[Federal Register: October 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 58995-58997]
[DOCID:fr08oc08-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58705; File No. SR-Amex-2008-63)]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Establish New Membership,
Member Firm Conduct, and Equity Trading Rules Following the Exchange's
Acquisition by NYSE Euronext

October 1, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On July 28, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or the
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish new membership, member firm conduct,
and equity trading rules following the Exchange's acquisition by NYSE
Euronext. The proposal was published for comment in the Federal
Register on August 7, 2008.\3\ No comments were received on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58265 (July 30,
2008), 73 FR 46075 (SR-Amex-2008-63) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

A. Background

    As described in detail in a separate proposed rule change,\4\ NYSE
Euronext intends to acquire Amex's parent corporation, the Amex
Membership Corporation, and restructure the Exchange's ownership
through a series of mergers (``Mergers''), following which Amex will be
renamed NYSE Alternext U.S. LLC (``NYSE Alternext''). In a separate
action today, the Commission approved that proposed rule change.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58284 (August 1,
2008), 73 FR 46086 (August 7, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-62) (``Acquisition
Proposal'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-58673 (September
29, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the Mergers, Amex intends to relocate all equity
trading currently conducted on its legacy facilities at 86 Trinity
Place, New York, New York (the ``86 Trinity Trading Systems'') to 11
Wall Street, New York, New York (the ``Equities Relocation''). The
Exchange's equity trading facilities at 11 Wall Street (``NYSE
Alternext Trading Systems'') will be operated by the New York Stock
Exchange (``NYSE'') on behalf of the Exchange. At a later date, Amex
will relocate all options trading currently conducted on the 86 Trinity
Trading Systems to new facilities at 11 Wall Street, which will be
operated by NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') (the ``Options
Relocation,'' and together with the Equities Relocation, the
``Relocations''). Before completion of the Relocations, all trading on
the 86 Trinity Trading Systems will continue to be governed by the
existing Amex rules, as amended pursuant to the Mergers. The Exchange
anticipates that the Equities Relocation will occur as soon as
reasonably practicable following the date of the Mergers and that the
Options Relocation will occur at or around February 2009. Upon
completion of the Relocations, Amex will rescind its legacy rules.
    In this filing, Amex has proposed to adopt: (1) New membership
rules, which are based closely on existing NYSE membership rules; (2)
new member conduct rules, which are also based on existing NYSE member
conduct rules; (3) new equity trading rules, to reflect the fact that
equities trading on the Exchange will be supported by a new trading
system based on NYSE's existing system; and (4) certain transitional
rules that explain which of the Exchange's rules apply after the
Mergers but before the Relocations are complete. The Exchange has
stated that it will submit a separate filing to establish new options
trading rules in anticipation of the Options Relocation.

B. New Membership and Member Firm Conduct Rules

    The Exchange proposes to adopt rules governing member organizations
that are closely modeled on the existing NYSE membership rules,
including rules defining member and member organizations; \6\ governing
the admission of members, member organizations, allied members, and
approved persons; \7\ the formation and approval of member
organizations; \8\ changes within member organizations; \9\ and
submission of partnership articles and corporate documents. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equity Rule 2.
    \7\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equity Rules 300-308.
    \8\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equity Rule 311.
    \9\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equity Rule 312.
    \10\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equity Rule 313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt new member firm conduct rules,
which govern the off-floor conduct of members and member
organizations.\11\ These conduct rules relate to capital; \12\ margin;
\13\ internal controls; \14\ business conduct, customer protection, and
account maintenance; \15\ recordkeeping; \16\ automated submission of
trading data; \17\ and financial statements and reporting.\18\ These
rules are nearly identical to NYSE's member firm conduct rules. In
addition, many of these rules were adopted by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') in 2007 as ``Common Rules''
pursuant to the 17d-2 Agreement between NYSE and FINRA.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NYSE Rules 325-465 (Operation of Member Organizations).
    \12\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equities Rules 325-328.
    \13\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equities Rules 430-434.
    \14\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 342,
Supplementary Material .23.
    \15\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equities Rules 401-414.
    \16\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 440.
    \17\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 410A.
    \18\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equities Rules 416-424.
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56148 (July 26,
2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Order
Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the Allocation of
Regulatory Responsibilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that, upon the effective date of this filing,
each NYSE Alternext member organization will continue to be approved as
an NYSE Alternext member organization,\20\ even if it does not meet all
of the new membership requirements at that time.\21\ However, the new
membership rules may impose different or additional requirements than
the current Amex rules concerning membership, and following the Mergers
an NYSE Alternext member or member organization holding an 86 Trinity
Permit might not immediately satisfy

these new requirements. Therefore, the Exchange has proposed to give
each such member a grace period of six months to comply with these new
requirements beginning the date that it obtains an NYSE Alternext
equities trading license in exchange for a valid 86 Trinity Permit. The
Exchange would revoke the member's approval to trade if it failed to
meet the new requirements by the close of the grace period, and reserve
the right to commence proceedings to terminate its membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As discussed in the Acquisition Proposal, immediately
following the closing of the Mergers, those persons and entities who
were authorized to trade on Amex before the closing of the Mergers--
including (1) Amex owners, lessees, or nominees of Regular Members
or Options Principal Members (``OPMs''); (2) Amex limited trading
permit holders; and (3) Amex associate members--will be deemed to
have satisfied applicable qualification requirements necessary to
trade on NYSE Alternext and issued trading permits (referred to as
``86 Trinity Permits'') at no cost. The 86 Trinity Permit will
authorize these persons and entities to continue to trade on the 86
Trinity Trading Systems. A holder of an 86 Trinity Permit will be
able to apply for an NYSE Alternext equities license or options
trading permit upon the Equities or Options Relocation, as
applicable. After the Equities Relocation, a holder of an 86 Trinity
Permit will be able to trade only those products that have not
migrated to the NYSE Alternext Trading Systems. After the Options
Relocation, the 86 Trinity Permits will be canceled. See Notice, 73
FR at 46076.
    \21\ The Exchange has stated that, following the closing of the
transaction, the Exchange will work with FINRA as its agent to
ensure that the Exchange's membership requirements are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes that each NYSE Alternext member be
provided a grace period of six months within which to meet proposed
NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 304A requirements to pass certain required
examinations. This grace period would run from the date that the
individual member transfers to the NYSE Alternext Trading Systems.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, 73 FR at 46078.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also has proposed to require all of its members to
become members of both NYSE and FINRA.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NYSE and FINRA have submitted separate filings concerning
admission of Amex members. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
58290 (August 1, 2008), 73 FR 46676 (August 11, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-
70); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58291 (August 1, 2008), 73
FR 46661 (August 11, 2008) (SR-FINRA-2008-043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. New Equity Trading Rules

    The Exchange has proposed a new rule set for equities trading
(``NYSE Alternext Equities Rules''), which is closely modeled on NYSE
Rules 1-1004.\24\ Because NYSE Alternext Trading Systems will be
operated by NYSE on behalf of the Exchange, the NYSE Alternext Equities
Rules will be substantially identical to the existing NYSE equity
trading rules, with certain minor differences. The Exchange has
represented that, following the Equities Relocation, the NYSE Alternext
trading floor and the NYSE trading floor will be physically located in
adjacent rooms at 11 Wall Street and supported by the same systems and
equipment. NYSE Alternext's equity market structure will be identical
to NYSE's, as the two exchanges will have the same rules regarding,
among other things, order interaction, priority and parity, specialist
obligations, types of market participants, trading halts, and openings,
closings, and re-openings. NYSE's equity trading rules have previously
been approved by the Commission.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Exchange has taken NYSE Rules 1-1004 in the form they
existed as of July 18, 2008. The Exchange has stated that it will--
as soon after the close of the Mergers as practicable, but not later
than the date of the Equities Relocation--incorporate any changes to
these rules made after July 18, 2008, but before the effective date
of the Mergers.
    \25\ See Securities Act Release No. 53539 (March 22, 2006), 71
FR 16353 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2004-05) (``Hybrid Market
Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are a few minor differences between the NYSE Alternext and
NYSE trading rules. For example, rules related to Registered
Competitive Market Makers, Competitive Traders, and Registered Options
Representatives or Principals have not been adopted, since these
categories of market participants will not exist on NYSE Alternext.
Similarly, NYSE Alternext will be retaining the Amex's specialist net
capital requirements \26\ reflecting NYSE Alternext's trading of
smaller capitalized stocks than NYSE. Also, because ETFs, bonds, and
structured products will not trade on the NYSE Alternext trading
systems, rules relating to these categories of securities have not been
adopted. Finally, certain NYSE rules that are obsolete will not be
adopted for the NYSE Alternext rule set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See proposed NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 104.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not intend to list any securities that are listed
on NYSE or to trade any securities pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges (``UTP''). The Exchange may in the future determine to trade
securities listed on other exchanges on a UTP basis, subject to certain
technical adjustments to the NYSE Alternext Trading Systems necessary
to support such trading. However, the Exchange will not trade NYSE-
listed securities on a UTP basis and will not trade pursuant to UTP any
securities that might in the future be traded on the NYSE pursuant to
UTP.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Exchange has stated that NYSE does not currently trade
any securities pursuant to UTP. See Notice, 73 FR at 46076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to discontinue the listing and trading
(including UTP trading) of exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'') and certain
other structured products, including index and currency warrants. All
listing and trading of such products would be transferred to NYSE Arca.
The Exchange also proposes to discontinue trading of bonds currently
listed on the Exchange, which could then trade on NYSE Bonds, a
facility of NYSE. The Exchange has stated that the transfer of ETFs,
bonds, and structured products will be accomplished as soon as
practicable after the closing of the Mergers. Because movement of these
listings might not be completed by the date of the Equities Relocation,
such products would continue to be traded on the 86 Trinity Trading
Systems until the transfer of the listings can be completed. If an
issuer of an ETF, structured product, or bond does not wish to move its
listing to NYSE Arca or NYSE Bonds, as the case may be, such issuer
would have the opportunity to seek a listing on another market.
    Following the Equities Relocation, certain securities listed and
traded on the Exchange would not be eligible to trade on NYSE Alternext
because of a ``sub-penny trading condition'' described in proposed NYSE
Alternext Equities Rule 123D(3). Any such security would continue to be
listed on the Exchange but subject to a non-regulatory trading halt.
Trading in that security would be routed to NYSE Arca and handled in
accordance with the rules governing that market.
    Because NYSE Alternext will operate on the same trading systems as
NYSE, future market structure changes made to the NYSE system would
also affect trading on NYSE Alternext. The Exchange has represented
that, as changes made to the shared platform are implemented, both NYSE
and NYSE Alternext will, as necessary, submit parallel proposed rule
changes pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Transitional Rules

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the legacy Amex rules and
include provisions in the new NYSE Alternext rules to clarify which
rule set governs the conduct of trading following the Mergers. Proposed
Amex Rule 0 provides that all transactions conducted on or through the
86 Trinity Trading Systems would continue to be governed by the legacy
rules of the Exchange, including Amex Rules 1-1605, the Amex Company
Guide, and AEMI Rules 1-1500 (collectively, the ``86 Trinity Rules'').
Proposed NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 0 provides that all trading
conducted on the NYSE Alternext Trading Systems following relocation to
11 Wall Street would be governed by the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules,
except to the extent any 86 Trinity Rules are specifically designated
as applying.
    Proposed Amex Rule 0 and NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 0 also
provide that proposed NYSE Alternext Equities Rules 475-477, which
address disciplinary matters and are based on NYSE Rules 475-477, will
apply to all NYSE Alternext members and member organizations and will
govern trading on both the 86 Trinity and NYSE Alternext Trading
Systems.\28\ Following

completion of the Options Relocation, the 86 Trinity Rules--including
Amex Rule 0--would no longer be operative and would be rescinded by the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Exchange has submitted additional filings addressing
its rules and procedures for certain legacy disciplinary matters.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58286 (August 1, 2008), 73
FR 46097 (August 7, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-64). In addition, the
Exchange intends to submit in the near future a proposal to adopt
Disciplinary Rule 478T, which would govern the temporary
disciplinary procedures applicable to certain legacy disciplinary
proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\29\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\30\ which,
among other things, requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\31\ which requires that the rules of
an exchange not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Commission notes that the proposed rules for the new NYSE Alternext
market relating to membership, member firm conduct, and equities
trading are substantially similar to existing NYSE rules, which have
been previously subject to notice and comment and, where appropriate,
approved by the Commission.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \32\ See Hybrid Market Approval Order, supra note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This approval is based on the Commission's understanding that the
equity trading system of NYSE Alternext will not trade any securities
that are traded on NYSE. If in the future NYSE Alternext wishes to
trade any security that is also traded on NYSE, NYSE Alternext must
first file with the Commission a proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Act.
    All Amex members will, upon the closing of the Mergers, be approved
as members of NYSE Alternext. However, since the new NYSE Alternext
membership qualification rules are not identical to the current Amex
rules, the Exchange has proposed a six-month grace period for members
to meet the new requirements and for members to take any necessary
examinations. The Commission believes this is a reasonable
accommodation for existing members of the Exchange that meet the
current membership requirements but which might not immediately be able
to satisfy the new membership requirements.
    Finally, the Commission believes that the transitional rules
proposed by the Exchange are consistent with the Act. They appear
reasonably designed to promote an orderly transition by Amex members
from the 86 Trinity Trading Systems to the NYSE Alternext Trading
Systems.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\33\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2008-63) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23766 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Placeholder for document 145; this document is titled " Response to Section 114 Request for Information Concerning Hendrix and Dail, Inc.' s Inventories of Methyl Bromide as of December 31, 2002, dated January 17, 2003" and contains Confidential Business Information.

Please contact Hodayah Finman at 202 343 9246 for more information.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37713-37714]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request for a Temporary Change in Use
To Accommodate Vehicular Parking on a Section of the Active Aircraft
Parking Apron, at Albany International Airport, Albany, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment for a
temporary change in use not to exceed 5 years to accommodate vehicular
parking on a section of the aircraft parking apron to the immediate
west of the terminal building, at Albany International Airport, Albany,
NY.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the following address:
    John O'Donnell, Chief Executive Officer, Albany International
Airport, Albany County Airport Authority, Administration Building,
Suite 200, Albany, NY 12211-1057,<PHONE_NUMBER>; and at the FAA New
York Airports District Office: Evelyn Martinez, Manager, New York
Airports District Office, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, NY 11434, (718)
995-5771.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Allen, Community Planner, New
York Airports District Office, location listed above.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The request for a temporary change in use not to exceed 5 years to
accommodate vehicular parking on a section of the apron may be reviewed
in person at the New York Airports District Office located at 159-30
Rockaway Blvd., Suite 111, Jamaica, NY 11434.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request for a temporary change in use not to exceed 5 years, to
accommodate vehicular parking on a section of the aircraft parking
apron to the immediate west of the terminal at Albany International
Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47125(a). Based on a full
review, the FAA determined that the request for a temporary change in
use not to exceed 5 years to accommodate vehicular parking on a section
of the active apron at Albany International Airport (ALB), NY,
submitted by the Albany County Airport Authority, met the procedural
requirements.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:

    The Authority requests the temporary conversion of approximately
2.88 acres of existing aircraft parking apron space to accommodate
vehicular parking during main terminal overflow events for a time
period not to exceed 5 years from the date of approval. The
conversion would provide for approximately 200 additional parking
spaces, and includes temporary perimeter fencing, ingress/egress
gates, pavement markings, ticketing and payment stations, paving
modifications, and temporary lighting and signage. As indicated in
the sponsor request,

the aircraft parking apron space in question is not currently
utilized to capacity for its primary aviation function, which is
transient overnight aircraft parking. There are currently other
portions of the airport that can accommodate transient overnight
parking if needed. The area will provide needed vehicular parking
during overflow events, and the revenue generated will be used for
airport purposes. All proceeds generated from the parking area must
be used exclusively by the airport in accordance with 49 U.S.C.
47107(b) and the FAA's policy on revenue use.

    Any person may inspect the request by appointment at the FAA office
address listed above. Interested persons are invited to comment on the
proposed 5 year temporary change of use from aeronautical to non-
aeronautical. All comments will be considered by the FAA to the extent
practicable.

    Issued in Jamaica, New York, June 25, 2015.
Evelyn Martinez,
Manager, New York Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-16201 Filed 6-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 175)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52233-52234]
[DOCID:fr09se08-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA-B-7786]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On June 20, 2008, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides
corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information
published at 73 FR 35114. The table provided here represents the
flooding source, location of referenced elevation, effective and
modified elevation, and communities affected for Bristol County,
Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions). Specifically, it addresses flooding
source ``Buzzards Bay.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-3151 or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established
by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed
elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of
the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made
final, and for the contents in these buildings.

Correction

    In the proposed rule published at 73 FR 35114, in the June 20, 2008
issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the
authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ``Bristol County,
Massachusetts and Incorporated Areas'' addressed flooding sources
``Buzzards Bay.'' That table contained inaccurate information as to the
location of referenced elevation, effective and modified elevation in
feet, or communities affected for these flooding sources. In this
notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information,
to address these prior errors. The information provided below should be
used in lieu of that previously published.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                 (NGVD) + Elevation in
                                                                 feet (NAVD)
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced     Depth in feet above     Communities  affected
                                             elevation                  ground
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Bristol County, Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzzards Bay........................  Approximately 1,650              +13          +24  Town of Dartmouth, City
                                       feet East of                                       of New Bedford, Town
                                       intersection of River                              of Fairhaven, Town of
                                       Road and Redwing Lane.                             Westport.
                                      Approximately 875 feet           +31          +24
                                       South from end of Club
                                       House Drive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: August 26, 2008.
Michael K. Buckley,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-20821 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88727-88728]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29409]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0289; FMCSA-2009-0290; FMCSA-2011-0300; FMCSA-
2013-0190; FMCSA-2013-0191]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions of 107
individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM
to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On December 30, 2015, FMCSA published a notice announcing its
decision to renew exemptions for 107 individuals from the insulin-
treated diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate
a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (80
FR 81667). The public comment period ended on January 29, 2016 and no
comments were received.
    As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the
eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these
exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current
regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 107 renewal exemption applications
and that no comments were received, FMCSA announces its decision to
exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with
ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.64(3):
    As of January 5, 2016, the following 20 individuals have satisfied
the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule
prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs

in interstate commerce (76 FR 71112; 77 FR 532; 80 FR 81667):

Mark A. Aspden (MA)
Rodney C. Backus (NY)
Gary L. Breitenbach (SC)
Gerald R. Curran (PA)
Matthew G. Denisov (NC)
Shawn K. Fleming (PA)
Steven W. Gerling (IA)
Jackie D. Greenlee (MO)
Gregory L. Horton (GA)
Justin W. Jackson (OK)
David T. Kylander (MO)
Kevin A. Perdue (MD)
Michael E. Pleak (IN)
Sarah M. Powell (NM)
James G. Rahn (IA)
Christopher C. Stephenson (KS)
Ward A. Stone (WI)
Todd J. Timmerman (WI)
Richard L. White (MS)
Paul A. Wright (NY)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0300. Their
exemptions are effective as of January 5, 2016 and will expire on
January 5, 2018.
    As of January 11, 2016, the following 24 individuals have satisfied
the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule
prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce
(74 FR 55890; 75 FR 1449; 80 FR 81667):

Eric M. Butz (OH)
Rita A. Cefaratti (CT)
Gerald F. Crowley (NY)
Scott J. Denham (MN)
Larry E. Dickerson (GA)
Lance W. Essex (OH)
David E. Ginter (PA)
William H. Goebel (IA)
Joseph L. Gray III (PA)
Ryan R. Harris (IA)
Carroll J. Hartsell (WV)
Keith M. Huels (AZ)
Daniel R. Jackson (PA)
Curtis W. Keelin, Jr. (WY)
Patrick J. Krueger (WI)
Tammy Lynn F. Manuel (SC)
Francisco J. Martinez (MA)
Andrew W. Myer (NE)
Chad A. Nelson (UT)
David W. Olson (AZ)
Mark E. Pascoe (WI)
Terry L. Riddell (IN)
Roger L. Summerfield (WI)
Jimmy P. Wright (TX)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0289. Their
exemptions are effective as of January 11, 2016 and will expire on
January 11, 2018.
    As of January 23, 2016, the following 13 individuals have satisfied
the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule
prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce
(78 FR 65034; 79 FR 3917; 80 FR 81667):

Clair H. Gilmore (WA)
Michael Kollos (MN)
Daniel T. Lindahl (WI)
James F. McSweeney (NH)
Eric W. Miller (IN)
William J. Rodgers (PA)
Mark A. Rosenau (MN)
Daniel B. Shaw (FL)
John C. Thomas (IN)
Richard Wasko (FL)
Douglas E. Wilhoit (PA)
Richard A. Wilk (OH)
Thomas A. Young (TX)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0190. Their
exemptions are effective as of January 23, 2016 and will expire on
January 23, 2018.
    As of January 28, 2016, the following 25 individuals have satisfied
the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule
prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce
(74 FR 65836; 75 FR 4622; 80 FR 81667):

Bob A. Bauer (WI)
Michael P. Berger (ND)
William D. Blosch (GA)
Victor M. Brunner (WI)
Tom L. Cooley (KS)
Wallace E. Crouse, Jr. (MA)
Robert G. Dohman, Jr. (ND)
Danny E. Edmondson (GA)
Andrew C. Everett (AZ)
Wendell G. Fordham (GA)
Eugene G. Friedman (NJ)
Donald W. Hansen (ND)
Joseph S. Hernandez (NM)
Jordan T. Johnston (IN)
Jere W. Kirkpatrick (OH)
Kyle A. Leach (NE)
Robert J. Lewis, Jr. (VT)
Stacy R. Oberholzer (PA)
Michael S. Ogle (GA)
Walter L. Patrick (TN)
Clifford A. Peters (IL)
Richard L. Piercefield, Sr. (MI)
Kevin A. Roginski (PA)
Bruce M. Stockton (MO)
Todd R. Vickers (MD)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0290. Their
exemptions are effective as of January 28, 2016 and will expire on
January 28, 2018.
    As of January 29, 2016, the following 25 individuals have satisfied
the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule
prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce
(78 FR 68139; 79 FR 4807; 80 FR 81667):

Dylan J. Bryan (IL)
Robert A. Collins (NJ)
Fred J. Combs (OH)
Edward C. DeFrancesco (CT)
Terrance J. Dusharm (MN)
Jonathan Eggers (MN)
Gilbert N. Fugate (IN)
Scott C. Garbiel (ME)
Charles D. Grant (GA)
William F. Hamann (KY)
Jerry J. Klosterman (OH)
Joseph E. Kolb (NY)
Matthew D. Lee (VA)
Craig A. Lemponen (OH)
Matthew P. Ludwig (NY)
Keith B. Masters (NH)
Eli J. Meekhof (MI)
Jeffrey A. Olson (IA)
Marvin H. Patterson III (SC)
Brandon C. Rhinehart (MD)
Donald R. Sine, Jr. (WV)
Dennis E. Taunton (ID)
Phillip A. Trent (VA)
Deborah D. Watson (MI)
Ronnie C. Webb (MT)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0191. Their
exemptions are effective as of January 29, 2016 and will expire on
January 29, 2018.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid
for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and
31315.

    Issued on: November 25, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-29409 Filed 12-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 183 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59180-59187]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19584]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6140; Product Identifier 2015-NM-059-AD; Amendment
39-21233; AD 2020-18-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, and -300 series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by the FAA's analysis of the Model 777
fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This AD requires
modifying the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) to prevent
development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to
electrical fault conditions. This AD also provides alternative actions
for cargo airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES:

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-2016-
6140; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Regimbal, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing
Company Model 777 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on

May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26750). The NPRM was prompted by the FAA's analysis
of the Model 777 fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. The
NPRM proposed to require modifying the FQIS to prevent development of
an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault
conditions. The NPRM also proposed to provide alternative actions for
cargo airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address ignition sources
inside the center fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel
vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of
the airplane.

Comments

    The FAA 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.

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and National
Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) supported the intent of the
NPRM. Additional comments from NATCA are addressed below.

Request To Withdraw NPRM: No Unsafe Condition

    Boeing requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM. Boeing suggested
that, by requiring center fuel tank FQIS wire separation for passenger
airplanes that have not incorporated a nitrogen generating system
(NGS), the NPRM specifically addresses airplanes regulated by the
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and other civil aviation
authorities and the lack of a flammability reduction means (FRM) rule.
Boeing stated that because it considered the use of FRM (NGS) to
address unknown ignition sources as the final corrective action, Boeing
has not developed center tank FQIS wire separation service instructions
for passenger aircraft. Boeing stated that it believes no unsafe
condition exists and does not feel that the lack of FRM rule
harmonization should cause additional work and expense for airlines.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA determined
that an unsafe condition exists using the criteria in FAA Policy
Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15, ``SFAR 88--Mandatory Action Decision
Criteria,'' dated February 25, 2003.\1\ That policy was used to
evaluate the noncompliant design areas identified in the manufacturer's
fuel system reviews and to determine which noncompliance issues were
unsafe conditions that required corrective action under 14 CFR part 39.
The FAA's unsafe condition determination was not based on an assessment
of average risk or total fleet risk, but rather was driven by the
qualitative identification of an unacceptable level of individual risk
that exists on flights that are anticipated to occur with a preexisting
latent in-tank failure condition and with a flammable center fuel tank.
For these reasons, and based on further detailed responses to similar
comments in the supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) for Docket No. FAA-2012-0187
(80 FR 9400, February 23, 2015), and in the subsequently issued final
rule, AD 2016-07-07, Amendment 39-18452 (81 FR 19472, April 5, 2016)
(``AD 2016-07-07''), which addressed the same unsafe condition for
Boeing Model 757 airplanes, the FAA has determined that it is necessary
to issue this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgPolicy.nsf/0/dc94c3a46396950386256d5e006aed11/$FILE/Feb2503.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request To Withdraw NPRM: Unjustified by Risk

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), Cathay Pacific (Cathay), and
Emirates requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM. KLM stated that it
understands that Boeing is not able to explain or substantiate the
rationale behind the NPRM. Singapore Airlines (SIA) suggested that the
FAA should consider the Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No.
88 (in 14 CFR part 21) modifications that have already been implemented
to mitigate ignition risks and the resultant reduced risk exposure. SIA
added that the determination of the risk level should also consider the
remaining operating life of the Model 777 fleet. The FAA infers that
SIA is also requesting that the NPRM be withdrawn. Cathay noted that
operators have already accomplished numerous SFAR 88-related service
bulletins, which have increased the level of fuel system safety. KLM
and Emirates stated that the NPRM does not clarify the necessity of
additional actions beyond the currently mandated SFAR 88-related
service bulletins, airworthiness limitations, and critical design
configuration control limitations (CDCCLs).
    The FAA disagrees with the commenters' request. The FAA notes that
similar comments were addressed in the SNPRM for Docket No. FAA-2012-
0187 in the comment response for ``Request To Withdraw NPRM (77 FR
12506, March 1, 2012): Unjustified by Risk.'' As explained in that
comment response, in addition to examining average risk and total fleet
risk, the FAA examines the individual flight risk on the worst
reasonably anticipated flights. In general, the FAA issues ADs in cases
where reasonably anticipated flights with preexisting failures (either
due to latent failure conditions or allowable dispatch configurations)
are vulnerable to a catastrophic event due to an additional foreseeable
single failure condition. This is because the FAA considers operation
of flights vulnerable to a potentially catastrophic single failure
condition to be an excessive safety risk to the passengers on those
flights. The FAA has determined that the currently mandated SFAR 88
service bulletins, airworthiness limitations, and critical design
configuration control limitations do not adequately address the unsafe
condition identified in this AD and therefore it is necessary to issue
this final rule. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Withdraw NPRM: Inadequate Fleet Exposure and Cost Estimates

    Boeing requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM. Boeing stated that
the fleet exposure for the affected fleet continues to decrease due to
aging airplanes. Boeing added that the estimated costs in the NPRM do
not take into account the costs of compliance for passenger airplanes
without FRM installed.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA did not
base its unsafe condition determination on fleet risk but instead on
individual risk. This is discussed in detail in the response to
comments in the SNPRM for Docket No. FAA-2012-0187, under the heading
``Request To Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012): Unjustified by
Risk.'' Therefore, the age of the airplane does not affect the
determination that an unsafe condition still exists on an individual
airplane.
    The NPRM for this final rule did contain a cost estimate for
passenger airplanes that was based on the estimate provided by Boeing
for the Model 757 and Model 767 airplanes, which have an FQIS of
similar design. The FAA notes that Boeing asserted that the cost to
operators of modifying an airplane's FQIS to be fully compliant with
the airworthiness standards would be similar to the cost of installing
Boeing's NGS flammability reduction system. Based on that, Boeing
requested that the FAA agree to not require Boeing to develop service
information for a fully compliant FQIS modification. However, the FAA
used Boeing's estimate of the cost to modify the Model 757 and Model
767 FQIS to a fully part-25-compliant

configuration to provide the estimated costs in the NPRM, based on an
assumption that the cost for Model 747 airplanes would be similar. At
the time, Boeing concurred with this estimate. This is discussed in
detail in the response to comments in the SNPRM for Docket No. FAA-
2012-0187. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Cancel Any Retroactive Modification Requirements

    Cathay and KLM requested that any plans to require retroactive
modification to install FRM on in-service airplanes be cancelled.
Cathay stated that EASA does not plan to require retroactive
modification to install FRM on in-service airplanes registered in the
EASA member states. Cathay noted that Hong Kong Airworthiness Notice
No. 103 states that FRM is non-mandatory on aircraft manufactured
before February 1, 2012. Cathay added that if the NPRM is not
withdrawn, it should be limited to U.S.-registered airplanes. KLM noted
that the proposed AD would create a huge financial burden. KLM also
noted that EASA only adopted the requirement to equip an FRM on newly
delivered airplanes.
    The FAA does not agree. First, the FAA has already issued a final
rule, Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category
Airplanes (73 FR 42444, July 21, 2008), the Fuel Tank Flammability
Reduction (FTFR) rule, which requires retrofitting of FRM or ignition
mitigation means (IMM) on passenger airplanes. The FAA has no plans to
rescind that action, which was intended to increase the level of fuel
tank safety on transport airplanes. Separately from that rulemaking,
the FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists in several
Boeing and Airbus models, including early versions of the Model 777
airplanes. The reasons behind that determination are detailed in the
response to comments in the SNPRM for Docket No. FAA-2012-0187, under
the heading ``Request To Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012):
Unjustified by Risk.'' The FAA acknowledges that the cost of this
retrofitting may be high, but has determined that the unsafe condition
must be addressed.

Request To Record Only Certain Codes

    Boeing requested that paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD be
revised to only require corrective actions if a nondispatchable fault
code pertaining to the center wing tank is recorded (as opposed to any
nondispatchable fault code being recorded). Boeing stated that all FQIS
wire separation changes in the proposed AD are limited to the center
wing tank, therefore only built-in test equipment (BITE) check messages
pertaining to the center wing tank are applicable to the proposed AD.
In addition, Boeing stated that a final rule should be postponed until
the FAA develops a list of ``nondispatchable fault codes'' in
conjunction with Boeing.
    The FAA agrees that the unsafe condition addressed by this AD is
limited to the center wing tank. However, the FAA does not agree that
the AD should be changed as proposed by Boeing. It is not clear to the
FAA whether there may be FQIS BITE fault codes that are not clearly
identified as related to the center wing tank but that may impact
center tank circuits. Therefore, the FAA has determined that all
nondispatchable fault codes recorded prior to the BITE check or as a
result of the BITE check required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD must
be addressed. Operators or Boeing may request an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD if
they can provide sufficient data that a particular fault code does not
pertain to the unsafe condition addressed by this AD.
    Regarding the requirement to record and address fault codes read
immediately prior to running the BITE check procedure, the FAA notes
that the normal Boeing procedure for performing an FQIS BITE check is
to first erase all of the existing fault codes, then perform the BITE
check and troubleshoot any resulting new fault codes. For this AD, the
FAA did not want any already stored fault codes to be potentially
ignored due to erasure at the first step because some of the failures
of concern can be intermittent. This AD therefore requires operators to
record the existing codes before doing the BITE check, then do the BITE
check and record the new codes that result from that BITE check, and
then do the appropriate troubleshooting and corrective action for both
sets of codes per the manufacturer's guidance. The FAA has not changed
this AD regarding this issue.
    Finally, the FAA does not agree to delay the final rule while
Boeing proposes and obtains FAA agreement on a list of nondispatchable
fault codes. The FAA requested service information from Boeing in 2016
to support the option for all-cargo airplanes on all of the Boeing
models for which similar FQIS ADs were planned. Boeing chose at that
time to develop service information only for the Model 747-400, 757,
and 767 airplanes because at that time only those airplanes had
affected cargo configuration for which Boeing was the design approval
holder. The FAA agreed at that time to not require Boeing to develop a
BITE check service bulletin for the Model 777 airplanes because Boeing
had not yet developed a cargo conversion service bulletin or
supplemental type certificate (STC) for the Model 777 airplanes. The
FAA also considered that, because the BITE check instructions already
existed in the Model 777 AMM, a BITE check service bulletin could be
developed quickly at a later date if needed. In addition, the process
for obtaining FAA agreement on a list of nondispatchable fault codes
for the models Boeing chose to support took less than 30 days. If any
service information is developed to support compliance with paragraph
(h) of this AD it will be evaluated for approval using the AMOC process
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

Request To Exclude Certain Airplanes From the Applicability

    Boeing requested that the proposed AD be revised to exclude all
Model 777-300ER and 777F airplanes, as well as all airplanes having
line numbers 562 and subsequent. Boeing explained that all Model 777-
300ER and 777F airplanes were produced with FQIS center wing tank wire
separation that has been shown to be compliant with 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3)
as amended by amendment 25-102 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) (``amendment
25-102''). Boeing added that all Model 777 passenger airplanes after
line number 562 were also produced with FQIS center wing tank wire
separation that has been shown to be compliant with 14 CFR
25.981(a)(3), as amended by amendment 25-102.
    KLM also requested that the proposed AD be revised to exclude line
numbers 562 and subsequent because those airplanes have an improved
FQIS wire separation, removing any potential for the unsafe condition
to occur.
    The FAA agrees for the reasons provided. The FAA has revised
paragraph (c) of this AD to remove the requested airplanes from the
applicability. The FAA has also revised the Costs of Compliance section
of this AD accordingly.

Request To Exclude Airplanes Based on Prior Incorporation of Certain
Service Information

    Air France requested that the applicability of the proposed AD be
revised to exclude airplanes on which certain service information has
been incorporated.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request (which the commenter
inadvertently posted to docket FAA-2016-6141). The service

information mentioned by the commenter does not address the unsafe
condition identified in this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD
regarding this issue.

Request To Remove Inspection Requirement for Cargo Airplanes

    Air France noted that paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD requires
an inspection (BITE check) on cargo airplanes. Air France asked why
this action is required on cargo airplanes but not passenger airplanes.
    The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the FAA remove
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. The FAA disagrees with the commenter's
request (which the commenter inadvertently posted to docket FAA-2016-
6141). The FAA has determined that the changes required for passenger
airplanes--either compliance with the FTFR regulations or modification
of the FQIS to make it fully compliant with the airworthiness
regulations--are adequate to address the unsafe condition without the
periodic BITE check required under the optional method of compliance
for cargo airplanes. The optional method of compliance for cargo
airplanes does not require compliance with the FTFR regulations or a
fully compliant FQIS modification so the additional checks are
necessary. The FAA has not changed the AD regarding this issue.

Request To Change Compliance Time

    Japan Airlines (JAL) requested that the FAA extend the compliance
time for the modifications specified in paragraphs (g) and (h)(2) of
the proposed AD to 72 months. JAL stated that Boeing anticipates that
the installation of NGS will be an AMOC for the actions specified in
the proposed AD. JAL added that some Model 777 airplanes are already
being retired and that non-U.S. operators have not been mandated to
install NGS. SIA requested that the compliance timeline take into
consideration the lack of availability of a specific modification for
operators to comply with, but did not request a specific change to the
proposed compliance time.
    Conversely, NATCA recommended that the FAA reject requests for a
compliance time longer than 5 years as proposed in the NPRM. Assuming
final rule issuance in 2016, NATCA stated that a 5-year compliance time
would result in required compliance by 2021--25 years after the TWA
Flight 800 fuel tank explosion that led to the requirements in SFAR 88,
and 20 years after issuance of SFAR 88.
    The FAA agrees with JAL's request to extend the compliance time,
and disagrees with NATCA's request. The FAA received similar requests
to extend the compliance time from several commenters regarding the
NPRMs for the FQIS modification on other airplanes. The FAA has
determined that a 72-month compliance time is appropriate and will
provide operators adequate time to prepare for and perform the required
modifications without excessive disruption of operations. The FAA has
determined that the requested moderate increase in compliance time will
continue to provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has revised
paragraphs (g) and (h)(2) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Exclude Airplanes To Be Retired

    British Airways (BA) requested that the proposed AD be revised to
provide dispensation for aircraft to be retired, which would not be
prohibitive for operators.
    The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting an extension of the
compliance time for airplanes that will be retired by a certain date or
for the AD to exclude those airplanes from this AD. The FAA notes that
the commenter did not propose a specific period of additional time for
operation without addressing the unsafe condition, and did not propose
any specific alternative corrective actions. In addition, it is the
FAA's understanding that BA no longer operates any of the affected
airplanes. As previously mentioned, the FAA has revised this AD to
provide 72 months from the effective date of this AD for incorporation
of the required modification, which should allow adequate time to plan
for retiring aircraft if needed. If an operator wishes to make a
specific proposal, they can submit that proposal using the AMOC
process. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Address Unsafe Condition on All Fuel Tanks

    NATCA recommended that the FAA require design changes that
eliminate unsafe FQIS failure conditions on all fuel tanks on the
affected models, regardless of fuel tank location or the percentage of
time the fuel tank is flammable. NATCA referred to four fuel tank
explosions in low-flammability exposure time fuel tanks identified by
the FAA during FTFR rulemaking. NATCA stated that neither FRM nor
alternative actions for cargo airplanes (e.g., BITE checks (checks of
built-in test equipment) followed by applicable repairs before further
flight and modification of the center fuel tank FQIS wiring within 60
months) would bring the airplane into full regulatory compliance. NATCA
added that the combination of failures described in the NPRM meets the
criteria for ``known combinations'' of failures that require corrective
action in FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has
determined that, according to FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15,
the failure condition for the airplanes affected by this AD should not
be classified as a ``known combination.'' While the FQIS design
architecture is similar to that of the early Boeing Model 747
configuration that is suspected of contributing to the TWA Flight 800
fuel tank explosion, significant differences exist in the design of
FQIS components and wire installations between the affected Boeing
airplane models and the early Model 747 airplanes such that the intent
of the ``known combinations'' provision for low-flammability fuel tanks
in the policy memorandum is not applicable. Therefore, this AD affects
only the identified Boeing airplanes with high-flammability exposure
time fuel tanks, as specified in paragraph (c) of this AD. The FAA
provided a detailed response to similar comments in the preamble of the
final rule for AD 2016-07-07. The FAA has not changed this final rule
regarding this issue.

Request To Require Cargo Airplane Option for All Airplanes

    Boeing requested that the NPRM be revised to make the alternative
actions for cargo airplanes specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed
AD applicable to all airplanes, including passenger airplanes with FRM
not installed due to differences in foreign regulations. In addition,
Boeing requested that the actions specified in paragraph (h) of the
proposed AD become the primary means of compliance for all airplanes,
not an alternative method of compliance for some airplanes.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. As discussed in the
comment response in the SNPRM for Docket No. FAA-2012-0187, under the
heading ``Requests To Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012) Based
on Applicability'' the FAA does not consider the alternative action for
cargo airplanes allowed by this AD to provide an adequate level of
safety for passenger airplanes. The FAA is willing to accept a higher
level of individual flight risk exposure for cargo flights that are not
fail-safe due to the absence of passengers and the resulting
significant reduction in occupant exposure on a cargo airplane versus a
passenger

airplane, and due to relatively low estimated individual flight risk
that would exist on a cargo airplane after the corrective actions are
taken. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Exclude Certain Airplanes

    United Airlines (UAL) noted that 14 CFR 121.1117 requires that an
FRM will have been installed on all affected airplanes in passenger
configuration by December 26, 2018, well ahead of the compliance
deadline of the proposed AD. UAL further suggested that the FAA either
delete paragraph (g) of the proposed AD or make paragraph (g) of the
proposed AD applicable only to airplanes in a cargo configuration that
do not have an FRM installed and non-U.S.-registered airplanes that do
not have to comply with FRM requirements.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. There are other
passenger-carrying airplanes operated under 14 CFR part 91 that are not
required to install FRM. (The requirement to install FRM on all
passenger-carrying airplanes operated by air carriers is in 14 CFR
121.1117.) The FAA notes that foreign air carriers may not have to
comply with that requirement or similar requirements of their own civil
aviation authority. EASA, for example, has chosen not to require FRM to
be retrofitted to in-service airplanes. This AD is intended to require
any Model 777 series passenger airplane that does not have FRM,
regardless of the rules under which it is operated, to address the FQIS
latent-plus-one unsafe condition with a corrective action that fully
complies with the FAA airworthiness standards. This requirement
fulfills the FAA's International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
obligation to address unsafe conditions on all of the aircraft
manufactured by the state of design, not just those aircraft whose
operation is under the jurisdiction of the state of design. The FAA has
not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Certification Basis for Modification Requirements

    NATCA recommended that the FAA revise paragraph (g) of the proposed
AD to clearly state that the required FQIS design changes must comply
with the fail-safe requirements of 14 CFR 25.901(c), as amended by
amendment 25-46 (43 FR 50597, October 30, 1978); and 14 CFR 25.981(a)
and (b), as amended by amendment 25-102; NATCA added that these
provisions are required by SFAR 88.
    The FAA does not agree to change paragraph (g) of this AD. While
the FAA agrees that modifications to comply with paragraph (g) of this
AD should be required to comply with the referenced regulations, that
requirement already exists in 14 CFR part 21. No change to this AD is
necessary.

Request To Require Modification on All Production Airplanes

    NATCA recommended that the FAA require designs that comply with 14
CFR 25.901(c) and 25.981(a)(3) on all newly produced transport
airplanes. NATCA stated that continuing to grant exemptions to 14 CFR
25.901(c), as amended by amendment 25-40 (42 FR 15042, March 17, 1977);
and 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3), as amended by amendment 25-102; has allowed
continued production of thousands of airplanes with this known unsafe
condition.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The recommendation
to require production airplanes to fully comply with 14 CFR 25.901(c)
and 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3) is outside the scope of this rulemaking. In
addition, the FAA has implemented requirements for all large transport
airplanes produced after September 2010 to include flammability
reduction methods for tanks that would otherwise be high-flammability
fuel tanks. Boeing incorporated this change into the Model 777 series
airplanes that are still in production and the FAA has excluded those
models from the applicability of this AD. The FAA has not changed this
final rule regarding this issue.

Request To State That an Exemption Is Required

    Boeing requested that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be revised
to state that an exemption is required to accomplish the specified
actions. Boeing stated that the FAA has identified that the BITE
procedure and wire separation design changes specified in the proposed
AD are not sufficient for compliance to 14 CFR 25.981(a) at the FQIS
level. Boeing stated that an exemption is therefore needed prior to
approval of the related design change.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. The BITE check is not a type design
change or alteration, so no exemption from the airworthiness standards
is required for that action. The design data approval of any partial
wire separation modification would require an exemption. That exemption
would be obtained by the party seeking approval of the alteration data,
and no further exemption would be required for the party using that
data to alter an aircraft. Obtaining such an exemption would be part of
the certification process for such a change, so the FAA does not find
it necessary to include such information in paragraph (h) of this AD.
In addition, some parties may choose to comply with the AD using a
design change that fully complies with the airworthiness standards. The
FAA also notes that the commenter appears to misunderstand why an
exemption is needed for the required modification. The exemption is
needed because, even with the modification, the FQIS does not comply
with 14 CFR 25.901(c) and 14 CFR 25.981(a). The exemption does not
authorize evaluation of a partial system for compliance with the system
level requirement. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this
issue.

Request To Change Compliance Time Relative to Receipt of Exemption

    Boeing requested that the FAA revise the compliance time for the
proposed AD to ``60 months after an exemption from [14 CFR
25.981(a)(3)] is FAA-approved.'' Boeing suggested that it would take 6
months to develop an exemption petition and 6 months for the FAA to
approve that exemption. Boeing added that the FAA has previously
identified that the BITE checks procedure and wire separation design
were not sufficient for compliance with 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3).
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. An AD typically
does not include a compliance time that is based on an optional action
that an operator or manufacturer might choose to take. In addition, the
FAA notes that Boeing has already received exemptions for Model 747-
400, 757, and 767 airplanes, and could quickly petition for and obtain
approval of a similar exemption for the Model 777 airplanes using an
almost identical petition. The FAA's flow time to disposition such a
petition would be approximately 90 days, during which time Boeing could
still proceed with development of the modification. In addition, as
noted above, the compliance time for the actions specified in paragraph
(h)(2) of this AD has been extended to 72 months, giving additional
time for operators or manufacturers to obtain an exemption.

Request To Extend Repetitive BITE Check Interval

    Boeing requested that paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD be
revised to extend the repetitive check interval for the BITE checks.
Boeing requested that the repetitive interval be extended to 750 flight
hours to match the repetitive intervals specified in service
information for other airplane models.
    The FAA agrees to extend the repetitive check interval to 750
flight

hours. The FAA intended to propose a 750 flight hour interval, but
inadvertently specified 650 flight hour intervals in the proposed AD.
The FAA has revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to specify repetitive
intervals of 750 flight hours.

Request To Provide Cost-Effective Method of Compliance

    SIA, Emirates, JAL, Korean Air Lines (KAL), KLM, Cathay, and BA
requested that the FAA provide a cost-effective method of compliance
for passenger airplanes. Emirates and KAL noted that the proposed AD
does not provide a clear means of compliance for the modification, such
as a Boeing service bulletin. SIA stated that Boeing should develop a
modification to specifically address the unsafe condition in the
proposed AD and that operators should have the opportunity to assess
compliance options. Emirates suggested that the only method of
compliance for non-U.S. operators will be installation of an NGS. KAL
noted that the majority of non-FAA operators are not required to
retrofit the NGS system. JAL, KAL, KLM, and BA requested that the FAA
encourage Boeing to develop an acceptable cost-effective method of
compliance that does not require installation of an NGS. Cathay also
urged Boeing to develop a cost-effective solution as method of
compliance for the proposed actions.
    The FAA agrees that the lack of service information for FQIS
modifications makes it difficult to assess the required work to modify
the FQIS, and acknowledges the high cost of NGS. However, the FAA
disagrees with the commenters' requests. For passenger-carrying
airplanes, the cost per airplane of providing a modification of the
FQIS that fully complies with the airworthiness standards was estimated
by Boeing and their FQIS vendor (Goodrich) prior to the issuance of the
NPRM to be comparable to the cost of installing NGS. Based on that cost
estimate, Boeing proposed that they not be required to develop a fully
compliant FQIS modification for passenger airplanes because it would
not provide significant savings to operators and NGS would provide a
greater safety benefit. The FAA agreed.
    The FAA's understanding is that Boeing's current position is the
same, and that they do not plan to develop a fully compliant FQIS
modification for passenger airplanes to address paragraph (g) of this
AD. However, if service information is developed, approved, and
available in the future, operators may request approval under the
provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD to use approved service
instructions as an AMOC for the requirements of this AD, or the FAA may
approve the service information as a global AMOC for this AD.

Request To Clarify Applicability

    China Eastern Airlines (CEA) asked for clarification regarding the
airplanes affected by the proposed AD. CEA asked if airplanes equipped
with NGS satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed
AD.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. This AD applies to the listed airplane
models listed in paragraph (c) of this AD, except for those that meet
one of the exceptions listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
AD. Paragraph (c)(2) of this AD provides an exception for airplanes
that already have a flammability reduction means (such as an NGS
installed in production or using a service bulletin) that meets the
current airworthiness standards. Therefore, airplanes that are equipped
with an NGS that meets current FAA airworthiness standards meet the
requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this AD and are compliant with the
AD.

Request To Clarify if a Reference Document Exists for the Modification

    CEA asked if a document exists for operators to reference when
incorporating the modification specified in paragraph (g) of the
proposed AD. SIA stated it understands that Boeing intends to propose
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-47-0002 as an AMOC to the proposed AD.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. This AD requires modifying the FQIS
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD. For airplanes identified in the applicability
of this AD, which excludes airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (3) of this AD, there currently is no service information for
accomplishing the FQIS modification. However, Boeing has issued an NGS
installation service bulletin (Boeing Service Bulletin 777-47-0002,
Revision 4, dated September 27, 2016) that addresses the unsafe
condition. For airplanes on which that service bulletin modification is
installed, the modified airplane would no longer be subject to the
actions in this AD due to the exception in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD.

Request To Clarify Intent of Different Requirements in Paragraphs (g)
and (h) of the Proposed AD

    Boeing asked that the FAA clarify the intent of the differences
between the requirements in paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD.
Boeing stated that it is unclear what change is expected for compliance
with paragraph (g) of the proposed AD versus paragraph (h) of the
proposed AD. Boeing suggested that one possibility is that paragraph
(g) of the proposed AD is intended to cover development of transient
suppression, while paragraph (h) of the proposed AD is intended to
cover compliance via FQIS wire separation and BITE checks.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. Paragraph (g) of this AD is intended to
require, for passenger airplanes that are subject to this AD, a
modification to the FQIS that makes it fully compliant with 14 CFR
25.981(a), as amended by amendment 25-102. A fully compliant FQIS
modification might include wire separation or transient suppression
devices, but due to the system design, either option would likely
require changes to the FQIS processor.
    Paragraph (h) of this AD is intended to allow, as an optional
method of compliance for all-cargo airplanes only, a change that
isolates the center fuel tank circuit wiring between the FQIS processor
and the fuel tanks from other wiring that is connected to a sufficient
power source to create an ignition source in the event of a hot short
between the wiring. Such a change would not be fully compliant with the
airworthiness regulations (hence the requirement to obtain a partial
exemption from 14 CFR 25.901(c) and 14 CFR 25.981(a) for any such
design change), but would provide a level of risk reduction that the
FAA considers acceptable for all-cargo airplanes and would
significantly reduce the costs relative to a fully compliant
modification.

Request To Require Design Changes From Manufacturers

    NATCA recommended that the FAA follow the agency's compliance and
enforcement policy to require manufacturers to develop the necessary
design changes soon enough to support operators' ability to comply with
the proposed requirements. NATCA noted that SFAR 88 required
manufacturers to develop all design changes for unsafe conditions
identified by their SFAR 88 design reviews by December 2002, or within
an additional 18 months if the FAA granted an extension.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concerns. However, any
enforcement action is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA has
not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Clarification of BITE Check Compliance Time

    The FAA has revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to clarify the
compliance time for the BITE check relative to the requirement to
record the fault codes. The FAA recognized that operators might
interpret the proposed requirements for alternative actions for cargo
airplanes as allowing additional flights prior to performing the BITE
check after first recording the fault codes. The FAA intended for
operators to perform the BITE check immediately after recording the
fault codes to address both the fault codes that exist prior to
performing the BITE check and any new codes that are identified during
the BITE check.

Clarification of Applicability

    The FAA has added paragraph (c)(3) of this AD to clarify that
airplanes equipped with an IMM approved by the FAA as compliant with
certain regulations are excluded from this AD. The FAA intended for
airplanes with compliant IMM to be excluded from the actions required
by this AD. The FAA has determined that the installation of an approved
IMM provides a level of risk reduction at least as great as that
provided by FRM and adequately addresses the unsafe condition.

Clarification of Costs of Compliance

    The FAA had previously determined, as specified in the NPRM, that
the work involved for the cargo airplane wire separation modification
would take 230 work-hours. Boeing has since provided an updated
estimate of 74 work-hours for the alternative modification for cargo
airplanes. The FAA has revised the cost estimate for the modification
accordingly in this final rule.

Conclusion

    The FAA 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. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 180 airplanes of U.S.
registry. Currently, there are no experimental, private, business/
corporate/executive, or government aircraft registered in the United
States that would be affected by this AD. The affected U.S. air-carrier
passenger airplanes are already required by applicable FAA operating
regulations to be modified to include FRM, so this AD would not apply
to those airplanes. However, to address the potential for those
airplanes to be converted to cargo airplanes before the compliance
deadline for the operating rule FRM requirement, the FAA provides the
following cost estimates to comply with this AD:

                                        Estimated Costs: Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification..................................  600 work-hours x $85 per hour =         $150,000        $201,000
                                                 $51,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      Estimated Costs: Alternative Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BITE check....................................  1 work-hours x $85 per hour =                 $0   $85 per check
                                                 $85 per check.
Wire separation...............................  74 work-hours x $85 per hour =            10,000          16,290
                                                 $6,290.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2020-18-12 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-21233; Docket No. FAA-
2016-6140; Product Identifier 2015-NM-059-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 26, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, 777-200LR,
and 777-300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, line
numbers 1 through 561 inclusive, excluding airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (1) Airplanes on which the center tank consists only of the
inboard structural box of the left and right wings (i.e., the wing
center structural box is a dry bay and is not part of the fuel
tank).
    (2) Airplanes equipped with a flammability reduction means (FRM)
approved by the FAA as compliant with the fuel tank flammability
reduction (FTFR) requirements of 14 CFR 25.981(b) or 26.33(c)(1).
    (3) Airplanes equipped with an ignition mitigation means (IMM)
approved by the FAA as compliant with the FTFR requirements of 14
CFR 25.981(c) or 26.33(c)(2).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the FAA's analysis of the Model 777 fuel
system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. The FAA is issuing
this AD to prevent ignition sources inside the center fuel tank,
which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a
fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the
fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) to prevent development of an
ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault
conditions, using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(h) Alternative Actions for Cargo Airplanes

    For airplanes used exclusively for cargo operations: As an
alternative to the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, do the
actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD, using
methods approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD. To exercise this alternative, operators
must perform the first inspection required under paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD within 6 months after the effective date of this AD. To
exercise this alternative for airplanes returned to service after
conversion of the airplane from a passenger configuration to an all-
cargo configuration more than 6 months after the effective date of
this AD, operators must perform the first inspection required under
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD prior to further flight after the
conversion.
    (1) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, record
the existing fault codes stored in the FQIS processor and before
further flight thereafter do a BITE check (check of built-in test
equipment) of the FQIS. If any nondispatchable fault code is
recorded prior to the BITE check or as a result of the BITE check,
before further flight, do all applicable repairs and repeat the BITE
check until a successful test is performed with no nondispatchable
faults found, using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Repeat these
actions thereafter at intervals not to exceed 750 flight hours.
Modification as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD does not
terminate the repetitive BITE check requirement of this paragraph.
    (2) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the airplane by separating FQIS wiring that runs between the FQIS
processor and the center tank wing spar penetrations, including any
circuits that might pass through a main fuel tank, from other
airplane wiring that is not intrinsically safe, using methods
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i) of this AD.

(i) 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 (j) 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, 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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jon Regimbal,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3557; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on August 26, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-19584 Filed 9-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P