[Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 74083-74085]
[DOCID:fr14de05-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52916; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-71]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Revisions to the Series 9/10
Examination Program

December 7, 2005.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 16, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx.
On November 29, 2005, Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. Phlx has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a
stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-
regulatory organization pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Phlx proposes to file revisions to the study outline and
selection specifications for the Limited Principal--General Securities
Supervisor (Series 9/10) examination (``Series 9/10 Examination''),
which is administered by the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''). The proposed revisions

update the material to reflect changes to the laws, rules, and
regulations covered by the Series 9/10 Examination, as well as modify
the content of the examination program to track more closely the
functional workflow of a Series 9/10 limited principal. Phlx is not
proposing any textual changes to its rules.
    The revised Series 9/10 Examination study outline is available on
Phlx's Web site (http://www.phlx.com), at the Phlx, and at the

Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Series 9/10 Examination study outline is also available
on NASD's Web site (http://www.nasd.com).

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

    However, The Exchange has omitted the Series 9/10 Examination
selection specifications from this filing and has submitted the
specifications under separate cover to the Commission with a request
for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Series 9/10 Examination tests a candidate's knowledge of
securities industry rules and regulations and certain statutory
provisions pertinent to the supervision of sales activities. The Series
9/10 Examination is shared by Phlx and the following SROs: The NASD,
the American Stock Exchange LLC , the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Inc., the Municipal Securities Rule Making Board (``MSRB'') , the New
York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''), and the Pacific Exchange, Inc.
    A committee of industry representatives, together with the staff of
NASD and the other SROs, recently undertook a periodic review of the
Series 9/10 examination program. As a result of this review, the NASD
has filed a rule change proposal with the Commission \7\ and Phlx is
proposing a similar rule change to update the content of the
examination to cover Regulation S-P,\8\ MSRB Rules G-37/G-38, SRO
research analyst and anti-money laundering rules, municipal fund
securities (e.g., 529 college savings plans), and exchange traded
funds. Phlx is further proposing revisions to the study outline to
reflect the Commission's short sale requirements. In addition, as part
of an ongoing effort to align the examination more closely to the
supervisory duties of a Series 9/10 limited principal, the proposal
would modify the content of the examination to track the functional
workflow of a Series 9/10 limited principal, and would include
questions related to parallel rules of NASD, the options exchanges, the
MSRB, and the NYSE in the same section of the exam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52548 (September 30,
2005), 70 FR 59111 (October 11, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-111). In the
filing, the NASD proposes an implementation date of no later than
November 30, 2005.
    \8\ 17 CFR 248.1-18; 17 CFR 248.30; and 17 CFR 248, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the revisions, Phlx is proposing to modify the main
section headings and the number of questions on each section of the
Series 9/10 study outline as follows: Section 1--Hiring,
Qualifications, and Continuing Education, 9 questions; section 2--
Supervision of Accounts and Sales Activities, 94 questions; section 3--
Conduct of Associated Persons, 14 questions; section 4--Recordkeeping
Requirements, 8 questions; section 5--Municipal Securities Regulation,
20 questions; section 6--Options Regulation, 55 questions. Sections 1
through 5 constitute the Series 10 portion of the examination. Section
6 constitutes the Series 9 portion of the examination. Series 10 covers
general securities and municipal securities, and Series 9 covers
options. The revised examination continues to cover the areas of
knowledge required for the supervision of sales activities.
    Phlx is proposing these changes to the entire content of the Series
9/10 examination, including the selection specifications and question
bank. The number of questions on the Series 9/10 examination will
remain at 200, and candidates will continue to have four hours to
complete the Series 10 portion and one and one-half hours to complete
the Series 9 portion. Also, each question will continue to count one
point, and each candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of the
questions on each series, 9 and 10, to receive a passing grade. Phlx
believes that the other SROs are filing similar proposals.
    As further discussed below, the Exchange is filing the proposed
rule change for immediate effectiveness. The Exchange will announce the
proposed revisions in a Notice to Members to be published prior to the
implementation date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act--\9\ in general and furthers the objectives of section
6(c)(3),\10\ which authorize Phlx to prescribe standards of training,
experience and competence for members of the Exchange or persons
associated with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change, as
amended, will impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The proposed rule change, as amended, has become effective pursuant
to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) \11\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1)
thereunder,\12\ in that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated
policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The effective date of the original proposed rule is
November 16, 2005. The effective date of Amendment No. 1 is November
29, 2005. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on November 29, 2005, the date on which Phlx submitted
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2005-71 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-71. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Phlx.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-71
and should be submitted on or before January 4, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7306 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

14 CFR Parts 234, 253, 259, and 399

Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0022

RIN No. 2105-AD72

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections

AGENCY:  Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT)

ACTION:  Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)

SUMMARY:  The Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) is
seeking comment on whether it should adopt a rule to enhance airline
passenger protections in the following ways: (1) require carriers to
adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays and incorporate them
in their contracts of carriage, (2) require carriers to respond to
consumer problems, (3) deem operating a chronically delayed flight to be
unfair and deceptive, (4) require carriers to publish delay data, (5)
require carriers to publish complaint data, (6) require on-time
performance reporting for international flights, and (7) require
carriers to audit their compliance with their customer service plans.
We are proposing that most of these measures (specifically, 1, 2, 5, and
7) cover certificated or commuter air carriers that operate domestic
scheduled passenger service using any aircraft with more than 30
passenger seats.  We are proposing that measure 6 cover the largest U.S.
and foreign carriers and that measures 3 and 4 cover the largest U.S.
carriers.

DATES:  Comments should be filed by [INSERT DATE THAT IS SIXTY DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.]  Late-filed comments will be
considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES:  You may file comments identified by the docket number
DOT-OST-2007-0022 by any of the following methods:

°	Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov  and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.

°	Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

°	Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

°	Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Instructions:  You must include the agency name and docket number
DOT-OST-2007-0022 or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the
rulemaking at the beginning of your comment.  All comments received will
be posted without change to   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information
provided.

Privacy Act:  Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.)  You may review DOT’s
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit   HYPERLINK
"http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov"  http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov .

Docket:  For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
http://www.regulations.gov  or to the street address listed above.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Betsy L. Wolf or Blane A. Workie,
Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE,
Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>,<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax),   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Beginning in December of 2006 and continuing through the early spring,
weather problems kept more than a few aircraft sitting for hours on
airport tarmacs.  Many passengers were stranded on these aircraft for
periods of three hours, six hours, and in some cases even longer.  At
the request of the Secretary of Transportation, the Department’s
Office of the Inspector General has reviewed and reported on these
incidents, focusing its report on how the carriers can improve passenger
comfort and convenience during these extremely long delays on the
ground.

Another significant issue for passengers is the high incidence of less
extreme flight delays.  In the first seven months of this year, only
72.23 percent of flights arrived on time, a lower percentage for this
period than in any of the past 12 years.

The industry and interested observers have attributed both the marathon
tarmac waits and the epidemic of flight delays to a number of factors in
addition to the weather.  Some posit that because carriers are now
flying full planes and have no excess capacity in their systems and thus
no margin for error in the event of problematic weather, revenue
concerns mandate that they delay a flight until it can take off, even
for hours if necessary, rather than cancel it.  Some fault the air
traffic control system and the airports for acting too slowly to relieve
capacity and operational constraints.  Some attribute the overload
problem to the widespread replacement of larger aircraft with smaller
regional jets scheduled at higher frequencies and call for the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to require carriers to trim their
schedules.  Others point to the steep rise in the use of private jets.

Some of the capacity and operational constraints that have undoubtedly
contributed to tarmac delays and other flight delays are being addressed
by the FAA and certain airports in other contexts.  In the meantime,
however, this Department is seeking comment on several measures to
address passengers’ concerns.  49 U.S.C. §41712, in concert with 49
U.S.C. §40101(a)(4) and §40101(a)(9) and also 49 U.S.C. §41702, gives
us the authority and the responsibility to protect consumers from unfair
and deceptive practices and ensure safe and adequate service in air
transportation.  We are therefore seeking comment on eight potential
solutions, described below, intended to ameliorate some of the problems
facing passengers without creating undue burdens for the carriers.   We
also invite commenters to suggest other consumer protection measures
that might help alleviate the problems that passengers face.  Commenters
should bear in mind the Department’s responsibility to strike the
proper balance between protecting consumers and affording carriers as
much leeway as possible to choose their responses to the rapid
developments that confront them in the marketplace.

1.	Require Contingency Plans for Lengthy Tarmac Delays and Incorporate
Them in their Contracts of Carriage

We seek comment on amending 14 CFR Part 253 to require any certificated
or commuter air carrier that operates domestic scheduled passenger
service using any aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats to develop
a contingency plan for long ground delays on the tarmac for all of its
flights (including those that use aircraft with 30 or fewer seats) and
to incorporate this plan in its contract of carriage.  Among other
things, each such plan would have to include the following:

•	the maximum tarmac delay that the carrier will permit,

•	the amount of time on the tarmac that triggers the plan’s terms,

•	assurance of adequate food, water, and lavatory facilities, and
medical attention if needed while the aircraft remains on the tarmac,

•	assurance of sufficient resources to implement the plan, and

•	assurance that the plan has been coordinated with airport
authorities at medium and large hub airports.

With the contingency plan incorporated in the contract of carriage,
passengers would be able to sue in court for damages if a carrier failed
to adhere to its plan.  Carriers would also be required to make their
complete contracts of carriage (including contingency plans) available
on their websites.  Further, carriers would be required to retain for
two years the following information about any on-ground delay that
either triggers their contingency plans or lasts at least four hours:
(1) the length of the on-ground delay, (2) the cause of the delay, and
(3) the actions taken to minimize hardships for passengers, including
the provision of food and water, the maintenance of lavatories, and
medical assistance.  The regulation would specify that the Department
would consider failure to do any of the following to be an unfair and
deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. §41712 and subject
to enforcement action: (1) adopt a contingency plan and incorporate it
in the contract of carriage, (2) implement the plan as written, (3) make
the plan available on line, or (4) retain information about every
on-ground delay that either triggers the contingency plan or lasts at
least four hours.

We believe that requiring the retention of records for tarmac delays
that last at least four hours would enhance the Department’s ability
to monitor, analyze, and address the problems associated with long
delays.  We have chosen four hours as the threshold in order to foster
consistency for purposes of analysis, given that carriers are likely to
make disparate time choices for their own contingency plans.  (We do not
intend to suggest, nor are we proposing to adopt, a specific amount of
time during or after which carriers must allow passengers to deplane.
Rather, we expect each carrier to craft its own standard on this issue.)
 We invite comment on whether four hours is an appropriate delay
duration for triggering this new record-keeping requirement.

We are also not proposing at this time to have the Department review and
approve carriers’ contingency plans.  We believe the better approach
to be to allow the carriers to set the terms of their plans and rely on
the legal system and our enforcement powers to ensure that the terms are
followed.  If this approach proves inadequate, we can always revise it.

We invite interested persons to comment on this proposal.  What costs
would it impose on the carriers?  Would it have any negative
consequences?  Is it likely to succeed in protecting passengers from the
conditions described above?  If not, why not?  What additional or
different measures should we consider adopting?  Would incorporation of
the contingency plan in the contract of carriage give consumers adequate
notice of what might happen in the event of a long delay on the tarmac?
When prolonged delays occur, would these measures succeed in reducing
the resultant uncertainty and discomfort for passengers?  Should the
types of carriers covered by the regulation be expanded or limited?
What would be the cost or benefit of narrowing or expanding coverage?
Should the requirement of coordinating the plan with airport authorities
apply to all primary airports (i.e., commercial service airports that
enplane more than 10,000 passengers annually) rather than only to medium
hub airports (primary airports that enplane between 0.25 and 1 percent
of total U.S. passengers) and large hub airports (primary airports that
enplane at least 1 percent of total U.S. passengers)?

2.	Require Carriers to Respond to Consumer Problems

We seek comment on adopting a new regulation, 14 CFR Part 259, that
among other things would require every certificated and commuter carrier
that operates domestic scheduled passenger service using any aircraft
with more than 30 passenger seats to respond to mounting consumer
problems in the following ways:

•	at its system operations center and at each airport dispatch center,
designate an employee who is responsible for monitoring the effects of
flight delays, flight cancellations, and lengthy tarmac delays on
passengers and who has input on decisions such as which flights are
cancelled and which are subject to the longest delays,

•	on its website, on all e-ticket confirmations, and, upon request, at
each ticket counter and gate, make information available on filing a
complaint with the carrier (name of person or office, address, and
telephone number), and

•	send a response to each consumer complaint it receives within 30
days of receiving the complaint.

We invite interested persons to comment on this proposal.  What costs
would it impose on the carriers?  Would it have any negative
consequences?  Should we require carriers to accept complaints via
phone, letter and e-mail, or should the choice of complaint channels be
left to each carrier?  Would these procedures result in carriers’
devoting adequate attention to the needs of passengers?  If not, what
additional or different measures would achieve this result?  What
specific responsibilities should the designated employee have?  Is it
reasonable to expect a carrier to provide a response within 30 days of
receipt of a complaint?  Should the types of carriers covered by the
regulation be expanded or limited?  What would be the cost or benefit of
narrowing or expanding coverage?

3.	Declare the Operation of Flights that Remain Chronically Delayed to
be an Unfair and Deceptive Practice and an Unfair Method of Competition.

We seek comment on amending 14 CFR §399.81 so that it sets forth the
Department’s enforcement posture on chronically delayed flights.
First, the new text would define a chronically delayed flight as a
flight by a covered carrier that operates at least 45 times in a
calendar quarter and arrives more than 15 minutes late more than 70
percent of the time.  We propose to define a covered carrier as a
carrier that reports on-time performance data to the Department pursuant
to 14 CFR Part 234,—i.e., a certificated U.S. carrier that accounted
for at least 1% of domestic scheduled passenger revenue in the 12 months
ending March 31.  Second, the new text would specify that the Department
considers a chronically delayed flight to be an unfair and deceptive
practice and an unfair method of competition within the meaning of 49
U.S.C. §41712 if it is not corrected in a timely manner—i.e., during
the second calendar quarter following the one in which the flight is
first chronically delayed.

We invite interested persons to comment on this proposal.  What costs,
if any, would it impose on carriers?  Would it have any negative
consequences?  Does it strike the appropriate balance between
passenger’s need to have the best possible information about the real
arrival time of a flight and the carriers’ inability to control the
weather and certain other factors that can contribute to delays?
Commenters who think that it does not strike the appropriate balance
should explain why and provide alternate proposals.

We tentatively consider that in setting the threshold for a chronically
late flight as high as 70 percent and in allowing up to six months for
the carrier to adjust its schedule, its operations, or both so that the
flight comes below this threshold, we would not be creating undue
burdens for carriers.  When a carrier publishes a schedule, it assumes
the obligation to adhere to it insofar as is feasible.  Consumers buy
transportation in reliance on a carrier’s published schedule, and they
have a right to expect that the carrier both intends to arrive at the
promised time and can do so in most cases.  Consumers’ reliance on
chronically inaccurate schedules works to their detriment both
personally and professionally.  Furthermore, a carrier’s publication
of a schedule that it does not achieve most of the time can harm its
competitors.  This in turn further harms consumers by reducing the
number of travel options from which they can choose.

Commenters who think that the proposed standards would not result in an
improvement of on-time performance should explain why and suggest
alternate approaches.   We also solicit comment on whether the
definition of a chronically delayed flight should be expanded to include
international scheduled passenger service to and from the United States
operated by U.S. and foreign air carriers.

4.	Require Carriers to Publish Delay Data on their Websites

We seek comment on amending 14 CFR §234.11 to require airlines that
report on-time performance to the Department pursuant to 14 CFR Part 234
(i.e., certificated U.S. carriers that account for at least 1% of the
domestic scheduled passenger revenue) and online reservation services to
include on their websites, at a point before the passenger selects a
flight for purchase, the following information for each listed flight
about its performance during the previous month:

•	the percentage of arrivals that were on time,

•	the percentage of arrivals that were more than 30 minutes late,

•	special highlighting if the flight was late more than 50 percent of
the time, and

•	the percentage of cancellations.

We invite interested persons to comment on this proposal.   What costs
would it impose on carriers and online reservation services?  Would it
have any negative consequences?  Would it help consumers make
better-informed choices when booking flights?  Would it increase
carriers’ incentives to correct problem flights through adjustments to
their schedules or their operations, or both?  What other information,
if any, should this regulation require?

Would requiring carriers to post on-time flight performance information
on their website give passengers adequate notice before booking about
the likelihood of a flight’s arriving on time?  Should we require
airline websites and reservation agents to disclose on-time flight
information to consumers at the time of booking, without being asked?
What would be the benefit or cost of such a requirement?  Should any
disclosure requirement be limited to flights that are chronically
delayed or cancelled?

Should this regulation cover all on-line reservation services or only
those of a certain size?  If the latter, what threshold would be
appropriate (in terms of revenue or number of employees)?  Should the
regulation cover more types of carriers?  What would be the cost or
benefit of expanding coverage?

5.	Require Carriers to Publish Complaint Data on their Websites

We seek comment on adopting a new regulation, 14 CFR Part 259, that
would also require certificated and commuter carriers that operate
domestic scheduled passenger service using any aircraft with more than
30 passenger seats to publish complaint data on their websites.  Each
carrier would have to disclose the number of consumer complaints it has
received within a defined time frame concerning subjects such as tarmac
delays, missed connections, and the failure to provide amenities to
passengers affected by a delayed or canceled flight.  We ask interested
persons to comment on this proposal.  What costs would it impose on
carriers?  Would it have any negative consequences?  Should we prescribe
a uniform location for all carriers’ websites, or should we leave this
decision to the carriers?  If the former, where should the data be
posted?  What complaint subjects should be covered by this requirement,
and what time period would be appropriate?  Would the proposed
regulation help consumers make better-informed choices when booking
flights?  Would it increase carriers’ incentives to avoid the problems
that elicit complaints?  Should the types of carriers covered by the
regulation be increased or decreased?  What would be the cost or benefit
of narrowing or expanding coverage?

6.	Require Carriers to Report On-Time Performance of International
Flights

We seek comment on amending 14 CFR §§234.4 and 234.11 to require
carriers that report on-time performance to the Department pursuant to
14 CFR Part 234  (i.e., certificated U.S. carriers that account for at
least 1% of the domestic scheduled passenger revenue) and the largest
foreign carriers to report on-time performance for international flights
to and from the United States.  Our publication of these data would give
consumers information about on-time performance to use in choosing
international flights.  We invite interested persons to comment on this
proposal.  What costs would it impose on the carriers?  Would it have
any negative consequences?  Would the benefits of making this
information available to the public outweigh the burdens that this
requirement would impose on carriers that provide international service?
 How should we determine whether a foreign carrier is large (e.g., by
total revenue, by number of flights to and from the U.S.)?  Should we
devise a size threshold for foreign carriers similar to the current 1%
threshold for U.S. carriers?

7.	Require Carriers to Audit Their Adherence to their Customer Service
Plans

We seek comment on adopting a new regulation that would require
certificated and commuter carriers that operate domestic scheduled
passenger service using any aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats
to audit their adherence to their own customer service plans.  This
proposal tracks a recommendation from the Department’s Inspector
General, who found carrier failings in this area.  We solicit comment on
the costs and benefits of self-audits, suggestions for appropriate
auditing standards, including whether the carriers should be required to
hire independent auditors to conduct the audits, and suggestions for how
the Department might verify compliance without auditing the airline’s
practices itself.  Further, we solicit comment on whether we should
require any covered carrier that does not have a customer service plan
in place to adopt one and, if so, what provisions such plans should
include.  For example, should they include some or all of the provisions
of the 12-point Airline Service Commitment made by 13 members of the Air
Transport Association (which can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.airlines.org/customerservice/passengers/Customers_First.htm"
 http://www.airlines.org/customerservice/passengers/Customers_First.htm
)?  Also, should we require that carriers incorporate their customer
service plans in their contracts of carriage?

REGULATORY NOTICES

A.	Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This action has been determined to be significant under Executive Order
12866 and the Department of Transportation’s Regulatory Policies and
Procedures.  It has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
under that Order.   A preliminary discussion of the proposed solutions
to enhance airline passenger protections without creating undue burdens
for the carriers is presented above.  We are soliciting comments on the
potential costs and benefits of the proposed solutions.  On the cost
side, we recognize that many of the measures suggested in this ANPRM
would impose costs for both implementation and operation on the entities
that its proposed requirements would cover.  We have asked commenters to
answer a variety of questions in order to elicit practical information
about the nature and magnitude of these costs.  The benefits we seek to
achieve entail relieving consumers of the burdens they now face due to
lengthy ground delays, chronically delayed flights, and other problems
discussed in the ANPRM.  The benefits would be achieved by  affording
consumers significantly more information than they have now about
delayed and cancelled flights and about how carriers will respond to
their needs in the event of lengthy ground delays.  Making this
information accessible should not only alleviate consumers’
difficulties during long delays but also enable them to make
better-informed choices when booking flights.

B.	Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order
13132 (“Federalism”).  This notice does not propose any regulation
that (1) has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship
between the national government and the States, or the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, (2)
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments, or (3) preempts state law.  Therefore, the consultation and
funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

C.	Executive Order 13084

This notice has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”).  Because none of the
options on which we are seeking comment would significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose
substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

D.	Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. §601 et seq.) requires an
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The regulatory initiatives discussed in this ANPRM would have some
impact on some small entities but we do not believe that it would have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.  We invite
comment to facilitate our assessment of the potential impact of these
initiatives on small entities.

E.	Paperwork Reduction Act

The ANPRM proposes several new collections of information that would
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (49 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)  The ANPRM solicits
comment on requiring certificated and commuter airlines that operate
domestic scheduled passenger service using any aircraft with more than
30 passenger seats to retain for two years the following information
about any ground delay that triggers their contingency plan or lasts at
least four hours:  (1) the length of the delay, (2) the cause of the
delay, and (3) actions taken to minimize hardships for passengers.  The
Department plans to use this information to conduct reviews of incidents
involving long delays on the ground and to identify any trends and
patterns that may develop.  The ANPRM further proposes to require the
collection of flight delay data from certain U.S. and foreign air
carriers regarding their flights to and from the U.S. and also to
require certain U.S. carriers to compile and publish complaint
information.  We invite comments regarding any aspect of these
information collections, including the following:  (1) the necessity and
utility of the information collection, (2) the estimated burden, (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected, and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without
reducing the quality of the information collected.

F.	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this notice.

ISSUED THIS	DAY OF		, 2007, AT WASHINGTON, DC

	Michael W. Reynolds

	Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs

	A certificated air carrier is a U.S. direct air carrier that holds a
certificate issued under 49 U.S.C. §41102 to operate passenger and/or
cargo and mail service or that holds an exemption to conduct direct
passenger operations under 49 U.S.C. §41102.  Air taxi operators or and
commuter air carriers operating under 14 CFR Part 298 are not
certificated air carriers.  Some carriers that would otherwise be
eligible for air taxi or commuter status have opted to be certificated.
A commuter air carrier is an air taxi operator that carries passengers
on at least five round trips per week on at least one route between two
or more points according to published flight schedules.  See 14 CFR
§298.2.  An on-demand air taxi is an air taxi operator that carries
passengers or property and is not a commuter air carrier as defined in
14 CFR Part 298.

(footnote continued on following page)

	-  PAGE  2 -


[Federal Register: April 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 65)]
[Notices]
[Page 17092]
[DOCID:fr05ap06-59]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0604; FRL-7774-6]

Access to Confidential Business Information by Chemical Abstract
Services; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of November 29,
2005, concerning the authorization of EPA's contractor Chemical
Abstract Services, of Columbus, Ohio, to access information which has
been submitted to EPA under sections 5 and 8 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). This document is being issued to correct errors in
that notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Scott M. Sherlock, TSCA Security
Staff, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)564-8257; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Notice Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those persons who are or may be required to
conduct testing of chemical substances under TSCA. Since other entities
may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all
the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically athttp://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA Docket

Center, EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings athttp://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. What Does this Correction Do?

    In FR Doc 05-23437 published in the Federal Register of November
29, 2005 (70 FR 71500) (FRL-7751-6), EPA issued a notice announcing the
access of information submitted to EPA under sections 5 and 8 of TSCA
to Chemical Abstract Services. In that document the access date and
expiration date were inadvertently listed. The document is corrected as
follows:
    1. On page 71501, first column, the date unit should have read:
``DATES: Access to confidential data will occur on March 1, 2006.''
    2. On page 71501, second column, under Unit II., the fifth
paragraph is corrected to read:
    ``Clearance for access to TSCA CBI under Contract Number EP-W-06-
011 may continue until December 31, 2012. Access will occur on March 1,
2006.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information.

    March 29, 2006.
Vicki Simons,
Acting Director, Information Management Division, Office of
PollutionPrevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. E6-4931 Filed 4-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: March 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 13524]
[DOCID:fr22mr10-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-82-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company, Southern Natural Gas Company,
Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC, Enterprise Field Services, LLC; Notice of Application

March 16, 2010.
    Take notice that on March 5, 2010, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern Natural), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-
1000, filed on behalf of itself and other owners, Southern Natural Gas
Company, Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, Transcontinental Gas
Pipe Line Company, LLC, and Enterprise Field Services, LLC in the above
referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations,
requesting authorization to abandon in place certain facilities,
located onshore Texas and offshore Texas in state and federal waters,
known as the Matagorda Offshore Pipeline System (MOPS). Northern
Natural states that operation of MOPS has become uneconomical due to
increasing costs of maintenance and repairs compared to falling
revenues, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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 at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director, Certificates and External
Affairs, Northern Natural Gas Company, 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha,
Nebraska 68124, or phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically 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: April 6, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6232 Filed 3-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59451-59454]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20807]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0848; Product Identifier 2020-NM-088-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2007-07-03, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100,
747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. AD 2007-07-03
requires repetitive tests to detect hot air leaking from the trim air
diffuser ducts or sidewall riser duct assemblies (collectively referred
to as TADDs), related investigative actions, and corrective actions if
necessary. AD 2007-07-03 also provides an optional terminating action
for the repetitive tests. Since the FAA issued AD 2007-07-03, operators
reported high temperature composite material TADDs installed as
specified in AD 2007-07-03 have also failed. This proposed AD would
require repetitive inspections of all TADD material for damage and
applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 6,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0848.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0848; 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 NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above.

Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-
231-3570; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one
copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically,
commenters should submit only one time.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the
closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after
the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of the comments received.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Susan
L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems
Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2007-07-03, Amendment 39-15003 (72 FR 14395,
March 28, 2007) (``AD 2007-07-03''), for certain The Boeing Company
Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F,
747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series
airplanes. AD 2007-07-03 requires repetitive tests to detect hot air
leaking from the TADDs, related investigative actions, and corrective
actions if necessary. AD 2007-07-03 also provides an optional
terminating action (replacement of the original fiberglass material
TADDs with high temperature composition material TADDs) for the
repetitive tests. AD 2007-07-03 resulted from reports of sealant
deteriorating on the outside of the center wing fuel tank and analysis
showing that sealant may deteriorate inside the tank due to excess heat
from leaking TADDs. The FAA issued AD 2007-07-03 to address leakage of
fuel or fuel vapors into areas where ignition sources may be present,
which could result in a fire or explosion.

Actions Since AD 2007-07-03 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2007-07-03, operators reported high
temperature composite material TADDs installed as specified in AD 2007-
07-03 have also failed. Further inspection showed that the high
temperature composite material TADDs were ruptured, with damaged
insulation in poor condition. Analysis showed that hot trim air is
causing material properties degradation of both the original fiberglass
fabric material and high temperature composite material TADDs, which
potentially causes hot air leakage from the TADD(s).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB,
dated February 18, 2020. The service information describes procedures
for repetitive detailed inspections of TADDs made of original
fiberglass fabric material and high temperature composite material for
damage and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions
include TADD replacement, detailed inspection of the center wing tank
secondary fuel barrier and the center wing tank primary sealant for
damage, a measurement of the electrical conductivity change of the
upper skin of the center wing tank for indications of damage, other
replacement as applicable, and repair. 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.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the
relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2007-
07-03. However, the original TADDs specified in AD 2007-07-03, if
installed, will continue to be inspected per the new proposed
requirements of this AD. This proposed AD would require accomplishment
of the actions identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-
21A2577 RB, dated February 18, 2020, described previously, except for
any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD.
    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0848.

Explanation of Requirements Bulletin

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for
annotating which steps in the service information are ``required for
compliance'' (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept
into Boeing service bulletins.
    In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related
Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was
worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the
development of a new process in which the service information more
clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition
in the ``Accomplishment Instructions.'' The new process results in a
Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed

to address the unsafe condition (i.e., only the RC actions).

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this proposed AD interim action. The manufacturer
is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe
condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed,
approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 188 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive inspections.........  Up to 44 work-hours x                $0  Up to $3,740 per    Up to $703,120 per
                                  $85 per hour = Up to                     inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                  $3,740 per inspection
                                  cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable providing
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have
federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD
would 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 the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2007-07-03, Amendment 39-15003 (72 FR 14395, March 28, 2007), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2020-0848; Product Identifier
2020-NM-088-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November 6,
2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2007-07-03, Amendment 39-15003 (72 FR 14395,
March 28, 2007).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated
in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air
conditioning.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of sealant deteriorating on the
outside of the center wing fuel tank and analysis showing that
sealant may deteriorate inside the tank due to excess heat from
leaking trim air diffuser ducts or sidewall riser duct assemblies
(collectively referred to as TADDs). This AD was also prompted by
reports indicating that the high temperature composite material
TADDs installed as specified in AD 2007-07-03 have also failed. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address potential hot air leakage from
original fiberglass fabric material or high temperature composite
material TADDs that can cause damage to the center wing fuel tank
secondary fuel barrier coating and primary sealant, which can cause
fuel leakage into an ignition zone, possibly resulting in a fire or
explosion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance,'' paragraph of
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB, dated February
18, 2020, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance
with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB, dated February 18, 2020.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g):  Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-21A2577, dated February 18, 2020, which is referred to in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB, dated February 18, 2020.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB,
dated February 18, 2020, uses the phrase ``the original issue date
of Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB,'' this AD requires using
``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB,
dated February 18, 2020, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the repair before further
flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
original fiberglass fabric material TADD assembly, having a part
number listed in Appendix A of Boeing Alert

Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB, dated February 18, 2020, on
any airplane.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section,
FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on September 14, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-20807 Filed 9-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P