[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57990-57994]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22334]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0645; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-052-AD;
Amendment 39-17190; AD 2012-18-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and
-500 series airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive
inspections to detect cracking in the web of the aft pressure bulkhead
at body station 1016 at the aft fastener row attachment to the ``Y''
chord, and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD adds various
inspections for discrepancies at the aft pressure bulkhead, and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted
by several reports of fatigue cracking at that location. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct such fatigue cracking, which could result
in rapid decompression of the fuselage.

DATES: This AD is effective October 24, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 24,
2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of May 10,
1999 (64 FR 19879, April 23, 1999).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-
6450; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 99-08-23, Amendment 39-11132 (64 FR 19879,
April 23, 1999). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38547). That
NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect
cracking in the web of the aft pressure bulkhead at body station 1016
at the aft fastener row attachment to the ``Y'' chord, and corrective
actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require adding various
inspections for discrepancies at the aft pressure bulkhead, and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comments received. Boeing supports the
NPRM (77 FR 38547, June 28, 2012). Aviation Partners Boeing stated that
it has reviewed the NPRM and has determined that the installation of
winglets per supplemental type certificate ST01219SE does not affect
the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 566 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low frequency eddy current       8 work-hours x $85 per               $0  $680..............  $384,880.
 (LFEC) inspection [retained      hour = $680.
 actions from AD 99[dash]08-23,
 Amendment 39-11132 (64 FR
 19879, April 23, 1999)].

Detailed visual inspection       2 work-hours x $85 per                0  170...............  96,220.
 [retained actions from AD        hour = $170.
 99[dash]08[dash]23, Amendment
 39-11132 (64 FR 19879, April
 23, 1999)].
Detailed, high frequency eddy    Up to 60 work-hours x                 0  5,100 per           2,886,600 per
 current inspection, and LFEC     $85 per hour = $5,100                    inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
 inspections of the web at the    per inspection cycle.
 ``Y'' chord of the bulkhead,
 the web located under the
 outer circumferential tear
 strap, the ``Z'' stiffeners at
 the dome cap, and existing
 repairs [new action].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed and HFEC inspections for oil-       1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85...              $0             $85
 canning.
LFEC or HFEC inspections for cracking......  2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170.               0             170
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the crack repairs specified in this 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
99-08-23, Amendment 39-11132 (64 FR 19879, April 23, 1999), and adding
the following new AD:

2012-18-13 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17190; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0645; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-052-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 24, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 99-08-23, Amendment 39-11132 (64 FR 19879,
April 23, 1999).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by several reports of fatigue cracks in the
aft pressure bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
such fatigue cracking, which could result in rapid decompression of
the fuselage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Initial Inspection

    This paragraph restates the initial inspection required by
paragraph (a) of AD 99-08-23, Amendment 39-11132 (64 FR 19879, April
23, 1999). Perform either

inspection specified by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD at the
time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) Perform a low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection from
the aft side of the aft pressure bulkhead to detect discrepancies
(including cracking, misdrilled fastener holes, and corrosion) of
the web of the upper section of the aft pressure bulkhead at body
station 1016 at the aft fastener row attachment to the ``Y'' chord,
from stringer 15 left (S-15L) to stringer 15 right (S-15R), in
accordance with Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test Manual D6-37239, Part
6, Section 53-10-54, dated December 5, 1998.
    (2) Perform a detailed visual inspection of the aft fastener row
attachment to the ``Y'' chord from the forward side of the aft
pressure bulkhead to detect discrepancies (including cracking,
misdrilled fastener holes, and corrosion) of the entire web of the
aft pressure bulkhead at body station 1016.

(h) Retained Compliance Times

    This paragraph restates the compliance times specified in
paragraph (b) of AD 99-08-23, Amendment 39-11132 (64 FR 19879, April
23, 1999). Perform the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD at the time specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of
this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 40,000 or more total
flight cycles as of May 10, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-08-23,
Amendment 39-11132 (64 FR 19879, April 23, 1999)): Inspect within
375 flight cycles or 60 days after May 10, 1999 (the effective date
of AD 99-08-23), whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated 25,000 or more total
flight cycles and fewer than 40,000 total flight cycles as of May
10, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-08-23, Amendment 39-11132 (64
FR 19879, April 23, 1999)): Inspect within 750 flight cycles or 90
days after May 10, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-08-23),
whichever occurs later.
    (3) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 25,000 total
flight cycles as of May 10, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-08-23,
Amendment 39-11132 (64 FR 19879, April 23, 1999)): Inspect prior to
the accumulation of 25,750 total flight cycles.

(i) Retained Repetitive Inspections

    This paragraph restates the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (c) of AD 99-08-23, Amendment 39-11132 (64 FR 19879, April
23, 1999). Within 1,200 flight cycles after performing the initial
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 1,200 flight cycles: Perform either
inspection specified by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

(j) Retained Corrective Actions

    This paragraph restates the corrective actions required by
paragraph (d) of AD 99-08-23, Amendment 39-11132 (64 FR 19879, April
23, 1999). If any discrepancy is detected during any inspection
required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD: Prior to further
flight, accomplish the actions specified by paragraphs (j)(1) and
(j)(3) of this AD, and paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if applicable.
    (1) Perform a high frequency eddy current inspection from the
forward side of the bulkhead to detect cracking of the web at the
``Y'' chord attachment, around the entire periphery of the ``Y''
chord, in accordance with Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test Manual D6-
37239, Part 6, Section 51-00-00, Figure 23, dated November 5, 1995.
    (2) If the most recent inspection performed in accordance with
paragraph (g) of this AD was not a detailed visual inspection:
Accomplish the actions specified by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. If
the inspection was a detailed visual inspection, it is not necessary
to repeat that inspection prior to further flight.
    (3) Repair any discrepancy such as cracking or corrosion or
misdrilled fastener holes using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (u) of this AD.

(k) New Requirements: Inspections of the Web at the ``Y'' Chord Upper
Bulkhead From S-15L to S-15R

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and
(k)(2) of this AD: Do detailed and LFEC inspections of the aft side
of the bulkhead web, or do detailed and HFEC inspections from the
forward side of the bulkhead, and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with Part 1 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011, except as required
by paragraphs (r)(1) and (r)(3) of this AD. Inspect for cracks,
incorrectly drilled fastener holes, and elongated fastener holes. Do
all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before
further flight. Repeat the inspections at the applicable times
specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16,
2011.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 25,000 total flight cycles.
    (2) Except as required by paragraphs (r)(2) and (r)(4) of this
AD, at the later of the times specified in the ``Compliance Time''
column in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011.

(l) New Requirements: Inspections of the Web at the ``Y'' Chord in the
Lower Bulkhead From S-15L to S-15R

    Except as required by paragraphs (r)(2) and (r)(5) of this AD,
at the applicable time specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214,
Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011: Do detailed and eddy current
inspections of the web from the forward or aft side of the bulkhead
for cracks, incorrectly drilled fasteners, and elongated fasteners,
in accordance with Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated
December 16, 2011, except as required by paragraphs (r)(1) and
(r)(3) of this AD. If any crack, incorrectly drilled fastener,
elongated fastener, or corrosion is found, before further flight,
repair the web using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (u) of this AD. Repeat the
inspections at the applicable times specified in table 2 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011.

(m) New Requirements: One-Time Inspection Under the Tear Strap

    Except as required by paragraphs (r)(2) and (r)(5) of this AD,
at the applicable time specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214,
Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011: Do a one-time LFEC inspection
for cracks on the aft side of the bulkhead of the web located under
the outer circumferential tear strap, or do a one-time HFEC
inspection for cracks from the forward side of the bulkhead of the
web located under the outer circumferential tear strap, in
accordance with Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16,
2011, except as required by paragraph (r)(1) of this AD. If any
cracking is found, before further flight, repair the bulkhead using
a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (u) of this AD.

(n) New Requirements: Inspection for Oil-Canning

    Except as required by paragraph (r)(2) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214,
Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011: Do a detailed inspection from
the aft side of the bulkhead for oil-canning and do all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with
Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011, except as
required by paragraph (r)(1) of this AD. Do all related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the applicable times specified
in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011.
For oil-cans found within the limits specified in Part II of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011: In lieu of installing
the repair before further flight, at the applicable times specified
in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011,
do initial and repetitive detailed and HFEC inspections for cracks
of the oil-canning and install the repair, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011. If any crack is found,
before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (u) of this
AD. Installing the repair terminates the repetitive inspections for
cracks.

(o) New Requirements: Inspection of the Dome Cap at the Center of the
Bulkhead

    Except as required by paragraphs (r)(2) and (r)(5) of this AD,
at the applicable time specified in table 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214,
Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011: Do an eddy current inspection
to detect any cracking of the dome cap at the center of the
bulkhead, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance
with Part IV of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011.
Do all corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the
inspection at the times specified in table 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214,
Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011.

(p) New Requirements: Inspection of the Forward Flange of the ``Z''
Stiffeners at the Dome Cap

    Except as required by paragraphs (r)(2) and (r)(5) of this AD,
at the applicable time specified in table 6 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214,
Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011: Do an HFEC inspection to detect
any cracking of the ``Z'' stiffener flanges at the dome cap in the
center of the bulkhead, in accordance with Part V of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011, except as required by
paragraph (r)(1) of this AD. If any crack is found, before further
flight, repair the flanges using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (u) of this AD. Repeat
the inspection at the applicable times specified in table 6 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011.

(q) New Requirements: Inspection for Existing Repairs on the Bulkhead

    Except as required by paragraph (r)(2) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in table 7 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214,
Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011: Do a detailed inspection of the
bulkhead web and stiffeners for existing repairs, in accordance with
Part VI of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011, except as
required by paragraph (r)(1) of this AD.
    (1) If any repair identified in the ``Condition'' column of
table 8 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011, is found
and the ``Reference'' column refers to Appendix A, B, C, or D of
that service bulletin: At the applicable times specified in table 8
of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011, except as required
by paragraph (r)(2) of this AD, do a HFEC inspection or a LFEC
inspection of the web for cracking, in accordance with Appendix A,
B, C, or D, as applicable, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011. If any cracking is
found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (u) of this
AD. Repeat the inspections, thereafter, at the applicable intervals
specified in table 8 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16,
2011.
    (2) If any repair identified in the ``Condition'' column of
table 8 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011, is found
and the ``Reference'' column refers to Appendix E of that service
bulletin: At the applicable times specified in table 8 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214,
Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011, except as required by paragraph
(r)(2) of this AD, remove the repair and replace with a new repair,
in accordance with Appendix E of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011.
    (3) If any non-SRM (structural repair manual) repair is found
and the repair does not have FAA-approved damage tolerance
inspections, except as required by paragraph (r)(2) of this AD, at
the applicable time specified in table 7 of Paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214,
Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011: Contact the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
for damage tolerance inspections. Do those damage tolerance
inspections at the times given using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (u) of this AD.

(r) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4,
dated December 16, 2011, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (u) of this
AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4,
dated December 16, 2011, specifies a compliance time ``after the
date of Revision 1 to this service bulletin,'' ``from the date of
Revision 3 of this service bulletin,'' ``after the date of Revision
3 to this service bulletin,'' or ``of the effective date of AD 99-
08-23,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance
time after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Access and restoration procedures specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011, are not required by
this AD. Operators may do those procedures following their
maintenance practices.
    (4) Where table 1 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16,
2011, specifies a compliance time relative to actions done ``in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of AD 99-08-23,'' this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time relative to actions
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
    (5) Where the Condition columns in tables 2, 3, 5, and 6 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011, refer to total
flight cycles, this AD applies to the airplanes with the specified
total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD.

(s) Terminating Action

    Accomplishment of the requirements of paragraphs (k) through (q)
of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) through (j)
of this AD.

(t) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (k) through (s) of this AD, if the actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using the service bulletins
specified in paragraphs (t)(1) through (t)(4) of this AD.
    (1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, dated June 17,
1999.
    (2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 1, dated
June 22, 2000.
    (3) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 2, dated
May 24, 2001.
    (4) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 3, dated
January 19, 2011.

(u) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the
Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to
be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 99-08-23,
Amendment 39-11132 (64 FR 19879, April 23, 1999), are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

(v) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

(w) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 24, 2012.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated
December 16, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
May 10, 1999 (64 FR 19879, April 23, 1999).
    (i) Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test Manual D6-37239, Part 6,
Section 53-10-54, dated December 5, 1998.
    (ii) Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test Manual D6-37239, Part 6,
Section 51-00-00, Figure 23, dated November 5, 1995.
    (5) For The Boeing Company service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data &
Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (6) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 31, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-22334 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7515-7518]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02641]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74200; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules
6.41 and 24.8

February 4, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 22, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to add an interpretation to each of Rules 6.41 and
24.8. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.

(additions are in italics; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules
* * * * *
Rule 6.41. Meaning of Premium Bids and Offers

    (a)-(c) No change.
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01 When a customer submits to a Trading Permit Holder for open
outcry handling a complex order with a total cash price (the ``total
order price'') and the total number of contracts for each leg, if
pricing the legs for execution would result in a difference between the
total execution price and the total order price, the Trading Permit
Holder must resolve the difference in a manner that provides price
improvement to the customer (i.e. the broker must determine leg prices
that correspond to a total purchase (sale) price that is less (greater)
than the total order price).
* * * * *
Rule 24.8. Meaning of Premium Bids and Offers

    No change.
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01 When a customer submits to a Trading Permit Holder for open
outcry handling a complex order with a total cash price (the ``total
order price'') and the total number of contracts for each leg, if
pricing the legs for execution would result in a difference between the
total execution price and the total order price, the Trading Permit
Holder must resolve the difference in a manner that provides price
improvement to the customer (i.e. the broker must determine leg prices
that correspond to a total purchase (sale) price that is less (greater)
than the total order price).
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections 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 Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .01 to
each of Rules 6.41 and 24.8 to describe the process of establishing
final leg execution prices when a broker receives from a customer a
complex order for open-outcry handling at a total cash price for the
order. Rules 6.41 (with respect to equities) and 24.8 (with respect to
indexes) provide that bids and offers must be expressed in terms of
dollars per unit of the underlying security or index, as applicable.\3\
However, the Exchange understands that a customer will sometimes
express interest in executing a complex order at a total cash price for
the order (rather than at a price per contract for each leg) (the
``total order price'') and the total number of contracts of each leg.
In this situation, the broker may represent the order to the trading
crowd at the total order price, and Trading Permit Holders in the
trading crowd may respond to trade with the order at that total order
price. Due to the complexity of the order and the price and number of
contracts involved, there may be instances in which the complex order
may not break down into a per-unit price for each leg based on the
existing market for the leg that corresponds to the total order price.
When this occurs, the broker resolves any difference in a manner that
provides price improvement to the customer (i.e. the broker must
determine leg prices that correspond to a total purchase (sale) price
that is less (greater) than the total order price). The proposed rule
change codifies in its rules the requirement that Trading Permit
Holders resolve any difference between the total order price and total
execution price in this manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Additionally, Rule 6.44 requires that bids and offers made
on the trading floor be for one option contract unless a specific
number is expressed in the bid or offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, suppose a customer sends to its broker a complex order
in class XYZ to buy 371 July 50 Calls and buy 400 July 50 Puts for a
total order price of $96,920. The market for July 50 Calls is 1.21-
1.22, and the market for the July 50 Puts is 1.29-1.30. The floor
broker represents the order to the trading crowd, and two Market-Makers
respond with a willingness to participate in the trade (the floor
broker is unable to reasonably determine the sequence in which the
Market-Makers responded so determines to apportion the order
equally).\4\ They establish a per-contract price of 1.21 for the July
50 Calls and 1.30 for the July 50 Puts. Because there is an uneven
number of July 50 Calls, in splitting up the order, one Market-Maker
(``Market-Maker A'') agrees to sell 185 July 50 Calls, and the other
Market-Maker (``Market-Maker B'') agrees to sell 186 July 50 Calls, and
Market-Makers A and B each agree to sell 200 July 50 Puts.\5\ These
market participants execute the trade at the leg prices set forth
above: Market-Maker A sells the July 50 Calls for $22,385 ($1.21 price/
share x 100 shares/contract x 185 contracts = $22,385) and the July 50
Puts for $26,000 ($1.30 price/share x 100 shares/contract x 200
contracts = $26,000), and Market-Maker B sells the July 50 Calls for
$22,506 ($1.21 price/share x 100 shares/contract x 186 contracts =
$22,506) and the July 50 Puts for $26,000 ($1.30 price/share x 100
shares/contract x 200 contracts = $26,000). Therefore, the customer's
total purchase price is $96,891 ($22,385 + $22,506 + $26,000 +
$26,000), which represents price improvement of $29 to the customer's
total order price. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the broker and
Market-Makers could not execute the order at, for example, $1.22 for
the July 50 Calls and $1.30 for the July 50 Puts, because the total
purchase price for the customer would be $97,262, which is higher than
the customer's total order price.\6\ Brokers

may not be able to execute a complex order at a customer's exact total
order price because the current markets for the legs and allocation
among Trading Permit Holders may not break down in such a manner. In
addition, brokers must exercise due diligence and obtain the best price
for their customers and comply with the Exchange's rules regarding
minimum increments and complex order priority.\7\ The Exchange believes
the proposed rule change eliminates any potential confusion in the
rules regarding how Trading Permit Holders in the trading crowd must
determine the leg execution prices of these orders in these situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rules 6.45 (with respect to options that do not trade on the
Hybrid trading system), 6.45A(b) (with respect to equity options
that trade on the Hybrid trading system), and 6.45B(b) (with respect
to index and exchange-traded fund options that trade on the Hybrid
trading system) sets forth the allocation and priority rules for
orders represented in open outcry. Generally, when there are
multiple bids (offers) at the best price, public customer orders
have first priority (multiple public customer orders at the same
price are ranked based on time priority), then orders of other
market participants are prioritized by time (for classes on the
Hybrid trading system, in-crowd market participants have priority
ahead of market participants with orders or quotes in the electronic
book). If the sequence in which bids (offers) were made cannot
reasonably be determined, then priority will be apportioned equally.
    \5\ As described above, if the floor broker cannot reasonably
determine the sequence in which the Market-Makers responded, it
should apportion the order equally. The allocation and priority
provisions for open outcry trading do not address to which market
participant the ``extra'' contract should be allocated. See Rules
6.45, 6.45A(b) and 6.45B(b). Generally, the market participants
involved in the transaction will agree which one should receive the
extra contract; ultimately the Trading Permit Holder representing
the order (in this example, the floor broker) reasonably determines
how to allocate the order in accordance with the applicable rule.
    \6\ This process of leg price determination becomes far more
complicated and time-consuming for complex orders with more than two
legs or when there are more than two responses from Trading Permit
Holders (which occurs regularly). The purpose of this filing is to
simplify this process (to the potential benefit of customers) so
that executions of these complex orders can be completed more
quickly.
    \7\ Complex orders may be executed at a net debit or credit
price with another Trading Permit Holder without giving priority to
equivalent bids (offers) in the individual leg series that are
represented in the trading crowd or in the public customer limit
order book provided at least one leg of the order betters the
corresponding bid (offer) in the public customer limit order book by
at least one minimum trading increment or $0.01, as applicable. The
Exchange intends to make explicit in its rules in a separate rule
filing that a complex order (with any number of legs and in any
ratio) may be represented on the Exchange; however only those
complex orders that satisfy certain requirements (such as ratio
requirements) are eligible for this complex order priority, as well
as other special complex order treatment under the rules (such as
the ability to execute complex orders at minimum increments
different than simple orders). The proposed rule change in this
filing applies to all complex orders (both eligible and noneligible
for complex order priority and treatment). A complex order must
continue to satisfy eligibility requirements in the rules to receive
such priority and treatment (complex orders that do not satisfy
those eligibility requirements do not receive such priority and
treatment). See Rule 6.42 (minimum increment for complex orders) and
Rules 6.45(e), 6.45A(b)(ii) and 6.45B(b)(ii) (complex order priority
exception).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change does not amend the allocation or priority
rules for open outcry trading.\8\ For example, if a customer submitted
an order in class XYZ to buy 371 July 50 Calls for $1.21 and 400 July
50 Puts for $1.30, the order would execute in the same manner (with
respect to allocation and priority) as the order originally
communicated with a total order price in the example above. The legs
would be required to trade in accordance with Exchange pricing rules,
including the requirement to trade at prices at the applicable
increment for the class that are at or better than the Exchange's best
bid or offer, and the complex order priority rule.\9\ Similarly, in
both situations, the order would be allocated to the two responding
Market-Makers in time priority, or apportioned equally if the floor
broker could not reasonably determine the sequence in which the Market-
Makers responded (as was done in the example above). Thus, the proposed
rule change does not impact how complex orders trade in open outcry; it
only makes explicit in the rules that Trading Permit Holders must
handle orders for which the customer's total order price does not equal
the total execution price in a manner that ensures any price
improvement accrues to the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id.
    \9\ As set forth above, to be eligible for complex order
priority in open outcry, one leg would have to improve the best
public customer price of the strategy by $0.01 for the order to
receive complex order priority. See id. In the initial example
above, the leg price for the July 50 Puts improved on the market, so
the July 50 Calls could receive priority over all other orders and
quotes at the leg execution price, which was the best bid. The
complex order would not have been eligible for complex order
priority had it executed at leg prices of $1.21 (for the July 50
Calls) and $1.29 (for the July 50 Puts). The Exchange notes that
each strategy must execute at least at these prices to receive the
priority (in this example, all 371 calls and 400 puts must have
prices of $1.21 or [sic] $1.29 [sic], respectively, or better to
qualify for complex order priority). The Commission notes that the
Exchange incorrectly noted in the previous sentence that to receive
priority, the strategy in the example must have prices of $1.21 or
$1.29. The Exchange clarified in an email that the sentence should
have stated that to receive priority, the strategy must have prices
of $1.21 and $1.30. See Email to David Hsu, Assistant Director,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission from Laura Dickman,
Senior Attorney, CBOE, dated February 2, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\10\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating 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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that specifying in its rules how Trading
Permit Holders must handle complex orders submitted by customers with a
total order price rather than individual leg prices protects investors
and the public interest, because it ensures that price improvement
accrues to the customer. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because, even though the
proposed rule changes provides customers with benefits. The Exchange
believes it is appropriate to ensure price improvement accrues to
customers because they send orders from off the Exchange and are not in
a position to adjust their prices like the market participants on the
floor executing the orders. In addition, the proposed rule change is
consistent with the long-established history in the options industry of
providing beneficial treatment to customers in various circumstances
(such as providing for public customer priority in trade allocations)
for the purpose of encouraging continuing customer investment.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change does not amend the
allocation or priority rules for open outcry trading, including the
complex order priority exception. Any orders represented to the crowd
at a customer's total order price will execute in accordance with the
Exchange's current allocation and priority rules, and will execute in
the same manner as order represented at individual leg prices. In
addition, the Exchange notes that orders represented to the crowd at a
customer's order price must execute at the applicable increment for the
class (or the complex order minimum increment if eligible) and in
accordance with all other pricing rules. The proposed rule change
merely addresses how brokers that receive customer orders with a total
order price must handle those orders and simplifies the process of
determining the leg prices for such order to accelerate the executions
of complex orders.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All brokers that receive
complex orders from customers at a total order price must comply with
the proposed rule change.

Additionally, these complex orders will trade in the same manner as,
including in accordance with allocation, priority and pricing rules
applicable to, complex orders that brokers receive from customers with
individual leg prices. All complex orders must continue to satisfy
eligibility requirements in the rules to receive complex order priority
and other complex order treatment. While the proposed rule change
provides customers with benefits, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to ensure price improvement accrues to customers because
they send orders from off the Exchange and are not in a position to
adjust their prices like the market participants on the floor executing
the orders. In addition, the proposed rule change is consistent with
the a long-established history in the options industry of providing
beneficial treatment to customers in various circumstances (such as
providing for public customer priority in trade allocations) for the
purpose of encouraging continuing customer investment. CBOE does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket competition because the proposed rule change relates to the
form in which customer orders may be presented to the Exchange for
execution, not how orders may be allocated or prioritized. To the
extent the proposed change makes CBOE a more attractive marketplace for
customers to submit orders, those customers may elect to become CBOE
market participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-010. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-010 and should be
submitted on or before March 3, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02641 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67441-67442]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26979]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2013-52]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor
the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
    DATE: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before December 2, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2013-
0861 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for 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).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine L. Haley, ARM-203, Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave
SW., Washington, DC 20591; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 493-
5708.

    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2013.
Brenda D. Courtney,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2013-086.1
    Petitioner: Mr. William G. Ogilvie.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected:
    14 CFR 141.33(a)(4)(ii).
    Description of Relief Sought:
    Petitioner seeks relief to substitute military flight time
experience in lieu of commercial experience requirements in applying
for a pilot school certificate as an authorized instructor in an FAA
approved part 141 airline transport pilot certification training
program.
[FR Doc. 2013-26979 Filed 11-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P