[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22943-22944]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08956]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0177; Notice 2]

OSRAM SYLVANIA Products, Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: OSRAM SYLVANIA Products, Inc., (OSRAM SYLVANIA), has
determined that certain Type ``H11 C'' light sources that it
manufactured fail to meet the requirements of paragraph S7.7 of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment. OSRAM SYLVANIA has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, dated August 24, 2010.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), OSRAM SYLVANIA has petitioned for an exemption
from the

notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on January 25, 2011 in the Federal Register (76
FR 4420). No comments were received. To view the petition, and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2010-0177.''
    For further information on this decision contact Mr. Michael Cole,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
(202) 366-7002.
    Lamps Involved: OSRAM SYLVANIA estimates that approximately 28,412
``H11 C'' light sources (bulbs) that it manufactured on June 23 and 24,
2010 are affected. All of the affected light sources were manufactured
by OSRAM GmbH, Industriestrasse, Herbrechtingen, Germany.
    Summary of Osram Sylvania's Analysis and Arguments: OSRAM SYLVANIA
described the noncompliance as the mismarking of type ``H11 C''
lighting sources as type ``H11.''
    In its petition OSRAM SYLVANIA argues that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    (1) The noncompliance in this case pertains solely to the failure
of the subject light sources to meet the applicable marking
requirements.
    (2) ``H11 C'' light sources are designed to be completely
interchangeable with the original ``H11'' light sources. When Philips
Lighting B.V., submitted its modification to the ``H11'' light source
specification that became the ``H11 C'' specification it certified that
use of the ``H11 C'' light source will not create a noncompliance with
any requirement of FMVSS No. 108 when used to replace an ``H11'' light
source in a headlamp certified by its manufacturer as conforming to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Subject ``H11 C''
light sources are designed to conform to Part 564 Docket NHTSA 98-3397-
81 including the additional requirements under paragraph IX. In other
words, inadvertent installation of a subject ``H11 C'' light source in
place of an ``H11'' light source--or vice versa--will not create a
noncompliance with any of the performance or interchangeability
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 (including beam pattern photometrics) or
otherwise present an increased risk to motor vehicle safety.
    (3) ``H11 C'' light sources have the same filament position,
dimension and tolerances, capsule and capsule support dimensions, bulb
base interchangeability dimensions, seal specifications, and electrical
specifications as the ``H11.'' The only difference between the ``H11''
light source and the ``H11 C'' light source is that the ``H11 C''
provides for the light transmitting portion of the glass wall to
incorporate a color controlling optical filter in order to improve
visibility.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petition for ``H11 C'' Replaceable Light Sources Listing,
Docket NHTSA 98-3397-81, November 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) The agency has concluded in previous similar petitions that a
noncompliance is inconsequential when mismarked light sources are
otherwise fully compliant with the performance requirements of the
standard.
    Supported by the above stated reasons, OSRAM SYLVANIA believes that
the described FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt it from providing
recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120,
should be granted.
    Discussion: NHTSA has reviewed and accepts OSRAM SYLVANIA's
analyses that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. The ``H11 C'' light source is a design that is completely
interchangeable with the original ``H11'' light source. The ``H11 C''
light sources have the same filament position, dimension and
tolerances, capsule and capsule support dimensions, bulb base
interchangeability dimensions, seal specifications, and electrical
specifications as the ``H11.'' As such, NHTSA agrees that inadvertent
installation of a mismarked ``H11 C'' light source in place of an
``H11'' light source--or vice versa--would not create a noncompliance
with any of the headlamp performance requirements of FMVSS 108 or
otherwise present an increased risk to motor vehicle safety.
    NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that OSRAM SYLVANIA has met its burden of persuasion that the
FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance in the lamps identified in OSRAM SYLVANIA's
Noncompliance Information Report and is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, OSRAM SYLVANIA's petition is granted and
the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the lamps that OSRAM SYLVANIA no longer controlled at
the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed in the subject
vehicles.

    Authority:  (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

    Issued On: April 11, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-08956 Filed 4-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53128-53129]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21243]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0909; Special Conditions No. 25-533-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A350-900 Airplane; Electronic
System-Security Protection From Unauthorized External Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Airbus Model A350-900
airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature
associated with electronic system-security protection from unauthorized
external access. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective Date: October 8, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and
Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile (425) 227-
1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 25, 2008, Airbus applied for a type certificate for their
new Model A350-900 airplane. Later, Airbus requested, and the FAA
approved, an extension to the application for FAA type certification to
November 15, 2009. The Model A350-900 airplane has a conventional
layout with twin wing-mounted Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines. It
features a twin-aisle, 9-abreast, economy-class layout, and
accommodates side-by-side placement of LD-3 containers in the cargo
compartment. The basic Model A350-900 airplane configuration
accommodates 315 passengers in a standard two-class arrangement. The
design cruise speed is Mach 0.85 with a maximum take-off weight of
602,000 lbs.
    Contemporary transport-category airplanes have both safety-related
and non-safety-related electronic system networks for many operational
functions. However, electronic system-network-security considerations
and functions have played a relatively minor role in the certification
of such systems because of the isolation, protection mechanisms, and
limited connectivity between the different networks.

Type Certification Basis

    Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Airbus
must show that the Model A350-900 airplane meets the applicable
provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-
129.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model A350-900 series because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model A350-900 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent
and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19,
under Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis
under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Model A350-900 airplane will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design feature:

    The digital systems architecture for the Airbus Model A350-900
airplane is composed of several connected networks. This network
architecture is used for a diverse set of functions, providing data
connectivity between systems, including:
    1. Airplane control, communication, display, monitoring and
navigation systems,
    2. Operator business and administrative support systems,
    3. Passenger entertainment systems, and
    4. Access by systems external to the airplane.

Discussion

    The Airbus Model A350-900 airplane network architecture and
configuration may allow increased connectivity to, and access from,
external network sources, and operator operations and maintenance
networks to the airplane control domain and operator-information-
services domain. The airplane-control domain and operator-information-
services domain perform functions required for the safe operation and
maintenance of the airplane. Previously, these domains had very limited
connectivity with external network sources. The network architecture
and configuration may allow the exploitation of network-security
vulnerabilities resulting in intentional or unintentional destruction,
disruption, degradation, or exploitation of data, systems, and networks
critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.
    The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate
these types of airplane system architectures. Furthermore, 14 CFR
regulations and current system-safety assessment policy and techniques
do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be
exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks, data buses, and
servers. Therefore, these special conditions are to ensure that
unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections do not compromise
the security (i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of
airplane systems.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-13-17-SC for the
Airbus Model A350-900 airplane was published in the Federal Register on
December 17, 2013 (78 FR 76251)

Comment From Airbus

    Airbus had one comment about the following wording of the first
paragraph of the Proposed Special Conditions:
    The applicant must ensure airplane electronic system security
protection from access to or by unauthorized sources external to the
airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
    Airbus considers that the wording ``to or by'' is incorrect. The
protection must prevent access from unauthorized sources external to
the airplane only. The requirement of protection to unauthorized
sources external to the airplane, is not relevant.
    Therefore, Airbus suggests that the wording be modified as follows:
    The applicant must ensure airplane electronic system security
protection from access by unauthorized sources external to the
airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.

FAA Response

    The FAA agrees with Airbus and has changed the special conditions
accordingly.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions apply to Airbus Model
A350-900 series airplanes. Should Airbus apply later for a change to
the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to
that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes. It is not a rule of
general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type-certification basis for Airbus Model A350-900 series
airplanes.
    1. The applicant must ensure airplane electronic system-security
protection from access by unauthorized sources external to the
airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
    2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system-security
threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic
system-security protection strategies are implemented to protect the
airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and
continued airworthiness.
    3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the
operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is
maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that
may have an impact on the approved electronic system-security
safeguards.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 15, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-21243 Filed 9-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 74518]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26393]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0387; FRL-9529-03-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AL09

Community Right-to-Know; Adopting 2022 North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) Codes for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
Reporting; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a
final rule that appeared in Federal Register on Monday, November 28,
2022, which finalized updates to the list of North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes subject to reporting under the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) to reflect the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) 2022 NAICS code revision. This document corrects an error
in an amendatory instruction that appeared in the regulatory text
portion of the final rule.

DATES: This correction is effective on December 28, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Rachel Dean, Data Collection
Branch, Data Gathering and Analysis Division (Mail code: 7406M), Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202) 566-1303; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Information Center; telephone number: (800)
424-9346 or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC Area and
International; website: https://www.epa.gov//hotlines.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is correcting an inaccurate amendatory
instruction in its final rule, FRL-9529-02-OCSPP, published November
28, 2022 (87 FR 72891), which finalized updates to the list of North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes subject to
reporting under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) to reflect the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 2022 NAICS code revision.

Correction

    In FR Doc. 2022-25375, appearing on page 72891 in the Federal
Register of Monday, November 28, 2022, the following correction is
made:
    1. On page 72896, in the second column, amendatory instruction 2 is
corrected to read as follows:
    ``2. Amend Sec.  372.22 by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (b) introductory text and adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:''

    Dated: November 29, 2022.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-26393 Filed 12-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14711-14716]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0495; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-172-AD;
Amendment 39-18435; AD 2016-06-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This
AD was prompted by reports of cracking at certain fastener locations in
the window corners of the window belt area. This AD requires repetitive
high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for fatigue cracking in
certain fastener locations in the window corners of the window belt
area, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.
This AD also provides an optional preventive modification that
terminates the inspections at the modified location. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around fastener
locations that could cause multiple window corner skin cracks, which
could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of
the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective April 22, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 22,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0495.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0495; 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: 800-647-
5527) is Docket 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: Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA
90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on March 24, 2015 (80 FR 15523) (``the NPRM'').
The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking at certain fastener
locations in the window corners of the window belt area. The NPRM
proposed to require repetitive HFEC inspections for fatigue cracking in
certain fastener locations in the window corners of the window belt
area, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around
fastener locations that could cause multiple window corner skin cracks,
which could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural
integrity of the airplane.

Comments

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

Request for Clarification of Location of the Twelve Fastener
Inspections

    Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that a correction be made to
paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to clarify the areas for the
inspection of the twelve fastener locations. SWA noted that paragraph
(g) of the proposed AD stated to inspect locations ``at the upper
forward and lower aft corners of each window between station (STA) 360
and STA 540 and between STA 727 and STA 908.'' SWA stated that between
STA 727 and STA 908, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated
July 22, 2014, specifies the location as the lower forward and upper
aft corners.
    We agree with the commenter for the reason provided. We have
revised paragraph (g) of this AD to require an inspection of the twelve
fastener locations at the upper forward and lower aft corners of each
window between STA 360 and STA 540 and at the upper aft and lower
forward corners of each window between STA 727 and STA 908.

Request for Clarification of the Intent of the Inspection Requirements
in Paragraph (g) of the Proposed AD

    SWA requested that we clarify the intent of paragraph (g) of the
proposed AD. SWA stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD states to
accomplish the inspections at the times specified in tables 1 and 2 of
paragraph 1.E.,

``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated
July 22, 2014, and then repeat the inspections at the applicable times
specified in tables 1 and 2 until ``the terminating action in paragraph
(h) of this AD is accomplished,'' which is the optional preventive
modification in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014. SWA stated
that, per note (b) in tables 1 and 2, accomplishment of the preventive
modification in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, is terminating action for both the
initial and repeat inspections at the modified locations. SWA stated
that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD does not mention the option to
accomplish the actions specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD in
lieu of the initial inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD;
it only states to ``repeat the inspections . . . until the terminating
action specified in paragraph (h) of this AD is done.'' SWA noted it is
unclear if the intent of paragraph (g) of this AD is to require
accomplishment of the Part 1 external surface HFEC inspections of the
skin prior to accomplishing the Part 3 preventive modification
instructions, or if the intent of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD is
to provide the operator the option to accomplish paragraph (h) of the
proposed AD (preventive modification) in lieu of accomplishing
paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (inspections), since the Part 3
modification instructions include open hole HFEC inspections of the
skin.
    We agree to provide clarification. Paragraph (g) of this AD is not
required at the time of accomplishment of the preventive modification
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. Paragraph (h) of this AD states
that the preventive modification (including all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions) terminates the inspections in
paragraph (g) of this AD. This means all inspections (initial and
repetitive) in paragraph (g) of this AD are not required if paragraph
(h) of this AD is done. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request for Clarification of Existing Repairs

    SWA requested clarification about existing repairs that meet the
requirements of note (a) in tables 1 and 2 of paragraph l.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated
July 22, 2014. SWA also requested to extend the note to apply to
existing repairs that address damage other than cracking, provided that
the repairs are evaluated and approved by Boeing via an FAA Form 8100-
9. In addition, SWA requested we clarify whether note (a) applies only
to reinforcing repairs that encompass all twelve fastener locations at
a window corner, or if note (a) also applies to existing non-
reinforcing oversize hole repairs.
    We partially agree with the commenter. We agree with adding a
paragraph to this AD to provide credit for previously approved repairs
to address cracking issues, because Boeing Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) approved repairs installed prior the effective date
of this AD are acceptable for terminating the initial and repetitive
inspections in the area under the repair. We disagree with allowing any
other repair as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) because
other repairs may or may not address the cracking issue. However,
operators may request approval of an AMOC for these repairs using the
procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
    We have added new paragraph (g)(1) to this AD to specify that the
inspections required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this
AD may be terminated in areas with repairs installed prior to the
effective date of this AD, provided the repairs are reinforcing and
address the cracking issue addressed in this AD, and installation was
approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA via FAA Form 8100-9.

Request for Clarification of the Termination of Inspection for Repaired
Area for Group 1 Airplanes

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested we clarify if, for Group 1
airplanes as identified in paragraph 1.A.1 ``Effectivity,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, areas repaired
using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014,
is terminating action for the repaired area. ANA pointed out that table
1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014,
includes this wording.
    We agree to provide clarification. Accomplishing a repair in
accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, also
terminates the inspection of the repaired area for Group 1 airplanes.
We have added new paragraph (g)(2) to this AD to specify that repairs
done in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014,
terminate the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD in only
the repaired area for Group 1 airplanes only.

Request To Include Provisions for Airplanes Previously Inspected,
Modified, and/or Repaired

    SWA requested that we revise the NPRM to include provisions for
airplanes that were previously inspected, modified, and/or repaired
using step 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53-1306, dated September 22, 2010; Revision 1, dated March
17, 2010; Revision 2, dated October 25, 2011; or Revision 3, dated
January 22, 2014; as terminating action for the inspections required by
paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, as well as any documented deviations
that were approved by the Boeing ODA via an FAA Form 8100-9.
    SWA stated that step 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1306 (all
revisions) includes inspection, preventive modification, and repair
instructions for the window corner locations addressed by the proposed
AD. Figures 8 through 10 of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1306 (all
revisions) provide inspection and preventive modification instructions,
which also include instructions for a fastener oversize repair, edge
margin requirements, and window forging replacement. Figures 13 through
18 provide external reinforcing repair instructions. Figures 40 through
43 were added in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1306, Revision 3, dated
January 22, 2014, to incorporate the option to replace the window belt
panels in lieu of accomplishing the window corner inspections,
preventive modification, and approved repairs. SWA stated that it
considers the instructions in Step 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-
1306 (all revisions) to meet the intent of the proposed AD since the
instructions address and eliminate the unsafe condition that prompted
the proposed AD.
    We do not agree to revise this AD because Boeing Service Bulletin
737-53-1306 is specific for SWA. We do not consider it appropriate to
include various provisions in an AD applicable only to a single
operator's unique configuration of affected airplanes. However, SWA may
submit a request for an approval of an AMOC using the procedures
specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in
this regard.

Requests To Clarify Required Actions

    SWA and ANA requested that we clarify which actions specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-

53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, are required. SWA stated that paragraph
(j)(3) of the proposed AD (paragraph (l)(3) in this AD) indicates that
steps identified as ``RC'' (Required for Compliance) in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, must be accomplished
``in order to comply with this AD.''
    The commenters noted that there are ``RC'' steps in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, that are not clearly
addressed in the proposed AD. SWA noted that Parts 7 and 8 of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, contain steps
that are identified as ``RC;'' however, the proposed AD does not
mention the compliance times for these actions. SWA stated that Part 7
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014,
provides window frame replacement instructions, and steps 5 and 6 in
Part 8 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22,
2014, provide post-repair/post-modification inspection instructions for
window frames with short edge margin conditions at the compliance times
specified in tables 3, 4, and 8 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1328, dated July 22, 2014. SWA assumed that actions identified in
Table 3 and Table 8 are not required for compliance and that the
actions identified in Table 4 are required for compliance. SWA also
pointed out that step 10 of Part 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, is not ``RC,'' but could result in
accomplishment of Part 7 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328,
dated July 22, 2014, which has ``RC'' steps.
    We agree to clarify the actions required by this AD. The post-
modification and post-repair inspections identified in Table 4 and
Table 5 in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, are required by this AD. The
accomplishment instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, are unclear. Therefore, we have added new
paragraph (i) to this AD to specify the actions identified in Table 4
and Table 5 in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014. We have redesignated
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
    Regarding Part 7 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328,
dated July 22, 2014, if operators chose to do the modification, certain
actions specified in Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5 of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, are identified as ``RC''
steps. Within those steps, there is an on-condition action, which
specifies to do Part 7; thus, step 1 of Part 7 of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014 is required for compliance.
    Steps 2, 3, and 4 of Part 8 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, are referenced in Table 3 and Table 8 in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, and are not required by this AD. We have
added new paragraph (k) of this AD to clarify that the post-
modification inspections specified in Table 3 and Table 8 in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328,
dated July 22, 2014, are airworthiness limitations that are required by
maintenance and operational rules; therefore, these inspections are not
required by this AD. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.

Request To Clarify Office Responsible for AMOCs

    ANA requested that we clarify the office responsible for AMOCs. ANA
stated that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD specifies that the Seattle
ACO has the authority to approve AMOCs. However, ANA noted it has seen
other ADs for out of production airplanes that refer to the Los Angeles
ACO.
    We agree to clarify. The Los Angeles ACO is currently responsible
for AMOCs for the airplanes identified in this AD. We have revised
paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(4) of this AD (paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(4)
of the proposed AD) to refer to the Los Angeles ACO.

Requests for Clarification of Incorrect References

    Boeing and SWA requested that we clarify incorrect references in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014. The
commenters stated that note (e) in Figure 5 of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, incorrectly references table
2 of paragraph 3.B., Work Instructions, for post repair/modification
inspections of short edge margins on window frames. The commenters
stated that these references should be to table 3 of paragraph 3.B.,
Work Instructions. Boeing also identified the notes in figures 9, 10,
11, and 12 as additional locations where the reference to table 2
should be to table 3. The commenters requested that we clarify in this
AD that repeat post repair and modification inspections for window
frames with short edge margins are defined in table 3 rather than table
2 of paragraph 3.B, Work Instructions, in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014.
    We agree with the commenters that the identified table references
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, are
incorrect. We have added new paragraphs (j)(3) and (j)(4) to this AD to
specify the correct table references. We have also added new paragraph
(j)(5) to this AD to clarify that operators must comply with the edge
margin requirements in Table 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014. We have
also revised paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to include references to
paragraphs (j)(3), (j)(4), and (j)(5) of this AD.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/
Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/
be866b732f6cf31086257b9700692796/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect
the actions specified in the NPRM.
    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added new paragraph
(c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not
affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD.
Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a
``change in product'' AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply
with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July
22, 2014. The service information describes procedures for HFEC
inspections for

fatigue cracking in certain fastener locations in the window corners of
the window belt area, and related investigative and corrective actions.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 142 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                        Estimated Costs: Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
           Action                  Labor cost         Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.................  Up to 2,312 work-                  $0  Up to $196,520 per     Up to $27,905,840 per
                              hours x $85 per hour                   inspection cycle.      inspection cycle.
                              = $196,520 per
                              inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                        Estimated Costs: Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preventive modification.......................  108 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $0          $9,180
                                                 $9,180.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Action                    Labor cost          Parts cost                 Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair......................  Up to 18 work-hours x                $0  Up to $1,530 per repair.
                               $85 per hour = $1,530
                               per repair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-06-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18435 ; Docket No. FAA-
2015-0495; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-172-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 22, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400,
and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July
22, 2014.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgstc.nsf/0/be866b732f6cf31086257b9700692796/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is
installed, a ''change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking at certain
fastener locations in the window corners of the window belt area. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around
the fastener

locations that could cause multiple window corner skin cracks, which
could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in tables 1 and 2 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328,
dated July 22, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this
AD: Do external surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections for cracking of the skin at the 12 fastener locations at
the upper forward and lower aft corners of each window between
station (STA) 360 and STA 540 and at the upper aft and lower forward
corners of each window between STA 727 and STA 908, left-side and
right-side of the fuselage, at and between stringers S-11 and S-13;
and all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, except as
required by paragraphs (j)(2), (j)(3), (j)(4), and (j)(5) of this
AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions
before further flight. Repeat the inspections at the applicable
times specified in tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,''
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014.
Accomplishing the preventive modification specified in paragraph (h)
of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by this
paragraph at the modified location only.
    (1) The inspections required by the introductory text of
paragraph (g) of this AD may be terminated in areas with repairs
installed prior to the effective date of this AD, provided the
repairs are reinforcing and address the cracking issue identified in
this AD, and installation was approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) via FAA Form
8100-9.
    (2) For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014: Window corner crack
repairs terminate the inspection required by the introductory text
of paragraph (g) of this AD in the repaired area only. The repair,
including all applicable related investigative and corrective
actions, must be done in accordance with Part 6 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, except as required by paragraphs
(j)(2), (j)(3), (j)(4), and (j)(5) of this AD.

(h) Preventive Modification

    Accomplishment of a preventive modification in the fastener
locations in the window corners of the window belt area between STA
360 and STA 540 and between STA 727 and STA 908, left-side and
right-side of the fuselage, at and between stringers S-11 and S-13,
terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD at
the modified location only. The modification, including all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions, must be
done in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014,
except as required by paragraphs (j)(2), (j)(3), (j)(4), and (j)(5)
of this AD.

(i) Repetitive Inspections, Replacements, and Corrective Actions

    For airplanes having any condition identified in Table 4 or
Table 5 of paragraph l.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014: At the applicable times
specified in Table 4 and Table 5 of paragraph l.E., ``Compliance,''
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014,
do a window frame replacement or an internal detailed inspection for
cracks of the window forging around the fastener collars, as
applicable, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, except as required by
paragraphs (j)(2), (j)(3), (j)(4), and (j)(5) of this AD. Repeat the
inspections at the applicable times specified in table 4 and table 5
of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014.

(j) Exceptions to the Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July
22, 2014, specifies a compliance time ``after the original issue
date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within
the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July
22, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions:
Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD. Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July
22, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and
specifies that action as Required for Compliance (RC), this AD
requires repair as specified in this paragraph.
    (3) Where note (e) of Figure 5 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, specifies to ``Refer to Paragraph
3.B., Work Instructions, Table 2 for edge margin requirements,''
operators must comply with Table 3 of paragraph 3.B., ``Work
Instructions,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated
July 22, 2014, for edge margin requirements.
    (4) Where the notes for fastener codes A and B in figures 9, 10,
11, and 12 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July
22, 2014, refer to ``Paragraph 3.B., Work Instructions, Table 2''
for edge margin requirements, operators must comply with Table 3 of
paragraph 3.B., ``Work Instructions,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, for edge margin
requirements.
    (5) Where note (e) of figures 6, 7, and 8 and step 1.a.(1) of
Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, specifies to ``Refer to
Paragraph 3.B., Work Instructions, Table 3 for edge margin
requirements,'' operators must comply with Table 3 of paragraph
3.B., ``Work Instructions,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, for edge margin requirements.

(k) Post-Repair Inspections/Post-Modification Inspections

    Table 3 and Table 8 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22, 2014, specify
post-modification airworthiness limitation inspections in compliance
to 14 CFR 25.571(a)(3) at the modified locations, which support
compliance with 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2). As
airworthiness limitations, these inspections are required by
maintenance and operational rules. It is therefore unnecessary to
mandate them in this AD. Deviations from these inspections require
FAA approval, but do not require an alternative method of
compliance.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(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 paragraph (m) 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) Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the
provisions of paragraphs (l)(3)(i) and (l)(3)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with this AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.
    (4) 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 Commercial Airplanes ODA that has
been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, 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.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jennifer
Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Blvd.,
Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1328, dated July 22,
2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 7, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-05842 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 92)]
[Notices]
[Page 22780-22782]
[DOCID:fr14my09-80]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59873; File No. SR-MSRB-2009-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change to MSRB Rule G-8 Requiring Brokers, Dealers and Municipal
Securities Dealers To Maintain Certain Records Relating to Auction Rate
Securities and Variable Rate Demand Obligations

May 6, 2009.
    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 April 28, 2009, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the MSRB. 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

    The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of an amendment to MSRB Rule G-8, Books and Records (the

``proposed rule change''). The proposed rule change would provide
organizations responsible for inspecting and enforcing MSRB rules with
information that would assist in the enforcement of compliance with
Rule G-34(c), on variable rate security market information, by
requiring brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers to maintain
certain records relating to auction rate securities and variable rate
demand obligations. The MSRB proposes an effective date for the
proposed rule change of June 1, 2009.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site (http://www.msrb.org), at the MSRB's principal office, 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 MSRB 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 MSRB 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 MSRB operates a facility for the collection and public
dissemination of information about securities bearing interest at
short-term rates (the Short-term Obligation Rate Transparency System,
or SHORT System). MSRB Rule G-34(c), on variable rate security market
information, requires brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers
(collectively ``dealers'') to report, or ensure the reporting of,
interest rate and descriptive information to the SHORT System about
municipal Auction Rate Securities (``ARS'') and Variable Rate Demand
Obligations (``VRDO'') following an ARS auction or VRDO interest rate
reset.
    The proposed rule change would require those dealers for which MSRB
Rule G-34(c) applies to retain for a period of three years records that
would show that the requirement in Rule G-34 to submit information to
the SHORT System applies to the dealer and that the dealer has
submitted accurate information to the SHORT System. For ARS, dealers
would be required to retain a record of all of the ARS for which the
dealer acts as a Program Dealer as defined in Rule G-34(c)(i)(A), a
record of all information submitted to and received from an Auction
Agent as defined in Rule G-34(c)(i) with respect to an auction, and all
information required to be submitted to the SHORT System. For VRDO,
dealers would be required to retain a record of all of the VRDO for
which the dealer acts as a Remarketing Agent as defined in Rule G-
34(c)(ii), and all information required to be submitted to the SHORT
System. These records would provide organizations responsible for
inspecting and enforcing MSRB rules with information that would assist
in the enforcement of compliance with MSRB Rule G-34(c).
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act, which provides that the MSRB's rules
shall:

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 municipal securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
in municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act because it will facilitate the inspection and enforcement of
MSRB Rule G-34(c).

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

    The MSRB does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition since it would apply equally to all brokers,
dealers and municipal securities dealers.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) Impose and [sic] significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the
self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice
of its intent to file the proposed rule change along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
MSRB has satisfied the pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2009-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2009-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in

the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the MSRB. 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 No. SR-MSRB-2009-06 and should be submitted on or
before June 4, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11167 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P