Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Notices 9621

12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

(ii) as to which the NASD consents, the

Commission will:

(A) By order approve such proposed

rule change, or

(B) Institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule change

should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Act.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20549–0609. 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 at

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the NASD. All

submissions should refer to File No.

SR–NASD–78 and should be submitted

by March 1, 2001.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.12

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3238 Filed 2–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Advisory Circular 120–73, Damage

Tolerance Assessment of Repairs to

Pressurized Fuselages

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory

circular.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 120–

73, ‘‘Damage Tolerance Assessment of

Repairs to Pressurized Fuselages.’’ The

AC provides guidance on acceptable

means of incorporating FAA-approved

repair assessment guidelines in air

carrier maintenance or inspection

programs.

DATES: Advisory Circular 120–73 was

issued on December 14, 2000, by the

Director of the Aircraft Certification

Service, Federal Aviation

Administration.

How to Obtain Copies: You can get a

paper copy of AC 120–73 by writing to

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Subsequent Distribution Center, SVC–

121.23, Ardmore East Business Center,

3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover,

Maryland 20785. The AC also will be

available on the Internet at http://

www.faa.gov/avr/air/airhome.htm, at

the link titled ‘‘Advisory Circulars’’

under the ‘‘Available Information’’

drop-down menu.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical issues contact Brent Bandley,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5237; fax (562) 627–5210.

For other information contact: Jill

DeMarco, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Program Management

Branch, ANM–114, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056;

telephone (425) 227–1313; fax (425)

227–1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion of Comments

On December 22, 1997, the FAA

issued a notice of the availability of

proposed Advisory Circular (AC) 120–

XX, ‘‘Repair Assessment of Pressurized

Fuselages.’’ That notice was published

in the Federal Register on January 2,

1998 (63 FR 137), and we requested

comments from the public on the

proposed AC document. Three

commenters sent comments asking for

changes to various sections of the

proposed AC. We have addressed those

comments in the final AC as described

below.

Changes in General Terminology

One commenter requests that the FAA

clarify the terminology used in the

proposed AC to indicate that the area of

inspection termed the ‘‘fuselage

pressure boundary.’’ The commenter

states that this area includes not only

the fuselage skin and bulkhead web, but

the door skin as well.

The FAA concurs. The intent of the

repair assessment is to include the

entire fuselage pressure boundary,

which does include, among other

things, the fuselage, bulkhead webs, and

the door skin. We have changed the

terminology accordingly throughout the

final AC. [We made this same change in

terminology in the final rule associated

with this AC: Repair Assessment for

Pressurized Fuselages, amendments 91–

264, 121–275, 125–33, and 129–8 (65 FR

24108, April 25, 2000).]

Stage 1: Data Collection

One commenter suggests changes to

the guidance that concerns the list of

structure for which repair assessments

are required. The proposed guidance

states that some manufacturers have

reduced this list by determining the

inspection requirements for critical

details. If the requirements are equal to

normal maintenance checks, such as the

Baseline Zonal Inspection (BZI), those

details were excluded from this list. The

commenter points out that some

manufacturers also have excluded items

from the list if, through any other

inspection program, the repaired

structure was previously found to be

damage-tolerant. The commenter

requests that this be noted in the

proposed AC.

The FAA concurs. We have revised

paragraph 5.a.(1) of the final AC

accordingly.

Stage 2: Repair Classification

One commenter notes the guidance

states that, during ‘‘Stage 2: Repair

Classification,’’ applicants would use

information collected from ‘‘a survey

form’’ to classify repairs (into one of

three categories). The commenter states

that, while filling in a survey form may

be helpful when it is time to classify

repairs, such a form is not necessary.

Based on the knowledge of those doing

the assessment, the classification could

be done without filling in a survey form.

Therefore, the commenter requests that

the FAA revise the language in the

proposed AC to state more generally

that the applicant may use the

information gathered during Stage 1 to

classify repairs.

The FAA concurs. We have revised

the wording in paragraph 5.a.(2) of the

final AC accordingly.

Category C Repairs

One commenter requests that the term

‘‘temporary’’ be further defined to mean

‘‘time-limited’’ when defining Category

C repairs. The commenter points to an

FAA letter (ANM–120S:SCF, dated

February 12, 1990) that it previously

received that provided three definitions

of repairs. The definition contained in

the letter that was most closely

correlated to the definition of Category

C repairs contained in the proposed AC,

used the term ‘‘time-limited’’ to describe

the repair, not ‘‘temporary.’’

9622 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Notices

The FAA concurs with the

commenter’s request. We have revised

paragraph 5.a.(2)(c) of the final AC to

state: ‘‘Category C: A temporary (timelimited) repair that will need to be

reworked or replaced prior to an

established time * * *’’

Airplane Cycle Age Equal to or Less

Than Implementation Time on Effective

Date of Rule

One commenter requests that the FAA

clarify the guidance on when the

assessment process would begin for

airplanes whose flight cycle age is equal

to or less than the implementation time

on the date the associated final rule

becomes effective. Specifically, the

commenter points out that the deadline

for repair assessment does not include

a ‘‘not to exceed’’ value like the other

airplanes addressed in the proposed AC.

The FAA concurs that clarification is

necessary. We have changed paragraph

6.g.(1) of the final AC to state that the

assessment of an airplane in this group

should take place before it exceeds the

design service goal (DSG), plus an

equivalent C-check. (This is parallel to

the limit of the assessment deadline

specified in paragraph 6.g.(2) for

airplanes whose cycle age is greater than

the implementation time, but less than

the DSG, on the date that the associated

final rule became effective.)

Maintenance Program Changes

One commenter requests that the FAA

revise the proposed AC to make its

intent clearer concerning maintenance

program changes. The proposed

wording states: ‘‘If the interval

escalation reduces the frequency of

inspection of the affected area below the

BZI * * *’’.

The commenter considers that this

wording is confusing, and suggests that

it could be clearer if changed to: ‘‘If the

revised maintenance or inspection

program intervals are greater than those

in the BZI * * *’’

The FAA concurs. We have changed

the wording in paragraph 6.h. of the

final AC accordingly.

Sale and Transfer of Airplanes

One commenter requests changes

concerning the time for implementing

the required repair assessment for

airplanes that previously have been

operated under an FAA-approved

maintenance program and are now

being sold or transferred. The

commenter requests that the phrase,

‘‘* * * whichever would result in an

earlier accomplishment date for the

assessment,’’ be eliminated. The

commenter states:

• Such a requirement to adopt

previous operators’ programs into the

new operator’s FAA-approved program

adds needless administrative

complexity and confusion.

• The FAA applies specific oversight

of maintenance program integration for

fleet additions, whether by acquisition

of new or used aircraft of by lease.

• Ample FAA guidelines cover the

integration of airplanes transitioning

from one maintenance program to

another, and there is no need to add an

across-the-board provision which may

not be appropriate in may cases.

The FAA does not concur. We

consider it essential that operators

ensure that transferred airplanes are

maintained in accordance with the

repair assessment program on the same

basis as if there were continuity in

ownership. Scheduling of the repair

assessments for each airplane must not

be delayed or postponed because of a

transfer of ownership; in some cases,

such postponement could continue

indefinitely if an airplane is transferred

frequently from one owner to another.

The stipulation contained in the AC is

intended to prevent the situation where

an airplane is transferred so often that

it never gets assessed.

Miscellaneous Changes

Title of AC: We changed the title of

the final AC to ‘‘Damage Tolerance

Assessment of Repairs to Pressurized

Fuselages.’’ We consider that this new

title more clearly reflects the content of

the AC and the guidance provided.

Paragraph 3., Discussion: We revised

this paragraph in the final AC provide

a comprehensive list of all airplane

models that are subject to the

requirements of 14 CFR parts 91, 121,

125, and 129 for a structural integrity

assessment of repairs to the fuselage

pressure boundary.

Paragraph 6.j., Operation of Leased

Foreign-Owned Airplanes: We revised

this paragraph to point out that the

applicant is not required to implement

the assessment program only in

accordance with the ‘‘model-specific

manufacturer’s repair assessment

guidelines.’’ We deleted the word

‘‘manufacturer’s’’ from that phrase in

the final AC. The applicant may use the

manufacturer’s guidelines or may use

any others that have been developed

and approved for the specific airplane

model.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January

23, 2001.

Dorenda D. Baker,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–3309 Filed 2–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA, Inc. Special Committee 198;

Next Generation Communications

(NEXCOM)

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.

L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice

is hereby given for an RTCA NEXCOM

Special Committee 198 meeting to be

held February 22–23, 2001, starting at

9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at

the RTCA Inc., 1140 Connecticut Ave,

NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC,

20536.

At the request of the Federal Aviation

Administration, RTCA established a

new Special Committee (SC–198) to

develop recommendations for the Next

Generation Communications (NEXCOM)

program. The FAA will implement an

integrated system for digital air/ground

voice and data communications in the

National Airspace System. Special

Committee 198 will undertake a

multiphase work program that will

initially focus on operational

considerations and identify, then

characterize, basic operational issues.

this results of the first phase effort will

be published in a Principles of

Operation document as well as a report

on responses to recommendation of the

RTCA Chairman’s Committee on

NEXCOM. In subsequent phases,

Special Committee 198 will address

detailed demonstration and transition

planning.

The agenda will include: (1) Welcome

and Introductory Remarks; (2) Review

Terms of Reference, discuss multi-phase

work program; (3) Organize work

groups, determine leadership, establish

interim milestones to deliver two

products for Phase 1: (a) Report on

Responses to Recommendations to the

RTCA Chairman’s Committee on

NEXCOM (Delivery: August 2001); (b)

RTCA DO NEXCOM Principles

(Delivery: September 2001); (4) Working

Group meetings. Plenary Session: (5)

Review Work Group reports; (6) Review

Proposed schedule for subsequent

meetings to include Plenary meetings in

February, April, June, and August, as

well as Plenary in September 2001 to

approve phase 1 documents; (c) Plenary