-long spillway; (2) an impoundment with an 88-acre surface area
at the normal pool elevation (spillway crest elevation) of 2,188.27
feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29); (3) an
approximately 750-foot-long, 110-foot-wide intake canal with four 15.5-
foot-high, 6.5-foot-wide headgates; (4) a canal spillway consisting of
10 stoplog bays totaling 47 feet in width; (5) two 12.5-foot-high, 5.0-
foot-wide canal gates; (6) a 28-foot-long, 10.5-square-foot concrete
penstock to supply water to the unit 4 powerhouse; (7) a steel
powerhouse that contains a single vertical Kaplan turbine with a
capacity of 2.1 megawatts (MW) that discharges into a 180-foot-long,
75-foot-wide, 12-foot-deep tailrace; (8) a masonry powerhouse that
contains one vertical and two horizontal Francis turbines with a total
capacity of 3.0 MW that discharges into a 180-foot-long, 120-foot-wide,
12-foot-deep tailrace; (9) a 500-foot-long, 450-foot-wide bypassed
reach that extends from the toe of the dam to the confluence with the
tailraces; (10) a 567-foot-long, 13.2-kilovolt (kV) transmission line
that runs from the steel powerhouse to the interconnection point with
the grid; (11) a 130-foot-long transmission line that connects the
masonry powerhouse to a 5,000 kilovolt-amp step-up transformer and an
additional 323-foot-long, 13.2-kV transmission line leading from the
transformer to the interconnection point; and (12) appurtenant
facilities.
    Aquenergy is proposing two modifications to the existing Fries
Project boundary. First, the project boundary upstream of the canal
intake would be expanded to include all of Aquenergy's existing
property on the north bank of the New River out to the right-of-way for
Route 94 and upstream of the dam to encompass the impoundment access
area. Second, Aquenergy's existing powerhouse access road easement
between Route 94 and the masonry powerhouse would be included in the
project boundary. As proposed, the project boundary would encompass
5.34 acres of land.
    The Fries Project is operated in a run-of-river mode. For the
period 2003 through 2016, the average annual generation at the Fries
Project was 26,150 megawatt-hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Scoping Process: The Commission intends to prepare an
environmental assessment (EA) on the project in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-
specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action.

Scoping Meetings

    In addition to written comments solicited by this SD1, we will hold
two public scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project. An evening
meeting will focus on receiving input from the public, and a daytime
meeting will focus on concerns of the resource agencies, NGO's, and
Indian tribes. We invite all interested agencies, Indian tribes, NGOs,
and individuals to attend one or both of the meetings to assist us in
identifying the scope of environmental issues that should be analyzed
in the EA. The times and locations of the meetings are as follows:

Public Scoping Meeting

    Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2018.
    Time: 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
    Place: Fries Community Center.
    Address: 316 W. Main Street, Fries, VA 24330.

Agency Scoping Meeting

    Date: Thursday, December 6, 2018.
    Time: 9 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
    Place: Fries Community Center.
    Address: 316 W. Main Street, Fries, VA 24330.
    Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to
be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the
Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the
scoping meeting or may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link (see item m above).

Environmental Site Review

    The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct a project Environmental
Site Review beginning at 2 p.m. on December 5, 2018. All interested
individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend. All
participants should meet at the Fries Hydropower Project, 616 W. Main
Street, Fries, VA 24330. All participants are responsible for their own
transportation to the site. Anyone with questions about the
Environmental Site Review should contact Mr. Kevin Webb of Aquenergy
Systems, LLC at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected] Those
individuals planning to participate in the Environmental Site Review
should notify Mr. Webb of their intent, no later than November 30,
2018.

Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EA; (2)
solicit from the meeting participants all available information,
especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage
statements from experts and the public on issues that should be
analyzed in the EA, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in
support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource
issues to be addressed in the EA; and (5) identify those issues that
require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not
require a detailed analysis.

Procedures

    The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the
formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.
    Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to
assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed
in the EA.

    Dated: November 1, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-24332 Filed 11-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


an opportunity to prepare more effectively for the termination of the
prohibition.  The transition will give airlines some ability to promote
alternative distribution and booking channels and thereby promote
innovation.

Terminating the rest of the existing rules over time will promote
efficiency and reduce costs for firms involved in airline distribution
and the airlines themselves.

The final regulatory assessment concludes that the costs of readopting
the other rules would exceed their benefits.

Regulatory Flexibility Statement

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., was
enacted by Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily
and disproportionately burdened by government regulations.  The act
requires agencies to publish a final regulatory flexibility analysis for
regulations that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.  Our notice of proposed rulemaking, which
assumed that the relevant small entities included smaller U.S. airlines
and travel agencies, included an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis.  That notice also set forth the reasons for our rule proposals
and their objectives and legal basis.  This is the regulatory
flexibility analysis for our final rule.

Our existing CRS rules primarily regulate the systems’ operations,
although they do impose some obligations on airlines participating in
the systems and indirectly regulate travel agencies by prohibiting
certain types of conduct in the travel agencies’ relationships with
systems and their airline owners.  Our notice of proposed rulemaking
proposed to maintain most of the existing rules and to strengthen
certain parts of those rules, primarily the rules governing the
systems’ contractual relationships with travel agency subscribers.  We
also proposed, however, to eliminate the rule barring discriminatory
booking fees and the mandatory participation rule.  We additionally
asked for comment on whether we should terminate more of the rules.

If adopted, the proposals would not have subjected small entities to
direct regulation, except for certain obligations imposed on
participating airlines, but would have affected the systems’
relationships with airlines and travel agencies.  The notice included an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which relied in part on the
factual, policy, and legal analysis set forth in the remainder of the
notice, as allowed by 5 U.S.C. 605(a).  We tentatively concluded that
our proposed rules would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business entities, especially travel
agencies and air carriers, including regional air carriers.  The
proposals would have given travel agencies a greater ability to use
multiple systems and booking channels.  To the extent that airlines
could operate more efficiently and reduce their costs, the rules would
also affect all small entities that purchase airline tickets, since
airline fares may be somewhat lower than they would otherwise be,
although the difference may be small.  We expected that our proposals to
prohibit or restrict productivity pricing could increase CRS costs for
some travel agencies, but that the affected travel agencies would be the
larger agencies.  67 FR 69423-69424.

We invited comments on our initial regulatory flexibility analysis.  67
FR 69424.  We additionally gave interested persons ample opportunity to
file comments and reply comments on our rule proposals and to
participate in a public hearing.  Members of the Congressional
committees on small business, travel agency commenters, and the NFIB
Legal Foundation assert that our initial regulatory flexibility analysis
was inadequate and that we must give interested small entities a better
opportunity to comment on the proposals and their potential impact on
small businesses.

At the final rule stage, we have decided not to adopt most of the
existing rules and not to adopt our proposals to strengthen the rules on
subscriber contracts.  We are not readopting the existing rules
regulating the travel agencies’ relationships with the systems and
airlines owning or marketing a system, and we are not adopting the
proposals to strengthen the existing rules on matters such as the terms
of the systems’ contracts with subscribers.  Our rules will no longer
regulate the travel agencies’ relationships with the systems and any
airlines owning a system.  Our final rule will still affect the
airlines’ relationships with the systems, because it will prohibit
display bias and bar systems from imposing certain types of contract
requirements on participating airlines.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to publish a final regulatory
flexibility analysis that considers such matters as the impact of a
final rule on small entities if the rule will have “a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”  5 U.S.C.
605(b).  The rule may have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of airlines that are small entities, because almost
400 U.S. passenger airlines come within the definition of a small
entity, according to the Small Business Administration.  That impact
will be beneficial, as the final rule will prohibit certain system
practices that would likely harm the business position of small
airlines.  In view of the concerns expressed by commenters about the
impact of any rule on travel agencies that are small entities, we are
also discussing the final rule’s impact on travel agencies, even
though the impact is indirect.  That impact should also be beneficial.
As shown by the following discussion, we have carefully considered how
the final rule may affect travel agencies and other small entities.

	1.	The Need for, and the Objectives of, the Final Rule

For a six-month period, our final rule will maintain the existing rules
against display bias and will prohibit each system from requiring
airlines to accept parity clauses and clauses requiring the airline to
provide all of its publicly-available fares to the system as a condition
to any participation in the system.  These rules are necessary for
preventing display bias, which could mislead travel agents using a
system and their customers, and preventing contract practices that could
reduce competition for the systems and deny airlines discretion on how
to market their services through the systems and alternative booking
channels.  The rules’ objectives are to prevent consumer deception,
promote airline competition, and encourage market forces to discipline
the systems’ prices and terms for airline participation.  These
objectives will promote airline competition and lower costs for airline
distribution, which would lead to lower airfares and more efficient
airline operations.

	2.	Issues Raised by the Comments, and Our Assessment of Those Issues

Several commenters contend that our rule proposals would cause
significant harm to small entities, primarily small travel agencies, and
that our initial regulatory flexibility analysis was inadequate.  See
June 9, 2003, Letter from Senators Snowe and Kerry; March 19, 2003,
Letter from the Democratic Members of the House Committee on Small
Business; Comments of the Small Business Administration Office of
Advocacy; NFIB Legal Foundation Comments; ASTA Comments at 51-54.  These
commenters allege that the rule proposals, if adopted, would deny travel
agencies the tools they need for serving their customers, eliminate
incentive payments to travel agencies from the systems (and thus make
many travel agencies unprofitable), and limit flexibility for travel
agency contracts for CRS services.  These allegations involve our
proposals to eliminate the mandatory participation rule, to bar
productivity pricing, and to strengthen the existing rules regulating
subscriber contracts, and our decision that we would not propose rules
requiring airlines to make all publicly-available fares, such as
webfares, saleable through each of the systems.

As a result of these comments as well as comments submitted by other
persons and the on-going changes in the airline distribution and CRS
businesses, we have decided not to adopt the proposed changes to the
rules on subscriber contracts, including the proposed restrictions on
productivity pricing, and to eliminate the existing rules regulating the
contracts between the systems and subscribers.  We have further decided
to make final our decision to eliminate the mandatory participation rule
and our decision not to adopt rules requiring each airline to make its
webfares or other fares available through all distribution channels
rather than just those channels selected by the airline.

We have discussed above in detail the basis for each of our decisions on
the significant rulemaking issues.  We will summarize that discussion in
this regulatory flexibility statement.

In general, we have decided to terminate most of the existing rules,
because the record does not show a need for continued CRS regulation in
most areas.  Our primary goal in adopting CRS regulations has always
been the prevention of system practices that would prejudice airline
competition.  The systems are no longer subject to control by U.S.
airlines, and the record does not show that any non-airline system is
likely to operate in a manner that would distort airline competition,
except insofar as the systems appear willing to sell display bias.  We
are maintaining the rules prohibiting display bias, but not the other
rules that were originally designed to keep systems affiliated with
airlines from prejudicing the competitive position of rival airlines.
The record shows that, in other respects, the current rules
unnecessarily limit the business discretion of systems and airlines, are
no longer necessary in light of market developments, or are unlikely to
be effective and enforceable.

Secondly, our statutory authority does not give us the authority to
generally regulate the relationships between the systems, on the one
hand, and airlines and travel agencies, on the other hand.  As a result
of Congress’ decision 25 years ago to deregulate the airline industry,
we have no overall authority to regulate the airlines’ distribution
practices or to adopt rules requiring changes in airline practices in
order to promote fairer competition.  Our authority for CRS rules,
section 411, authorizes us to prevent unfair and deceptive practices and
unfair methods of competition.  We adopted the existing CRS rules under
our authority to prohibit unfair methods of competition, except insofar
as we have adopted rules prohibiting display bias, which we also based
on our authority to prohibit deceptive practices.  We may adopt the rule
proposals discussed in the comments on our initial regulatory
flexibility analysis only if we find those rules are necessary to
prevent unfair methods of competition.  As explained in our discussion
above of the individual rule proposals, the record would not support a
finding that several of the rule proposals advanced by travel agency
commenters are necessary to prevent unfair methods of competition.

Against this background, we will discuss the final rules and alternative
rule proposals of concern to the travel agencies and small airlines,
beginning with the proposals on subscriber contracts, followed by the
proposals to readopt the mandatory participation rule and to adopt a
rule requiring airlines to make all publicly-available fares saleable
through all systems, the rules governing the relationships between
airlines and the systems, and the rule prohibiting display bias.

	(a)	Regulation of Subscriber Contracts

Our existing rules impose several requirements on subscriber contracts
in order to give travel agencies a greater ability to switch systems and
to use multiple systems and booking channels.  The rules bar systems
from requiring contracts with a term of more than five years (and
require a system offering a five-year contract to a travel agency to
also offer a three-year contract), from imposing minimum use
requirements and parity clauses, from denying a subscriber the ability
to use third-party hardware and software, and from blocking a subscriber
from accessing any system or database from the subscriber’s equipment
if the equipment is not owned by the system.  We proposed to maintain
these rules, and we requested comment on whether we should shorten the
maximum term for subscriber contracts (for example, by adopting the
European Union’s rule) and should restrict the types of damages
recoverable by a system if a subscriber breached its contract.  We also
proposed to limit the systems’ productivity pricing arrangements.  67
FR 69404-69409.  We made these proposals, because we tentatively found,
on the basis of the comments submitted in response to our advance
notices of proposed rulemaking, that the systems’ subscriber contracts
substantially restricted the travel agencies’ ability to switch
systems or use multiple systems and booking channels.  For example,
while the rules require systems to offer travel agencies a three-year
contract whenever a five-year contract is offered, the three-year
contracts offered by systems then were sufficiently less attractive that
most travel agencies until recent years were accepting five-year
contracts.  67 FR 69405.  We recognized, however, that the systems
competed vigorously for subscribers.  67 FR 69371, 69405.

The comments submitted in response to our notice of proposed rulemaking
allege that the systems’ recent contracts now give travel agencies
more flexibility.  See, e.g., Large Agency Coalition Comments at 7-14;
ASTA Comments at 14-15; Sabre Comments at 151-153 and Fahy Declaration
at 14-15.  For example, the average subscriber contract has a term of no
more than three years.  The systems’ current productivity pricing
arrangements similarly allow subscribers to make a significant number of
bookings outside the system without incurring a penalty.  ASTA suggests
that the major reasons for the travel agencies’ insistence on more
flexible contracts are their need to use the Internet and their need to
respond to changing technology.  ASTA Comments at 14-15.  The systems’
competition for subscribers requires them to meet travel agency demands
for more flexibility.  As a result, travel agencies, large and small,
are obtaining contracts with terms that are more liberal than required
by our existing rules.

The commenters additionally allege that any rules designed to encourage
travel agencies to use multiple systems rather than one system will
inevitably be ineffective.  Travel agencies are unwilling to make
substantial use of more than one system because using multiple systems
is inefficient for travel agencies.  See, e.g., ASTA Comments at 3-4.

The record thus suggests that the systems’ current contracts do not
prevent travel agencies from using alternative booking channels, like
the Internet, when travel agents wish to use them, that any efforts by
us to encourage travel agents to use multiple systems will be
unavailing, and that the systems’ competition for travel agency
subscribers will continue to enable travel agencies to obtain flexible
contracts if we did not readopt the existing rules.  We have therefore
decided that we should neither readopt our existing subscriber contract
rules nor adopt any of the rule proposals on which we invited comment.
Our decision not to adopt restrictions on the systems’ productivity
pricing arrangements is, of course, consistent with the position taken
by almost all travel agency commenters.

Our decision not to readopt the existing rules on subscriber contracts
is consistent with the position taken by some commenters that the rules
should not limit the terms of contracts between systems and travel
agencies, although some travel agency commenters support the readoption
of some restrictions on subscriber contracts.  Our decision to allow
those rules to expire will not harm travel agencies, because the systems
are already offering travel agencies better terms than those required by
our rules.

	(b)	Access to Complete Information on Fares and Services

The other major issue raised by the commenters on our initial regulatory
flexibility statement was the complaint that our decision on which rules
should be proposed would allegedly deny travel agencies the tools that
they need to serve their customers.  This complaint stems from our
proposed elimination of the mandatory participation rule and our
tentative decision that we should not adopt a rule requiring airlines to
make all publicly-available fares, or at least all webfares, saleable
through each of the systems.  The comments have not persuaded us that
either tentative decision was erroneous.  Ending the mandatory
participation rule, and not requiring airlines to make all fares
available through all distribution channels, will promote competition in
the airline distribution business without causing significant harm to
travel agents.

The travel agencies’ interest in these rule issues arises because of
their desire to be able to book webfares through their systems.  If
travel agents can only book webfares through an airline’s own website,
or through on-line agencies that have access to webfares, travel agents
will be unable to operate as efficiently.  Travel agents want access to
webfares, even though webfares make up a small share of all ticket
sales, because webfares can be significantly lower than other fares.

While maintaining the mandatory participation rule and the adoption of a
rule requiring each airline to provide each system with access to all of
its publicly-available fares could benefit travel agencies, the record
in this proceeding would not justify the imposition of such requirements
on airlines, as explained next, starting with the mandatory
participation rule.

	(i)	The Mandatory Participation Rule

The mandatory participation rule covers airlines with a significant
ownership interest in a system.  As a result of Worldspan’s sale by
its three U.S. airline owners, no system now has any significant U.S.
airline ownership, although Amadeus, the system with the smallest U.S.
market share, is primarily owned by three foreign airlines, Air France,
Iberia, and Lufthansa.  Those three airlines are currently the only
airlines subject to the mandatory participation requirement.  Orbitz’
five U.S. airline owners would become subject to the requirement if
Orbitz began operating as a system, but Orbitz represents that it will
not enter the CRS business if its owners would then become subject to
the mandatory participation rule.  Transcript at 78-79.

We have concluded that maintaining the mandatory participation rule
would unreasonably restrict the ability of airlines to negotiate with
the systems for better terms for participation.  An airline with a
system ownership interest should be able to choose whether and at what
level it will participate in competing systems, and its ability to
choose will give it some bargaining leverage that may enable it to
obtain better terms for participation.  See also Justice Department
Reply Comments at 23.

Furthermore, the U.S. airlines’ divestiture of their CRS ownership
interests has eliminated the original basis for the rule.  We originally
adopted the rule as a result of evidence suggesting that some airlines
with a CRS ownership interest lowered their participation level in
competing systems, or denied those systems access to fares and
functionality desired by travel agents, in order to give their
affiliated system a competitive advantage.  56 FR 12608.  When we
adopted the rule, competition between the systems, each then controlled
by one or more airlines, represented another avenue for airline
competition.  That is no longer the case, because no system now has a
U.S. airline owner.  While the systems continue to have marketing
relationships with their former owners, those ties have become
relatively unimportant in determining an airline’s decisions on the
extent of its participation in rival systems.  American Comments at 30;
Large Agency Coalition Comments at 14; Large Agency Coalition Reply
Comments at 16-17.

More importantly, eliminating the mandatory participation rule should
not harm travel agencies, even if the rule covered several U.S. airlines
rather than only three European airlines.  Recent experience suggests
that the elimination of the mandatory participation rule will not lead
to radical changes in CRS participation levels by the airlines that have
had a system ownership interest.  Each system has some market power over
most airlines, because the airlines’ distribution needs require most
airlines to participate in each system.  All of the major network
airlines participate in each system at the highest level, and they do so
in order to promote the sale of their services by the travel agents
using each system.  Transcript at 140; Amadeus Reply Comments at 24.
United has chosen to participate at the highest level even though it has
not been subject to the mandatory participation rule for some time.  In
addition, each of Orbitz’ owner airlines has agreed with Sabre and
Galileo to make its webfares saleable through the system in return for
reduced booking fees and other commitments, even though Orbitz’
ability to sell webfares had been a major selling point for that on-line
travel agency and some airlines complain that the booking fee reductions
were not as large as they should have been.  The willingness of these
airlines to sell their webfares through Sabre and Galileo supports our
expectation that the elimination of the mandatory participation rule
will not lead airlines to deny the systems reasonable access to their
fares and services.

Even if the record suggested, however, that the elimination of the
mandatory participation rule would harm travel agencies by leading to
major changes in participation levels, we would likely be unable to
readopt the rule.  Section 411 authorizes us to prohibit practices that
violate the antitrust laws or antitrust principles, as discussed above,
but does not empower us to impose requirements on airlines in order to
increase the efficiency of travel agency operations or give travel
agencies a better opportunity to compete against other distribution
channels.  For purposes of our regulatory flexibility analysis, we are
not obligated to treat rule proposals that could not be adopted under
our statutory authority as alternatives that must be considered in the
final regulatory flexibility analysis.  Greater Dallas Home Care
Alliance v. United States, 36 F. Supp. 3d 765, 769-770 (N.D. Tex. 1999).
  Cf. American Airlines v. Dept. of Transportation, 202 F.3d 788,
803-804 (5th Cir. 2000).

	(ii)	Requiring Airlines To Make Fares Available Through All
Distribution Channels

To facilitate their ability to win and serve customers, several travel
agency commenters also ask us to require airlines to make all fares
available through all distribution channels.  This proposal originated
in the airlines’ initial practice of making webfares available only
through an airline’s own website and then, as a result of Orbitz’
offer to give airlines a rebate on their booking fees in exchange for
access to the webfares, of making the fares saleable through Orbitz as
well.  Until recently webfares typically were not available through any
system.  Travel agents thus could not book webfares through a system,
and they could learn whether the fares were available only by accessing
the airline’s own website or an on-line travel agency that offered
webfares.  Going outside the system to look for webfares and booking
webfares through Orbitz or an airline website are not as efficient for
travel agents.

A rule requiring airlines to offer all fares through all channels no
longer appears necessary.  Two of the systems -- Sabre and Galileo --
have gained access to the webfares of several major airlines by offering
to reduce their booking fees in exchange for a commitment to make all
publicly-available fares saleable through the system.  Subscribers to
Sabre and Galileo, which together have a 65 percent market share, now
have access to the webfares offered by major airlines.  The other two
systems -- Amadeus and Worldspan -- should be able to obtain access to
many webfares by making similar offers to participating airlines.

Requiring airlines to make all publicly-available fares saleable through
each system would provide efficiency benefits for travel agents and make
it easier for consumers to obtain comprehensive information on the fares
and services available in each airline market.  Consumers, however,
would be unlikely to obtain all of the low fares now being offered by
airlines.  If airlines had to make all fares, including webfares,
available through all distribution channels, no matter how costly,
airlines would presumably cut back their offering of discount fares like
webfares.  Airlines are more willing to offer lower fares when they can
use distribution channels that are less costly.  Because the travel
agency/CRS distribution channel is a relatively costly channel for
airlines, requiring airlines to make low fares available through that
channel would probably eliminate the low fares that can be economically
offered only when doing so will save distribution costs.  America West
Comments at 32; United Reply Comments at 51-52.

Such a requirement would also unreasonably limit each airline’s
discretion on how it should best distribute its services.  Airlines
should be free to offer special fares and services through distribution
channels that are less costly or more effective.  Airlines in fact have
long given selected distribution channels the ability to sell fares that
other channels cannot sell.  See, e.g., 67 FR 69413; America West
Comments at 33.  Travel agencies have engaged in similar behavior.  67
FR 69413.  Two successful low-fare U.S. airlines -- Southwest and
JetBlue -- have chosen not to participate in all of the systems and
instead to focus their marketing efforts on encouraging travelers to buy
tickets directly from their reservations agents and websites.  New
entrant airlines like JetBlue will necessarily be small entities.
Compelling those airlines to change their distribution strategies would
be a radical departure from our past use of our section 411 authority.

Airlines, moreover, should be able to use their control over access to
their webfares as a bargaining tool for getting better terms for CRS
participation.  Amadeus Comments at 10; American Comments at 27.  The
airlines’ ability to deny access to their webfares has caused two of
the systems, Sabre and Galileo, to give airlines booking fee reductions
in exchange for the ability to sell their webfares.

The National Commission to Ensure Consumer Information and Choice in the
Airline Industry, which had been charged by Congress to study travel
agency access to webfares and related issues, issued a report that
concluded that airlines should not be required to make all fares
available through all distribution channels.  The Commission reasoned
that such a requirement would substantially harm consumers, because
airlines would stop offering some low webfares, would be contrary to the
industry’s use of different distribution channels to dispose of
specific types of inventory, and would not solve the travel agency
industry’s basic problems, particularly the growing use of the
Internet.  “Upheaval in Travel Distribution: Impact on Consumers and
Travel Agents,” National Commission to Ensure Consumer Information and
Choice in the Airline Industry” (November 13, 2002), at 56-58.

Furthermore, our authority under section 411 would not allow us to adopt
a rule requiring airlines to make all fares -- or even all webfares --
available through all distribution channels.  Such a rule accordingly is
not an available alternative to the rules we are adopting.  As shown,
section 411 authorizes us to prohibit practices that violate the
antitrust laws or antitrust principles.  The antitrust laws generally do
not prohibit firms from choosing to distribute their products and
services through some outlets and not others.  The antitrust laws do not
restrict a firm’s distribution choices, even if those choices
undermine the ability of some distributors to stay in business, unless
the firm’s conduct unreasonably restricts competition.  While section
411 gives us somewhat broader authority over business practices in the
airline and airline distribution businesses, the record in this
proceeding would not justify a finding that an airline’s decision to
limit the offering of some fares or services to selected distribution
channels is an unfair method of competition.

	(iii)	Relationships between Airlines and Systems

The final rule will affect the systems’ treatment of airlines by
prohibiting display bias and certain types of contractual provisions
that will tend to maintain the systems’ market power and unreasonably
deny airlines the ability to determine how to distribute their services.
 The final rule will not include such provisions of the existing rules
as the rule prohibiting discriminatory booking fees.

The commenters on our initial regulatory flexibility analysis did not
address the potential impact of our rule proposals on airlines that are
small entities.  The final rule, as indicated, will prohibit certain
types of system conduct that could unduly prejudice the competitive
position of some airlines and deny them a reasonable opportunity to
determine how best to distribute their services.  These provisions will
give smaller airlines more choice.  The final rule will also maintain
the rules prohibiting display bias.  These provisions should benefit
participating airlines, particularly smaller airlines.  At the same
time, we are not readopting other provisions, such as the prohibition
against differential booking fees, which could protect smaller airlines
against potential system practices that might undermine the competitive
position of individual airlines.  As discussed earlier in this rule, we
have concluded that the record in this proceeding and the limits of our
authority under section 411 would not allow us to readopt those rules.
In particular, the record would not justify a finding that a system
would be engaged in an unfair method of competition if it charged some
airlines higher fees than those paid by other airlines.

The earlier discussion in this document explains the overall basis for
our decision to bar the two types of unreasonably restrictive clauses in
contracts between airlines and systems.  These rule provisions will
impose no burden or restriction on airlines.  These provisions will
benefit airlines that are small entities, because the provisions will
prevent system practices that would deny an airline the ability to
choose the level of service that it will buy from each system and to
choose which distribution channels (and which systems, if any) will have
access to its most attractive fares, including its webfares.  Airlines
could potentially reduce their distribution costs if they could choose
to buy a lower level of service in one system without being compelled by
a parity clause to pay for a higher level of service in that system.
Similarly, an airline could encourage travellers to use lower-cost
distribution channels, which would lower its distribution costs, if it
could reserve attractive fares for the lower-cost channels rather then
be required by contract to make the same fares available for sale
through travel agents using a system, which tends to be a higher-cost
method of distribution.  Of course, airlines may bargain for lower CRS
fees by agreeing to make all of their fares available for sale through a
system and by accepting parity clauses.  To the extent that systems may
have market power and could therefore impose unreasonably restrictive
terms for system participation if not barred from doing so, such system
practices would be more likely to harm smaller airlines than larger
airlines.

	(iv)	Prohibition of Display Bias

The final rule will maintain the existing prohibitions against display
bias for six months.  Maintaining the prohibition against display bias
will enable travel agents to operate more efficiently and give airlines
a better opportunity to compete on the basis of the relative price and
quality of their services.  The six-month period will facilitate an
orderly transition to complete deregulation.

Immediately ending the prohibition against display bias would enable
systems to sell bias -- preferential display positions -- to individual
airlines.  While an airline’s purchase of bias would enable that
airline to obtain more bookings, even if rival airlines offered more
attractive service or better fares, the airline would incur the cost of
buying the bias, which would increase its total expenses.  Moreover,
allowing systems to sell preferential display positions could increase
the airlines’ aggregate expenses while not generating increased
traffic.  Display bias could benefit larger airlines at the expense of
smaller airlines, because larger airlines could have additional
resources for purchasing bias, and operate route systems of greater
scope.

Some airlines and travel agency commenters urge us to broaden the rule
against display bias by prohibiting systems from displaying a single
service under multiple airline codes.  We have determined not to adopt
that proposal.  The multiple display of code-share services for a single
flight can put competing airline services at a disadvantage by lowering
their position in a system’s display.  Code-sharing arrangements
generally involve at least one large airline.  However, the arrangements
typically involve smaller airlines as well, such as commuter airlines
serving smaller communities from a major airline’s hubs or airlines
like Alaska that have entered into code-share agreements with larger
airlines.  Two of the systems -- Sabre and Amadeus -- already limit the
display of code-share services, and the other two systems could do so if
they wish.  Because the systems no longer are owned or controlled by
U.S. airlines, they should have an incentive to limit the display of
code-share flights if travel agents consider the multiple listings of a
single service under different codes to reduce the value of the display.

	(c)	Description of Small Entities To Which the Rule Will Apply

Our final rule will directly regulate the systems’ practices in
several respects, but none of the systems is a small entity.

Most U.S. airlines are small entities, and our final rule will bar
systems from imposing certain types of contract requirements on
participating airlines.  The statistics given us by the Small Business
Administration (“SBA”) indicate that there are 383 small entities
that are U.S. passenger airlines out of a total of 397 U.S. passenger
airlines.  These rule provisions will benefit small airlines, as will
the prohibition against display bias.

The rule will not apply to any other small entities.  The rule will
indirectly affect travel agencies, most of which are small entities,
primarily because the rule will continue to prohibit display bias, a
practice that decreases the efficiency of travel agency operations and
the ability of travel agents to select the airline services that best
meet their customers’ needs.  The final rule maintains none of the
existing rules regulating contracts between systems and subscribers.
The SBA has concluded that less than 500 travel agencies are not small
entities.  In 2001, there were 18,425 travel agencies, of which 117 had
annual airline ticket sales that exceeded $50 million while 1,015 had
annual airline ticket sales between $5 million and $50 million and the
remaining 17,293 had annual airline ticket sales of less than $5
million.  “Upheaval in Travel Distribution: Impact on Consumers and
Travel Agents,” National Commission to Ensure Consumer Information and
Choice in the Airline Industry” (November 13, 2002), at 113.

The NFIB Legal Foundation suggests that we should consider the interests
of small businesses as consumers of air transportation, particularly
because many of them rely on travel agents for researching and booking
air transportation.  NFIB Legal Foundation Comments at 2.  We expect
that our final rule will encourage more competition in the airline and
airline distribution businesses, which will benefit consumers.  The
Regulatory Flexibility Act, however, requires a final regulatory
flexibility statement only insofar as the agency rule directly regulates
small entities.  American Trucking Ass’ns v. U.S. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027,
1043-1045 (D.C. Cir. 1999), rev‘d on other grounds, 531 U.S. 457
(2001); Motor & Equipment Mfrs. Ass’n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 467
(D.C. Cir. 1998); United Distribution Companies v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105,
1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative v. FERC, 773 F.2d
327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985).  No additional analysis is therefore required
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act on the possible impact on consumers,
but, as noted, we expect that the final rule will benefit consumers.

	(d)	Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

Our final rule contains no direct reporting, record-keeping, or other
compliance requirements that would affect small entities.  There are no
other federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with our
proposed rules.

	(e)	Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact

Our discussion above of the significant issues raised by the public
comments and our response to those comments explains why we are adopting
the final rule rather than the other rule proposals suggested in our
notice of proposed rulemaking and the comments.  As stated, our final
rule will have no direct economic impact on any small entities, except
small airlines, because the final rule regulates only the systems’
displays and certain features of their contracts with participating
airlines.  The final rule will impose no direct regulatory requirements
on airlines that are small entities (or on travel agencies or other
firms that are small entities).  We have found, as discussed above, that
the rule’s direct economic impact on airlines should be beneficial.
We have considered as a matter of overall economic policy whether we
should adopt fewer rules, or rules that would impose fewer restrictions
on the systems’ operations.  Because the impact on small entities
should be beneficial, we have not needed to whether alternatives are
available that would minimize the rule’s impact on the small entities
affected by the rule, the smaller airlines.  The final rule contains no
provision regulating the systems’ relationships with travel agencies.
The final rule will indirectly affect small entities, because we are not
readopting most of the existing rules governing the systems’
relationships with participating airlines or any of the current rules
governing subscriber contracts.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, P.L. 104-121, we want to assist small entities in
understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on
them and take it into account in operating their businesses.  If the
rule affects your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
requirements, please consult Thomas Ray at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Paperwork Reduction Act

These rules contain no collection-of-information requirements subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act, P.L. No. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.  See
57 FR at 43834.

Federalism Implications

These rules will have no substantial direct effects 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.  Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132,
dated August 4, 1999, we have determined that the rules do not present
sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultations with State
and local governments.

Taking of Private Property

These rules will not effect a taking or private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Government Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

These rules meet 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 these rules under Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Heath Risks and Safety Risks.  These rules
do not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
may disproportionately affect children.

Consultation and Coordination with Tribal Governments.

These rules will not have tribal implications, will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and
will not preempt tribal law.  Therefore, they are exempt from the
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175.  No tribal
implications were identified during the comment period.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed these rules under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.  We have determined that they are not classified
as a “significant energy action” under that order because they are a
“significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and
would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,
or use of energy.

Environment

These rules will have no significant impact on the environment.
Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 255

Air carriers, Antitrust, Consumer protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Travel agents

1.  Accordingly the Department revises 14 CFR Part 255 to read as
follows:

PART 255 --  AIRLINE COMPUTER RESERVATIONS SYSTEMS

255.1   Purpose.

255.2   Applicability.

255.3   Definitions.

255.4   Display of information.

255.5   Contracts with participating carriers.

255.6   Exceptions.

255.7   Prohibition against carrier bias.

255.8   Sunset Date.

AUTHORITY:  49 U.S.C. 40101, 40102, 40105, 40113, 41712.

§255.1.  Purpose.

	(a)  The purpose of this part is to set forth requirements for the
operation of computer reservations systems used by travel agents and
certain related air carrier distribution practices so as to prevent
unfair, deceptive, predatory, and anticompetitive practices in air
transportation and the sale of air transportation.

	(b)  Nothing in this part operates to exempt any person from the
operation of the antitrust laws set forth in subsection (a) of the first
section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12).

§255.2.  Applicability.

	This part applies to firms that operate computerized reservations
systems for travel agents in the United States, and to the sale in the
United States of interstate, overseas, and foreign air transportation
through such systems.

§255.3.  Definitions.

	"Availability" means information provided in displays with respect to
the seats a carrier holds out as available for sale on a particular
flight.

	"Carrier" means any air carrier, any foreign air carrier, and any
commuter air carrier, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102 (3), 49 U.S.C. 40102
(22), and 14 CFR 298.2(f), respectively, that is engaged directly in the
operation of aircraft in passenger air transportation.

	"Display" means the system's presentation of carrier schedules, fares,
rules or availability to a subscriber by means of a computer terminal.

	"Integrated display" means any display that includes the schedules,
fares, rules, or availability of all or a significant proportion of the
system's participating carriers.

	"On-time performance code" means a single-character code supplied by a
carrier to the system in accordance with the provisions of 14 CFR Part
234 that reflects the monthly on-time performance history of a nonstop
flight or one-stop or multi-stop single plane operation held out by the
carrier in a CRS.

	"Participating carrier" means a carrier that has an agreement with a
system for display of its schedules, fares, or seat availability, or for
the making of reservations or issuance of tickets through a system.

	"Subscriber" means a ticket agent, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102 (40),
that holds itself out as a source of information about, or reservations
for, the air transportation industry and that uses a system.

	"System" means a computerized reservations system offered to
subscribers for use in the United States that contains information about
schedules, fares, rules or availability of carriers and provides
subscribers with the ability to make reservations, if it charges any
carrier a fee for system services.  It does not mean direct connections
between a ticket agent and the internal reservations systems of
individual carriers.

§255.4 Display of information.

	(a)  All systems shall provide at least one integrated display that
includes the schedules, fares, rules, and availability of all
participating carriers in accordance with the provisions of this
section.  This display shall be at least as useful for subscribers, in
terms of functions or enhancements offered and the ease with which such
functions or enhancements can be performed or implemented, as any other
displays maintained by the system vendor.  No system shall make
available to subscribers any integrated display unless that display
complies with the requirements of this section.

	(1)  Each system must offer an integrated display that uses the same
editing and ranking criteria for both on-line and interline connections
and does not give on-line connections a system-imposed preference over
interline connections.  This display shall be at least as useful for
subscribers, in terms of functions or enhancements offered and the ease
with which such functions or enhancements can be performed or
implemented, as any other display maintained by the system vendor.

	(2)  Each integrated display offered by a system must either use
elapsed time as a significant factor in selecting service options from
the database or give single-plane flights a preference over connecting
services in ranking services in displays.

	(b)  In ordering the information contained in an integrated display,
systems shall not use any factors directly or indirectly relating to
carrier identity.

(1)	Systems may order the display of information on the basis of any
service criteria that do not reflect carrier identity and that are
consistently applied to all carriers and to all markets.

(2)	When a flight involves a change of aircraft at a point before the
final destination, the display shall indicate that passengers on the
flight will change from one aircraft to another.

(3)	Each system shall provide to any person upon request the current
criteria used in editing and ordering flights for the integrated
displays and the weight given to each criterion and the specifications
used by the system's programmers in constructing the algorithm.

	(c)  Systems shall not use any factors directly or indirectly relating
to carrier identity in constructing the display of connecting flights in
an integrated display.

(1)	Systems shall select the connecting points (and double connect
points) to be used in the construction of connecting flights for each
city pair on the basis of service criteria that do not reflect carrier
identity and that are applied consistently to all carriers and to all
markets.

(2)	Systems shall select connecting flights for inclusion ("edit") on
the basis of service criteria that do not reflect carrier identity and
that are applied consistently to all carriers.

(3)	Systems shall provide to any person upon request current information
on:

(i)	All connecting points and double connect points used for each
market;

(ii)	All criteria used to select connecting points and double connect
points;

            (iii)  All criteria used to "edit" connecting flights; and

(iv)	The weight given to each criterion in paragraphs (c)(3) (ii) and
(iii) of this section.

(4)	Participating carriers shall be entitled to request that a system
use up to five connect points (and double connect points) in
constructing connecting flights for the display of service in a market.
The system may require participating carriers to use specified
procedures for such requests, but no such procedures may be unreasonably
burdensome, and any procedures required of participating carriers must
be applied without unreasonable discrimination between participating
airlines.

(5)	When a system selects connecting points and double connect points
for use in constructing connecting flights it shall use at least fifteen
points and six double connect points for each city-pair, except that a
system may select fewer such connect or double connect points for a
city-pair where:

(i)	Fewer than fifteen connecting points and six double connect points
meet the service criteria described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section;
and

(ii)	The system has used all the points that meet those criteria, along
with all additional connecting points and double connect points
requested by participating carriers.

(6)	If a system selects connecting points and double connect points for
use in constructing connecting flights it shall use every point
requested by a participating carrier up to the maximum number of points
that the system can use.  The system may use fewer than all the connect
points requested by participating carriers to the extent that:

(i)	Points requested by participating carriers do not meet the service
criteria described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and

(ii)	The system has used all the points that meet those criteria.

	(d)  Each system shall apply the same standards of care and timeliness
to loading information concerning every participating carrier.  Each
system shall display accurately information submitted by participating
carriers.  Each system shall provide to any person upon request all
current data base update procedures and data formats.

	(e)  Systems shall use or display information concerning on-time
performance of flights as follows:

(1)	Within 10 days after receiving the information from participating
carriers or third parties, each system shall include in all integrated
schedule and availability displays the on-time performance code for each
nonstop flight segment and one-stop or multi-stop single plane flight,
for which a participating carrier provides a code.

(2)	A system shall not use on-time flight performance as a ranking
factor in ordering information contained in an integrated display.

	(f)  Each participating carrier shall ensure that complete and accurate
information is provided each system in a form such that the system is
able to display its flights in accordance with this section.

	(g)  A system may make available to subscribers the internal
reservations system display of a participating carrier, provided that a
subscriber and its employees may see any such display only by requesting
it for a specific transaction.

§255.5  Contracts with participating carriers.

	(a)  No system may require a carrier to maintain any particular level
of participation or buy any enhancements in its system on the basis of
participation levels or enhancements selected by that carrier in any
other foreign or domestic computerized reservations system, as a
condition to participation in the system.

	(b)  No system may require any carrier as a condition to participation
to provide it with fares that the carrier has chosen not to sell through
that system.

§255.6  Exceptions.

	The obligations of a system under §255.4 shall not apply with respect
to a carrier that refuses to enter into and comply with a participating
airline contract with that system.

§255.7	Prohibition against Carrier Bias.

	No carrier may induce or attempt to induce a system to create a display
that would not comply with the requirements of §255.4.

§255.8	Sunset Date.

	Unless extended by a document published in the Federal Register, these
rules shall terminate on July 31, 2004.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on _________________, 2003.

G

M

~

ž

¶

·

Û

Ü

Ý

ó

ô

F

G

}

~

@

@

@

Æ

옍

옍

옍

„@

÷^„@

Æ

Æ

옍

옍

¢

¥

§

«

hU

hU

hU

hU

  hU

  hU

hU

hU

hU

õ

ö

Ç

Ê

Ì

Ð

é

ë

-

ª

¨

©

ª

à

@

@

Norman Y. Mineta

Secretary of Transportation


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42-43]
[FR Doc No: E9-30286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0203; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-12]

Modification of Class D and E Airspace; Albemarle, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
published in the Federal Register May 6, 2009, that modifies Class D
and Class E airspace at Stanly County Airport, Albemarle, NC. This
action also corrects the True bearing used in the Class D airspace
description that was stated incorrectly.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 11, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,
Georgia 30320; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The rule modifying Class D and E airspace for Stanly County
Airport, Albemarle, NC, published in the Federal Register May 6, 2009
(74 FR

20869), became effective August 27, 2009. Subsequent to the effective
date of the rule, the FAA found that the True bearing in the Class D
description for Stanly County Airport was stated incorrectly. This
action corrects that error.

Correction

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the
reference to FAA Order 7400.9 for FR Doc. E9-10397, FAA Airspace Docket
No. 09-ASO-12, as published in the Federal Register May 6, 2009 (74 FR
20869), is corrected as follows:
    On page 20870, column two, line 38, amend the language to read

71.1  [Amended]

* * * * *
    ``* * * 037[deg] bearing from Stanly County Airport to 7.8 miles
northeast.''

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments modifying Class D and E airspace, Albemarle, NC in the Federal
Register on May 6, 2009 (74 FR 20869), Docket No. FAA-2009-0203;
Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-12. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking
procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that
there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised
the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a
written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such
an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the
regulation would become effective on August 27, 2009. No adverse
comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective
date.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 9, 2009.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. E9-30286 Filed 12-31-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55450-55451]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2018-0083]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on October 4, 2018, the BNSF
Railway Company (BNSF), petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 225.25, Recordkeeping.
FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2018-0083.
    Specifically, BNSF seeks a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR
225.25(h) which states, in part, ``Except as provided in paragraph
(h)(15) of this section, a listing of all injuries and occupational
illnesses reported to FRA as having occurred at an establishment shall
be posted in a conspicuous location at that establishment, within 30
days after the expiration of the month during which the injuries and
illnesses occurred, if the establishment has been in continual
operation for a minimum of 90 calendar days.''
    BNSF requests a waiver regarding the actual posting of the monthly
listing of employee reportable injuries, occupational illnesses, and
fatalities, as reported to FRA that have occurred during the past 12-
month period at each establishment. In lieu of physically posting a
``paper'' copy of the monthly listing at each establishment, BNSF has
developed an electronic version that would be available to its
employees by accessing this information on computer terminals located
at company facilities and personal devices. BNSF would place posters on
the notice boards at each establishment indicating that the monthly
listings are available to be viewed in two ways: electronically through
access from a computer terminal, or through direct request of a
manager.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    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 parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, 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 and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: 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 by December 20, 2018 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can 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 document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-24122 Filed 11-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P