48584 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

already accomplished.

To minimize the potential hazards

associated with operating the airplane in

severe icing conditions by providing more

clearly defined procedures and limitations

associated with such conditions, accomplish

the following:

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, accomplish the requirements of

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.

Note 2: Operators should initiate action to

notify and ensure that flight crewmembers

are apprised of this change.

(1) Revise the FAA-approved Airplane

Flight Manual (AFM) by incorporating the

following into the Limitations Section of the

AFM. This may be accomplished by inserting

a copy of this AD in the AFM.

‘‘WARNING

Severe icing may result from

environmental conditions outside of those for

which the airplane is certificated. Flight in

freezing rain, freezing drizzle, or mixed icing

conditions (supercooled liquid water and ice

crystals) may result in ice build-up on

protected surfaces exceeding the capability of

the ice protection system, or may result in ice

forming aft of the protected surfaces. This ice

may not be shed using the ice protection

systems, and may seriously degrade the

performance and controllability of the

airplane.

• During flight, severe icing conditions

that exceed those for which the airplane is

certificated shall be determined by the

following visual cues. If one or more of these

visual cues exists, immediately request

priority handling from Air Traffic Control to

facilitate a route or an altitude change to exit

the icing conditions.

—Unusually extensive ice accumulation on

the airframe and windshield in areas not

normally observed to collect ice.

—Accumulation of ice on the upper

surface of the wing, aft of the protected area.

—Accumulation of ice on the engine

nacelles and propeller spinners farther aft

than normally observed.

• Since the autopilot, when installed and

operating, may mask tactile cues that indicate

adverse changes in handling characteristics,

use of the autopilot is prohibited when any

of the visual cues specified above exist, or

when unusual lateral trim requirements or

autopilot trim warnings are encountered

while the airplane is in severe icing

conditions.

• All wing icing inspection lights must be

operative prior to flight into icing conditions

at night. [NOTE: This supersedes any relief

provided by the Master Minimum Equipment

List (MMEL).]’’

(2) Revise the FAA-approved AFM by

incorporating the following into the Normal

Procedures Section of the AFM. This may be

accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD

in the AFM.

‘‘THE FOLLOWING WEATHER

CONDITIONS MAY BE CONDUCIVE TO

SEVERE IN-FLIGHT ICING:

• Visible rain at temperatures below 0

degrees Celsius ambient air temperature.

• Droplets that splash or splatter on impact

at temperatures below 0 degrees Celsius

ambient air temperature.

PROCEDURES FOR EXITING THE SEVERE

ICING ENVIRONMENT:

These procedures are applicable to all

flight phases from takeoff to landing. Monitor

the ambient air temperature. While severe

icing may form at temperatures as cold as -18

degrees Celsius, increased vigilance is

warranted at temperatures around freezing

with visible moisture present. If the visual

cues specified in the Limitations Section of

the AFM for identifying severe icing

conditions are observed, accomplish the

following:

• Immediately request priority handling

from Air Traffic Control to facilitate a route

or an altitude change to exit the severe icing

conditions in order to avoid extended

exposure to flight conditions more severe

than those for which the airplane has been

certificated.

• Avoid abrupt and excessive

maneuvering that may exacerbate control

difficulties.

• Do not engage the autopilot.

• If the autopilot is engaged, hold the

control wheel firmly and disengage the

autopilot.

• If an unusual roll response or

uncommanded roll control movement is

observed, reduce the angle-of-attack.

• Do not extend flaps when holding in

icing conditions. Operation with flaps

extended can result in a reduced wing angleof-attack, with the possibility of ice forming

on the upper surface further aft on the wing

than normal, possibly aft of the protected

area.

• If the flaps are extended, do not retract

them until the airframe is clear of ice.

• Report these weather conditions to Air

Traffic Control.’’

(b) Incorporating the AFM revisions, as

required by this AD, may be performed by

the owner/operator holding at least a private

pilot certificate as authorized by § 43.7 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7),

and must be entered into the aircraft records

showing compliance with this AD in

accordance with § 43.11 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations(14 CFR 43.11).

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Small

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1201 Walnut,

suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The

request shall be forwarded through an

appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Small Airplane

Directorate.

(e) All persons affected by this directive

may examine information related to this AD

at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E.

12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

September 9, 1997.

James E. Jackson,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–24485 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 260

[Docket No. OST–97–2622]

Truth in Airfares

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments, petition

for rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Department is inviting

interested persons to comment on a

petition for rulemaking filed by

Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. (‘‘CU’’)

on June 16, 1997. The petition asks the

Department to establish a ‘‘Truth in

Airfares’’ regulation that would require

commercial passenger carriers to

disclose directly to consumers the most

recently available average fare and

lowest fare charged by the carrier for the

route and class of service quoted to an

inquiring party. CU also requests that

the Department require the carriers to

make this fare information available to

computer reservations system vendors

as well.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before November 17, 1997. Reply

comments must be submitted on or

before December 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be filed in

Room PL–401, Docket OST–97–2622,

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590. Late filed comments will be

considered to the extent possible. To

facilitate consideration of comments,

each commenter should file eight copies

of its comments. Comments filed prior

to the publication of this notice will also

be considered.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim

Craun, Director of the Office of Aviation

and International Economics, Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and

International Affairs, Office of the

Secretary, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh St. SW.,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 48585

1To quantify CU’s statement regarding the

increase in passenger travel, the Department notes

that there were approximately 250 million domestic

passengers traveling on U.S. airlines in 1978.

Washington, DC 20590 at (202) 366–

1032 or (202) 366–7638 (FAX).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its

petition, CU stated that airfares have

dropped during the past 15 years. As

measured on an inflation-adjusted basis,

average fares have decreased from 12.7

cents per mile in 1981 to eight cents per

mile today, according to CU. CU also

indicated that more than 550 million

passengers traveled on commercial

flights on U.S. airlines in 1996 and

many of these trips were made possible

because of the lower fares. Despite the

large number of airline passengers and

the increase in passenger travel 1 since

airline deregulation, however, CU

claims that it is almost impossible for

passengers to determine whether they

are getting a good, fair, or poor value,

because of the way in which many

airlines set their ticket prices.

In support of its claim, CU cited a

study of more than three million

discount airline tickets purchased on 34

of the most heavily traveled domestic

routes in 1996. (CU published an article

on the study in the July 1997 issue of

Consumer Reports and attached a copy

of the article as part of this petition.)

Based on an analysis of the average

restricted coach class fares on each

route, CU concluded that airline ticket

prices for a given class of service

between two points can vary by

hundreds of dollars depending upon the

availability of a wide range of fares,

with availability determined not so

much by the number of seats actually

physically available but by how many

seats the airline—in its sole discretion—

chooses to supply at each price. CU also

asserts that, at any time, sale fares that

are available in limited quantities can

suddenly appear and disappear.

According to CU, these constant fare

changes confuse customers and

effectively remove price information

that helps consumers assess the value of

the transportation.

CU claims that the lack of reliable

‘‘fair market price’’ or ‘‘going rate’’

information available to the consumer at

the time of ticket purchase establishes a

barrier to effective comparison shopping

and price-based bargaining by the

ordinary consumer. This barrier gives an

unfair advantage to a number of airlines

(including the very largest airlines) in

the buyer-seller transaction. The airlines

can allegedly engage in opportunistic

pricing practices because the consumer

lacks the information needed to counter

these practices.

CU stated that consumers cannot rely

on travel agents to solve the problem

and cited, in support, an unsourced

consumer test conducted by

representatives of several state public

interest research groups. In the test,

fourteen phone calls were made to nine

travel agents and airlines requesting the

‘‘lowest’’ advance-purchase round-trip

fare from Boston to Houston on

specified travel dates and at specified

times. The requests netted ten different

fare quotes ranging from $504 to

$1,323.68 with six of the ten different

fare quotes coming from travel agents.

CU’s Petition

In order to address these issues, CU

has filed a petition that asks the

Department to adopt a regulation which

would require airlines, their agents, and

computer reservations system (CRS)

vendors to disclose the average and

lowest fares an airline charges for each

class of service on a route to any person

to whom they quote fares for a specific

class of service on that route. The

petitioner also requests that the

Department require that airlines make

this information available to CRSs and

that the information be based on the

latest available quarterly fare data in

Databank #1 of the Department’s OriginDestination Survey of Airline Passenger

Traffic. (Presumably, CU’s petition

applies to fares in domestic markets

only since the Department is prohibited

by regulation from publicly disclosing

international fare data in the OriginDestination Survey of Airline Passenger

Traffic.) CU also asks that the

Department either supply to each carrier

the data to be disclosed or allow each

carrier to calculate the data to be

disclosed according to calculation

standards prescribed by us and based on

the information the carrier submits to

the Department for inclusion in

Databank ι1 of the Origin-Destination

Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic.

CU states that its petition provides the

substance and the elements of the rule

it is seeking but not a proposed text for

a rule. However, since the purpose of its

request is to give consumers bargaining

power by increasing consumer

information, the petitioner considers it

important that a final rule cover as

many consumer transactions as

practicable and that neither the scope

nor the specific provisions of the rule be

so narrow as to limit the effectiveness of

the rule.

CU stated that by knowing both the

average fare and the lowest fare charged

by route, by airline, and by class of

service, consumers would be armed

with two key benchmarks of value that

are critical to making an informed

purchase decision. These two pieces of

information, used together, would show

the relevant range of prices with the

average fare providing a broad

indication of the relative value available

by airline and the lowest fare indicating

the market-clearing price. According to

the petitioner, easy access to this

information would enhance comparison

shopping, informed consumer

negotiation, price competition and

market efficiency.

Request for Comments

In response to an increasing number

of inquiries from consumers about

domestic airline prices, the Department

recently published the first edition of a

report entitled Domestic Airline Fares

Consumer Report. This report provides

information about average prices being

paid by consumers in the 1,000 largest

domestic city-pair markets for the third

quarter of 1996. In addition to the

Department’s commitment to provide

fare information to consumers in this

report, we have decided to consider

further the issues raised by CU. We

invite interested persons to comment on

all aspects of the petition including, but

not limited to, whether such a rule

should be adopted and, if so, should the

rule apply only to airlines, or to airlines

as well as travel agents and discount

travel brokers, such as consolidators.

We will decide after reviewing those

comments whether we should propose a

rule as requested by CU. To the extent

that commenters provide quantified

estimates of the value or cost of

implementing such a regulation, we ask

that they provide specific supporting

details regarding the methodologies

used in determining these benefits and

costs. We also encourage commenters to

provide information on other possible

alternatives for accomplishing the goals

sought by CU in this petition.

Issued in Washington, DC on September 8,

1997.

Charles A. Hunnicutt,

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and

International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–24567 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P