66272 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

of the affected airplanes accomplish this

AD in a reasonable time period.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 54 airplanes

in the U.S. registry will be affected by

this AD, that it will take approximately

1 workhour per airplane to incorporate

the required AFM amendment, and that

the average labor rate is approximately

$60 an hour. Since an owner/operator

who holds at least a private pilot’s

certificate can accomplish this AD, as

authorized by sections 43.7 and 43.9 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR 43.7 and 43.9), the only cost impact

upon the public is the time it will take

the affected airplane owner/operators to

amend the AFM.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (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); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the final

evaluation prepared for this action is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained by contacting the

Rules Docket at the location provided

under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

97–26–13 Empresa Brasileira De

Aeronautica S.A.: Amendment 39–

10256; Docket No. 97–CE–39–AD.

Applicability: Models EMB–110P1 and

EMB–110P2 airplanes, all serial numbers,

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (e) 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 within the next 30

days after the effective date of this AD, unless

already accomplished.

To prevent increased propeller drag

beyond the certificated limits caused by the

power levers being positioned below the

flight idle stop while the airplane is in flight,

which could result in loss of airplane control

or engine overspeed with consequent loss of

engine power, accomplish the following:

(a) Amend the Limitations Section of the

airplane flight manual (AFM) by inserting the

following language:

‘‘Positioning of power levers below the

flight idle stop while the airplane is in flight

is prohibited. Such positioning may result in

increased propeller drag beyond the

certificated limits.’’

(b) This action may be accomplished by

incorporating a copy of this AD into the

Limitations Section of the AFM.

(c) Amending the AFM, as required by this

AD, may be performed by the owner/operator

holding at least a private pilot certificate as

authorized by section 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

section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 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.

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), Campus Building,

1701 Columbia Avenue, suite 2–160, College

Park, Georgia 30337–2748. The request shall

be forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Atlanta ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

(f) Information related to this AD may be

examined at the FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E.

12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

(g) This amendment (39–10256) becomes

effective on January 28, 1998.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on

December 10, 1997.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–32995 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 255

[Docket No. OST–97–3057]

RIN 2105–AC67

Computer Reservations System

Regulations

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department is adopting a

rule which amends its rules governing

airline computer reservations systems

(CRSs) (14 CFR part 255) by changing

their expiration date from December 31,

1997, to March 31, 1999. This

amendment will keep the rules from

terminating on December 31, 1997, and

will thereby cause those rules to remain

in effect while the Department carries

out its reexamination of the need for

CRS regulations. The Department

believes that the current rules should be

maintained during that reexamination

because they appear to be necessary for

promoting airline competition and

helping to ensure that consumers and

travel agents can obtain complete and

accurate information on airline services.

DATES: This rule is effective on

December 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Ray, Office of the General

Counsel, 400 Seventh St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366–4731.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When the

Department adopted its rules governing

CRS operations, 14 CFR part 255, in

1992, it included a sunset date for the

rules to ensure that the need for the

rules and their effectiveness would be

reexamined within several years. The

sunset date is December 31, 1997. 14

CFR 255.12. We have begun the process

of reexamining the rules but cannot

complete that task by the rules’ current
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66273

sunset date. We therefore proposed to

change the sunset date to March 31,

1999. 62 FR 59313, November 3, 1997.

We gave interested persons an

opportunity to comment on our

proposal, but no one except America

West Airlines submitted comments.

America West supports the proposal.

We have determined to adopt our

proposed rule.

Background

As we explained in the notice of

proposed rulemaking, in our last major

CRS rulemaking, and in recent CRS

proceedings, CRS regulations are

necessary to protect airline competition

and ensure that consumers can obtain

accurate and complete information on

airline services. See, e.g., 57 FR 43780,

43783–43787, September 22, 1992. CRSs

have become essential for the marketing

of airline services, and market forces do

not discipline the price and quality of

service offered airlines by the systems.

Furthermore, the systems operating in

the United States are each entirely or

predominantly owned by one or more

airlines or airline affiliates. Without

regulations, a system’s owners could use

it to unreasonably prejudice the

competitive position of other airlines or

to provide misleading or inaccurate

information to travel agents and their

customers. 62 FR 59315, November 3,

1997.

When we last reexamined the CRS

rules, we readopted them with changes

designed to promote airline and CRS

competition. 57 FR 43780, September

22, 1992. Our rules included a sunset

date, December 31, 1997, to ensure that

we would reexamine them after several

years. 14 CFR 255.12; 57 FR at 43829–

43830, September 22, 1992.

We have begun the process of

reexamining our rules by publishing an

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

asking interested persons to comment

on whether we should readopt the rules

and, if so, whether changes are needed.

62 FR 47606, September 10, 1997. At

the request of some parties, we gave the

parties more time for submitting their

comments and reply comments on the

advance notice. 62 FR at 58700, October

30, 1997. We later invited interested

persons to comment on a rulemaking

petition filed by America West Airlines

in their comments on our advance

notice. 62 FR 60195, November 7, 1997.

Our Proposed Extension of the Current

Rules

We obviously cannot complete the

rulemaking proceeding for the

reexamination of our rules by December

31, 1997, the current sunset date set

forth in our rules. We therefore

proposed to change the rules’ sunset

date to March 31, 1999. The proposed

amendment would keep the current

rules in force while we conducted our

overall reexamination of the rules.

We reasoned that a temporary

extension of the current rules would

preserve the status quo while we

determine whether our existing rules

should be readopted. As we noted, the

systems, airlines, and travel agencies

have been operating with the

expectation that each system will

comply with the rules. They would be

unduly burdened if the rules expired

and were later reinstated by us, since

they could have changed their method

of operations in the meantime. 62 FR at

59315, November 3, 1997.

We also tentatively determined that a

short-term continuation of the current

rules was necessary to protect airline

competition and consumers against

unreasonable practices. The findings

made in our last major CRS rulemaking

on the need for CRS rules still appeared

to be valid. Those findings indicated

that the rules should be maintained to

protect airline competition and

consumers against the injuries that

could otherwise occur.

We further found that an extension of

the rules was unlikely to impose

significant costs on the systems and

their owners, since they had already

adjusted their operations to comply

with the rules and since the rules did

not impose costly burdens of a

continuing nature on the systems. 62 FR

59316, November 3, 1997.

Finally, we suggested that our

obligation under section 1102(b) of the

Federal Aviation Act, recodified as 49

U.S.C. 40105(b), to act consistently with

the United States’ obligations under

treaties and bilateral air services

agreements provided an additional

ground for maintaining our current rules

during our reexamination of their need

and effectiveness. 62 FR 59316,

November 3, 1997.

Due to the need to make the proposed

amendment effective by the end of 1997,

we shortened the comment period to

fifteen days. As we noted, however, the

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

for the reexamination of the CRS rules

had stated that we intended to propose

an extension of the current rules. 62 FR

at 59314, November 3, 1997.

Comments

America West was the only party that

filed comments on our proposal to

change the rules’ sunset date. America

West agrees with our tentative findings

in the notice of proposed rulemaking

that the systems have market power that

requires continuing regulation and the

findings made in our parity clause

rulemaking and in our last major CRS

rulemaking. America West further cites

the complaints made by it in its recent

petition for a rulemaking on CRS

booking fee practices and travel agency

transactions, Docket OST–97–3014, and

asks that we act promptly on that

petition.

Decision

We will amend the rules’ sunset date

as proposed by our notice of proposed

rulemaking. America West supports our

proposal, and no one objected to it. The

analysis underlying that proposal is

consistent with the findings made by us

in other recent rulemakings on CRS

issues, as stated in our notice and

America West’s comments. We will, of

course, review our past findings on the

need for continued CRS regulation as

part of our overall reexamination of the

CRS rules.

We recognize America West’s interest

in prompt action on its rulemaking

petition, but we plan to address its

petition when we review the comments

and reply comments being filed in the

proceeding for reexamining all of the

CRS rules. We have already asked

parties to include their responses to

America West’s petition in their

comments on our advance notice of

proposed rulemaking. 62 FR 60195,

November 7, 1997.

Effective Date

We have determined for good cause to

make this amendment effective on

December 31, 1997, rather than thirty

days after publication as required by the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

553(d), except for good cause shown. In

order to maintain the current rules in

effect on a continuing basis, we must

make this amendment effective by

December 31, 1997. Since the

amendment preserves the status quo, it

will not require the systems, airlines,

and travel agencies to change their

operating methods. As a result, making

the amendment effective less than thirty

days after publication will not burden

anyone.

Regulatory Process Matters

Regulatory Assessment

This rule is a nonsignificant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and has not been

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget under that order. Executive

Order 12866 requires each executive

agency to prepare an assessment of costs

and benefits for each significant rule

under section 6(a)(3) of that order. The

rule is also not significant under the
66274 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation, 44 FR

11034, February 26, 1979.

In our notice of proposed rulemaking

we tentatively determined that

maintaining the current rules should

impose no significant costs on the CRSs.

The systems have done the work

necessary to comply with the rules’

requirements on displays and

functionality. Continuing to operate in

compliance with the rules would not

impose a substantial burden on the

systems. Maintaining the rules would

benefit airlines using CRSs, since

otherwise they could be subjected to

unreasonable terms for participation,

and would benefit consumers, who

otherwise might obtain incomplete or

inaccurate information on airline

services.

We also noted that our notice of

proposed rulemaking in our last major

rulemaking included a tentative

regulatory impact statement whose

analysis we made final in adopting the

rules. In proposing to change the rules’

sunset date, we stated our belief that the

analysis remained applicable to that

proposal and that no new regulatory

impact statement therefore seemed

necessary. We further stated our

willingness to consider any comments

on that analysis before making our

proposal final.

As indicated, no one filed any

comments. We will therefore base this

rule on the analysis used in our last

major CRS rulemaking, as discussed in

our notice of proposed rulemaking. We

will, of course, undertake a new

regulatory assessment as part of our

review of the existing rules, if we

determine that rules remain necessary.

This rule does not impose unfunded

mandates or requirements that will have

any impact on the quality of the human

environment.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., was enacted

by Congress to ensure that small entities

are not unnecessarily and

disproportionately burdened by

government regulations. The act

requires agencies to review proposed

regulations that may have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. For purposes

of this rule, small entities include

smaller U.S. and foreign airlines and

smaller travel agencies.

Our notice of proposed rulemaking set

forth the reasons for our proposed

extension of the rules’ expiration date

and the objectives and legal basis for

that proposed rule. We also pointed out

that keeping the current rules in force

would not change the existing

regulation of small businesses. In

addition, we presented a regulatory

flexibility analysis on the impact of the

rules in our last major CRS rulemaking.

That analysis appeared to be valid for

our proposed amendment of the rules’

sunset date. We therefore adopted that

analysis as our tentative regulatory

flexibility statement and stated that we

would consider any comments

submitted on that analysis in this

proceeding.

We noted that the continuation of our

existing CRS rules will primarily affect

two types of small entities, smaller

airlines and travel agencies. To the

extent that the rules enable airlines to

operate more efficiently and reduce

their costs, changing the sunset date of

the CRS rules would also affect all small

entities that purchase airline tickets,

since airline fares may be somewhat

lower than they would otherwise be.

We reasoned that the rules would

benefit smaller airlines without a CRS

ownership affiliation, by protecting

them from certain potential system

practices that could injure their ability

to operate profitably and compete

successfully. If there were no rules, the

systems’ airline owners could use them

to prejudice the competitive position of

smaller airlines. The rules protect

smaller airlines, for example, by

prohibiting display bias and

discriminatory fees for services

provided airlines. The rules also impose

no significant costs on smaller airlines.

The CRS rules affect the operations of

smaller travel agencies, primarily by

prohibiting certain CRS practices that

could unreasonably restrict the travel

agencies’ ability to use more than one

system or to switch systems. Among

other things, the rules give travel

agencies the right to use third-party

hardware and software and prohibit

display bias.

No one filed comments on our

Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. We

will adopt the analysis set forth in the

notice of proposed rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act also

requires each agency to periodically

review rules which have a significant

economic impact upon a substantial

number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 610.

Our rulemaking reexamining the need

for the CRS rules and their effectiveness

will constitute the required review of

those rules. Our reexamination of the

rules will include a Regulatory

Flexibility Act analysis if we propose

new CRS rules.

Our rule contains no direct reporting,

record-keeping, or other compliance

requirements that would affect small

entities. There are no other federal rules

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with

our proposed rules.

The Department certifies under

section 605(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. et seq.) that this

regulation will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposal contains no collectionof-information requirements subject to

the Paperwork Reduction Act, Pub. L.

96–511, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

Federalism Implications

This rule will have no substantial

direct effects 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. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12812,

we have determined that the rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 255

Air carriers, Antitrust, Consumer

protection, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Travel agents.

Accordingly, the Department of

Transportation proposes to amend 14

CFR part 255, Carrier-owned Computer

Reservations Systems, as follows:

PART 255—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 255

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40102, 40105,

40113, 41712.

2. Section 255.12 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 255.12 Termination.

Unless extended, these rules on

carrier-owned computer reservation

systems shall terminate on March 31,

1999.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on December

11, 1997.

Charles A. Hunnicutt,

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and

International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–32897 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P