        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 52 and 64
        [CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196; FCC 08-151]
        Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission seeks comment on additional issues relating to the assignment and administration of ten-digit telephone numbers for Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS).

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before August 8, 2008. Reply comments are due on or before August 25, 2008. Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments on the proposed information collection requirements should be submitted on or before September 16, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Interested parties may submit comments identified by FCC 08-151 by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/, or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196. Parties also may submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
          • Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

          • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
          • Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
          • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
          Parties who choose to file by paper also should submit their comments on compact disc. The compact disc should be submitted, along with three paper copies, to: Dana Wilson, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 3-C418, Washington, DC 20554. Such submission should be on a compact disc formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word 2003 or a compatible software. The compact disc should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in “read only” mode. The compact disc should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the compact disc. The label also should include the following phrase: “CD-Rom Copy—Not an Original.” Each compact disc should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters filing by paper must send a compact disc copy to the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.

          In addition, comments on the PRA information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to PRA@fcc.gov or Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov, and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Desk Office via the Internet to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov, or via fax at (202) 395-5167.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Thomas Chandler, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at (202) 418-1475 (voice), (202) 418-0597 (TTY), or e-mail at Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning the PRA information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918, or via the Internet at Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov or PRA@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a summary of the Commission's Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), document FCC 08-151, adopted June 11, 2008, and released June 24, 2008, in CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196, seeking comment on additional issues relating to the assignment and administration of ten-digit telephone numbers for Internet-based TRS. In association with the FNPRM, on June 24, 2008, the Commission issued a Report and Order in CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196, FCC 08-151, adopting a system for assigning users of Internet-based TRS, specifically, Video Relay Service (VRS) and IP Relay, ten-digit telephone numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). The issues on which the Commission seeks further comment in the FNPRM arise from the companion Report and Order, as well as the following items from which the Report and Order emanated: (1) Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 03-123, document FCC 05-196, published at 71 FR 5221, February 1, 2006; (2) Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Declaratory Ruling and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 03-123, document FCC 06-57, published at 71 FR 30818 and 71 FR 30848, May 31, 2006; (3) Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 03-123, document FCC 06-58, published at 71 FR 31131, June 1, 2006; (4) Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements For IP-Enabled Service Providers, Report and Order, CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196, document FCC 08-78, published at 73 FR 21252, April 21, 2008; and (5) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks To Refresh Record on Assigning Internet Protocol (IP)-Based Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Users Ten-Digit Telephone Numbers Linked to North American Numbering Plan (NANP) and Related Issues, Public Notice, CG Docket No. 03-123, document DA 08-607, published at 73 FR 16304, March 27, 2008.

        The full text of document FCC 08-151 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document FCC 08-151 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site, www.bcpiweb.com, or by calling 1-800-378-3160. Document FCC 08-151 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html.

        People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
        Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

        The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due September 16, 2008. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated information collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 202, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it may “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

          OMB Control Number: 3060-1089.

          Title: Telephone Numbering System and E911 Requirements for Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service Providers, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 03-123 and WC Docket No. 05-196, FCC 08-151.

          Form No. N/A.

          Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

          Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Individuals or households; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

          Number of Respondents and Responses: 202,566 respondents; 178,646,320 responses.

          Estimated Time per Response: 1 second to 8 hours.

          Frequency of Response: One-time and on occasion reporting requirements; Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

          Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), (4)(j), 222, 225, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 222, 225, 251, 303(r).

          Total Annual Burden: 103,883 hours.

          Total Annual Costs: $10,520.

          Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because the Commission has no direct involvement in the collection of personally identifiable information (PII) from individuals and/or households.

          Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

          Needs and Uses: In this document, the Commission proposes information collection requirements for the following:
        (A) Provision of Registered Location to Non-Default Providers. Registered Location information will be used by each Internet-based TRS provider, as well as their 911 service providers, to complete 911 calls placed by callers that have selected another Internet-based TRS provider as their default provider. This information will be used whenever a 911 call is placed through a non-default provider.
        (B) Inter-Provider Signaling. Each Internet-based TRS provider will collect its registered users' registration and routing information to register its users' Internet-based TRS devices, verify its users' registration, and use the information in the transition to standards-based signaling and SIP-based end devices.
        (C) Device Registration. Device registration will be used to improve the security of the security of the TRS numbering system and the equipment and networks of both providers and users.
        (D) Verification of Registration. Registration verification will be used to help reduce fraud by ensuring a calling party is entitled to access the network.
        (E) Slamming. Each Internet-based TRS provider will use the Internet-based TRS users' information to implement Section 258 of the Act and deter slamming, while protecting Internet-based TRS users from providers that may take advantage of confusion over different types of Internet-based TRS services.
        (F) Consumer Privacy. Each Internet-based TRS provider will collect its users' network information, including their call records, Registered Location, or other personally identifiable account or usage information in accordance with Section 222 of the Act and the Commission's implementing rules.
        (G) Extending Information Collections to IP CTS. Each IP CTS provider will collect the necessary information from its users to comply with the rules set forth in the Report and Order as well as the proposals set forth in the FNPRM to allow users of IP CTS to take advantage of the ten-digit numbering system and related protections.
        Synopsis
        Through the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on additional issues relating to the assignment and administration of ten-digit telephone numbers for Internet-based TRS. These issues include: (1) Certain peripheral issues concerning the proper handling of 911 calls placed via Internet-based TRS; (2) an appropriate registration period; (3) the eligibility of Internet-based TRS users to receive multiple telephone numbers; (4) the use of toll free numbers; (5) what steps the Commission should take, if any, to facilitate implementation of standards-based signaling between service providers; (6) the assignment of a single telephone number to multiple services; (7) multi-line telephone systems; (8) eligibility to obtain Internet-based TRS telephone numbers; (9) the regulatory treatment of IP CTS; (10) additional security measures designed to ensure the integrity of the TRS system and Internet-based TRS equipment and networks; (11) verification of registration; (12) application of the anti-slamming rules to protect relay consumers against unauthorized default provider changes; (13) the extent to which the CPNI rules should apply to Internet-based TRS providers; and (14) whether, and to what extent, in connection with the compensation of Internet-based TRS providers for their reasonable actual costs of complying with the Report and Order, the costs of acquiring numbers, including porting fees, should be passed on to Internet-based TRS users.

          911 Issues. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should modify the call completion rule to allow for immediate answer of 911 calls. Under the current call completion rule, if a CA is conducting a relay call, that CA may not terminate the call for any reason, even if a 911 call is waiting in queue. As demonstrated in the record, immediate response to 911 calls is critical so first responders can be deployed in an emergency. Thus, the Commission seeks comment on whether the call completion rule should be modified so that if a CA is handling a non-emergency relay call and identifies an incoming 911 call, the CA may terminate the existing call to answer the 911 call immediately. If so, how should the rule be modified? What, if any, technical considerations must be addressed?
        In addition, if an Internet-based TRS user places an emergency call through an Internet-based TRS provider other than the Internet-based TRS user's default provider, the default provider may not have access to the Internet-based TRS user's Registered Location information. The Commission seeks comment on ways in which Registered Location information might be made available to alternative relay providers for the purpose of routing emergency calls.

          Registration Period. The Commission recognizes that there must be a registration period to allow existing Internet-based TRS users to register with a default provider, provide their Registered Location, and obtain their new ten-digit NANP telephone numbers. The Commission also seeks comment on the length of time necessary for this registration period. Should there be a cut-off date upon which any Internet-based TRS user who has not registered with a default provider will lose the ability to use Internet-based TRS services until they register with a default provider? Are there technical or other means by which Internet-based TRS providers could require an Internet-based TRS user to register prior to the reinitiation of service? Are there any other issues the Commission must consider in connection with the registration period?

          Eligibility for Multiple Telephone Numbers. The Commission notes that Internet-based TRS providers will incur costs to acquire telephone numbers for their Registered Internet-based TRS users. There is some discussion in the record of how many numbers an Internet-based TRS user should be entitled to obtain from an Internet-based TRS provider, including allowing an Internet-based TRS user to obtain different numbers for use at particular locations (e.g., home and work), allowing one telephone number per device, and allowing one telephone number per household. The record does not, however, reflect a consensus on this issue, and the Commission requests further comment on whether Internet-based TRS users should be entitled to obtain multiple numbers, and if so at what cost.

          Use of Toll Free Numbers. The Commission acknowledges that certain Internet-based TRS users currently use toll free numbers issued or assigned by Internet-based TRS providers or other carriers and may continue to do so. The Commission seeks comment on whether these Internet-based TRS users should be subject to a fee for use of a toll free number, as are hearing users. The Commission also seeks comment on any other issues involved in using toll free numbers for Internet-based TRS, including any impact the use of such numbers may have on the provision of 911 service.

          Signaling. NeuStar's TRU proposes that standards-based signaling be required between service providers. NeuStar suggests that inter-provider signaling using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for TRS will facilitate a transition from the current requirement that end devices implement H.323 protocols to an environment that will support H.323 standard and SIP end devices. The Commission invites comments on NeuStar's underlying objective of transitioning to SIP-based end devices and steps the Commission could take to facilitate the process. The Commission also seeks comment on what steps, if any, it should take to facilitate implementation of standards-based signaling between service providers in other contexts, such as IP Relay.

          Assignment of a Single Telephone Number to Multiple Services. The Commission seeks comment on whether the functional equivalency standard requires that the numbering system adopted in the Report and Order allow for a single NANP number to be assigned to multiple services.

          Multi-Line Telephone Systems. The Commission seeks comment on what, if anything, the Commission should do to ensure that Internet-based TRS users who work in government buildings, live on college campuses, or otherwise use multi-line telephone systems have access to functionally equivalent telephone numbers and E911 services as required by the Report and Order.

          Eligibility to Obtain Internet-Based TRS Telephone Numbers. The Commission seeks comment on who should be eligible to obtain telephone numbers from Internet-based TRS providers.

          Regulatory Treatment of IP CTS. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should extend the numbering system adopted in the Report and Order to IP CTS.

          Security. The Commission seeks comment on NeuStar's proposals to require device registration, close firewalls, and “close the network” such that default Internet-based TRS providers only accept calls from their own Registered Internet-based TRS users, from the PSTN, or from another Internet-based TRS provider. See NeuStar Refresh Comments at pages 10-11. The Commission seeks further comment on whether there are other security issues and measures that should be considered to ensure the integrity of the TRS system and the equipment and networks of Internet-based TRS users.

          Verification of Registration. The Commission believes that requiring Internet-based TRS providers to offer their users a means of registering will help reduce the abuse of IP Relay for fraudulent purposes. Nonetheless, the Commission recognizes that significantly reducing illegitimate IP Relay calls should benefit merchants, Internet-based TRS providers, Internet-based TRS users, and indeed all users of telecommunications services, and therefore seek comment on further rules that might curb these problematic practices. Specifically, would a closed system requiring Internet-based TRS providers to validate the registration of users before completing non-emergency calls help curb IP Relay fraud? Would such a system be possible without imposing undue burdens on legitimate Internet-based TRS users? And how are Internet-based TRS providers to verify that registration information itself is not fraudulent? Absent such a mandatory system, should the Commission specifically encourage (or even require) Internet-based TRS providers to filter out requests for Internet-based TRS that come from suspected illegitimate users, such as known fraudsters or overseas users?

          Slamming Issues. With the Commission's adoption of a ten-digit numbering mechanism for Internet-based TRS users, including giving users a choice of default Internet-based TRS providers to service their assigned numbers, the Commission believes the Commission should adopt rules to protect relay consumers against unauthorized default provider changes. The Commission seeks comment on whether such protections are necessary and, if so, whether they should be similar to the Commission's current regulations to protect against, and remedy instances of, “slamming.”

          Consumer Privacy. The Commission seeks comment on what, if any, specific actions the Commission should take to ensure the privacy and security of TRS consumers' call records or other personally identifiable account or usage information, including the information users provide in connection with the Registered Location requirement discussed in the Report and Order.

          Cost Recovery Issues. As outlined in the Report and Order, the Commission concludes that Internet-based TRS providers may seek compensation from the Fund for their actual reasonable costs of complying with the new requirements adopted in the Report and Order. The Commission has not included, however, those costs directly related to consumers' acquiring a number or to the costs associated with number portability. Because these costs generally are borne by voice telephone users, the Commission seeks comment on whether Internet-based TRS users acquiring ten-digit numbers should also bear these costs. The Commission further seeks comment on whether, and to what extent, the costs of acquiring numbers, including porting fees, should be passed on to the Internet-based TRS users, and not paid for by the Fund. The Commission notes that because Internet-based TRS users will now have a default provider—e.g., the provider from which they obtained their number or a provider to which they ported their number—that provider can pass the costs of acquiring the number, or of porting the number, to the consumer. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other specific costs that result from the requirements adopted in the Report and Order that, mirroring voice telephone consumers, should be passed on to consumers, including, for example, E911 charges.

        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
        In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on additional issues relating to the assignment and administration of ten-digit telephone numbers for VRS and IP Relay users. For example, the Commission proposes a modification of the call completion requirement under the Commission's TRS rules so that if a CA is handling a non-emergency relay call and identifies an incoming 911 call, the CA may terminate the existing call to immediately answer the 911 call. The Commission also seeks comment on ways in which Registered Location information might be made available to alternative relay providers for the purpose of routing emergency calls in the event that an Internet-based TRS user places an emergency call through an Internet-based TRS provider other than the user's default provider. The Commission proposes a registration period to allow existing Internet-based TRS users to register with, and obtain a ten-digit NANP telephone number from, a default provider, and seeks comment on the appropriate length of such a period. The Commission also seeks comment on the eligibility of Internet-based TRS users for multiple telephone numbers; issues related to the use of toll-free numbers for Internet-based TRS; the assignment of a single telephone number to multiple services; who should be entitled to receive an Internet-based TRS telephone number; the appropriate regulatory treatment of IP CTS; and what, if anything, the Commission should do to ensure that Internet-based TRS users who use multi-line telephone systems have access to functionally equivalent telephone numbers and E911 services as required by the Report and Order. Further, the Commission seeks comment on the steps it should take, if any, to facilitate implementation of SIP-based signaling between service providers in order to make possible a transition from the current requirement that end devices implement H. 323 protocols to an environment that will support H. 323 standard and SIP end devices. The Commission also contemplates security measures designed to ensure the integrity of the TRS system and the equipment and networks of Internet-based TRS users and seeks comment on what, if any, additional steps it might take to combat IP Relay fraud. The Commission further proposes the application of the Commission's anti-slamming rules to protect relay consumers against unauthorized default provider changes, and the application of the Commission's CPNI rules to protect the privacy of consumers' call records or other personally identifiable account or usage information. Finally, the Commission proposes that the costs of acquiring ten-digit telephone numbers, and porting those numbers, should be passed on to Internet-based TRS users.
        The Commission considers whether the proposed changes are necessary to ensure that users of Internet-based TRS receive functionally equivalent telephone service, as mandated by Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although the proposed changes may result in additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the part of the affected providers, including small entities, the providers will be promptly reimbursed from the Interstate TRS Fund for the costs of complying with the proposed rules, if adopted. Entities, especially small businesses, are encouraged to quantify the costs and benefits of any reporting requirement that may be established in this proceeding. The modifications the Commission proposes consist of policies aimed at achieving a functionally equivalent telephone service for Internet-based TRS users and are not expected to have a substantial economic impact upon providers, including small businesses, because each small business will receive financial compensation for reasonable costs incurred rather than absorb an uncompensated financial loss or hardship.

        With regard to whether a substantial number of small entities may be affected by the requirements proposed in the FNPRM, the Commission notes that, of the 11 providers affected by the FNPRM, only three meet the definition of a small entity. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. Currently, 11 providers receive compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund for providing Internet-based TRS: AT&T Corp.; CSDVRS; CAC; GoAmerica; Hamilton Relay, Inc.; Hands On; Healinc; Nordia Inc.; Snap Telecommunications, Inc; Sorenson; and Sprint. Because only three of the providers that would be affected by the FNPRM, if adopted, are deemed to be small entities under the SBA's small business size standard, the Commission concludes that the number of small entities potentially affected by the Commission's proposed rules is not substantial. Moreover, given that all providers potentially affected by the proposed rules, including the three that are deemed to be small entities under the SBA's standard, would be entitled to receive prompt reimbursement for their reasonable costs of compliance, the Commission concludes that the FNPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on these small entities.

        Therefore, the Commission certifies that the proposals in the FNPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Ordering Clauses

        Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 225, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 251, 303(r), the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
        The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shall be effective August 18, 2008.

        The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Shall Send a copy of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          William F. Caton,
          Deputy Secretary.

       [FR Doc. E8-16270 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Eastern New York Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, Enhancement of Survival Permit

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of Availability and Receipt of Application; Request for Comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Eastern New York Chapter of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an Enhancement of Survival Permit (ESP) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. The requested permit, which is for a period of 50 years, includes a draft Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) for the Karner blue butterfly in portions of Albany, Saratoga, Schenectady, and Warren Counties, New York.
          A draft Environmental Assessment (EA), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), is also available for public review. We are requesting comments on this application.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the permit application, SHA, and EA must be received on or before November 9, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Please address comments to Field Office Supervisor, New York Field Office, 3817 Luker Road, Cortland, New York 13045; facsimile 607-753-9699. Please refer to permit TE162713-0 when submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          David Stilwell or Robyn Niver at the New York Field Office (see ADDRESSES above), telephone 607-753-9334; facsimile 607-753-9699, or Robyn_Niver@fws.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Document Availability

        Individuals wishing copies of the permit application or the draft EA, or copies of the full text of the proposed SHA, should contact the office and personnel listed in the ADDRESSES section. Documents also will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at this office (see ADDRESSES).
        We specifically request information, views, and opinions from the public on the proposed Federal action of issuing a permit. Further, we solicit information regarding the adequacy of the SHA as measured against our permit issuance criteria found in 50 CFR 17.22(c).
        Before including your address, telephone number, electronic mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
        Background
        TNC has applied to the Service for a section 10(a)(1)(A) ESP for the endangered Karner blue butterfly in portions of 4 eastern New York counties (Albany, Saratoga, Schenectady, and Warren) for a period of 50 years.
        TNC plans to implement a programmatic SHA program on non-Federal and non-TNC lands in eastern New York to promote the recovery of the Karner blue butterfly on enrolled private lands located in the counties listed above. The conservation measures will improve and maintain pitch pine scrub oak barrens oak-pine savannahs, and tall grass prairie openings through mowing, tree clearing, and grubbing, removal of debris, prescribed burning, limited use of herbicides, and planting seeds or seedlings by hand or mechanical equipment. TNC may also employ captive-rearing and translocation methods to enhance butterfly colonization of sites. Due to the programmatic nature of the SHA, baseline conditions will be determined at the time of enrollment. Baseline conditions for most properties are anticipated to be zero. Where properties are determination to have an environmental baseline greater than zero, these areas shall be described in the cooperative agreement between TNC and the property owner, with detailed descriptions and maps showing the locations of existing habitat attached to the cooperative agreement.

        Under an SHA, a participating property owner voluntarily undertakes management activities on their property to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species listed under the Act. Safe Harbor Agreements encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation efforts for listed species by assuring property owners they will not be subject to increased property use restrictions if their efforts attract listed species to their property or increase the numbers or distribution of listed species already on their property.

        The draft EA considers the environmental consequences of three alternatives, including a no-action alternative, the proposed action, and an alternative involving individual SHAs with the Service.
        Decision
        We provide this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and pursuant to implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6). We will evaluate the permit application, the proposed SHA, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Action and NEPA regulations. If the requirements are met, we will sign the proposed SHA and issue an enhancement of survival permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act to TNC for take of Karner blue butterfly incidental to otherwise lawful activities of the project. We will not make a final decision until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all comments received during the comment period.

          Authority:
          The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

          Dated: August 24, 2007.
          Thomas J. Healy,
          Acting Regional Director, Region 5.

      [FR Doc. E7-19882 Filed 10-9-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
        29 CFR Parts 1206
        [Docket No. C-7034]
        RIN 3140-ZA01
        Representation Procedures and Rulemaking Authority; Correction

          AGENCY:
          National Mediation Board.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          This document corrects the text of a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2012. The proposed rule changes the National Mediation Board's (NMB or Board) existing rules for run-off elections to incorporate statutory language added to the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

          DATES:
          Comment date: The NMB will extend the comment period by accepting written comments that are received on or before August 6, 2012.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mary Johnson, General Counsel, National Mediation Board, 202-692-5050, infoline@nmb.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The National Mediation Board is correcting its proposed rule published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2012 at 77 FR 28536. This document makes a correction to clarify that Rule 1206.1 only applies in elections where 3 or more options receive valid votes.
        Correction

        In FR Doc. No. 2012-11770, on page 28537, in the right column, the text for § 1206.1 is correctly revised to read as follows:

          § 1206.1
          Run-off elections.

            (a) In an election among any craft or class where three or more options (including the option for no representation) receive valid votes, if no option receives a majority of the legal votes cast, or in the event of a tie vote, the Board shall authorize a run-off election.
            (b) In the event a run-off election is authorized by the Board, the names of the two options which received the highest number of votes cast in the first election shall be placed on the run-off ballot, and no blank line on which voters may write in the name of any organization or individual will be provided on the run-off ballot.
            (c) Employees who were eligible to vote at the conclusion of the first election shall be eligible to vote in the run-off election except:
            (1) Those employees whose employment relationship has terminated; and
            (2) Those employees who are no longer employed in the craft or class.

          Dated: June 4, 2012.
          Mary Johnson,
          General Counsel, National Mediation Board.

      [FR Doc. 2012-13849 Filed 6-6-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 7550-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 160615524-6524-01]
        RIN 0648-BG13
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Scup Fishery; Framework Adjustment 9

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This action proposes modifications to the Southern Scup Gear Restricted Area, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The proposed changes would modify the southern and eastern boundaries of the Southern Scup Gear Restricted Area, which is in effect from January 1 through March 15 of each year. This rule is intended to increase access to traditional squid fishing areas, while maintaining protection for juvenile scup.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by September 19, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0102, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0102;

          2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon and complete the required fields; and
          3. Enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the Scup GRA Framework.”

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by us. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Copies of the Scup Gear Restricted Area Modification Framework, including the draft Environmental Assessment, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in support of this action are available from Dr. Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The supporting documents are also accessible via the Internet at: http://www.mafmc.org/actions/scup-gear-restricted-areas-framework or http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/scup/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Moira Kelly, Fishery Program Specialist, phone: 978-281-9218; email: Moira.Kelly@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) is managed jointly by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission through the Summer Flounder, Scup, Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The management unit specified in the FMP for scup is U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from 35°13.3′ N. lat. (the latitude of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Buxton, NC) northward to the U.S./Canada border. Currently, the scup stock is not overfished and it is not experiencing overfishing.

        When scup was overfished prior to 2009, the Council and NMFS determined that juvenile scup mortality in small-mesh fisheries (i.e., those fisheries using mesh smaller than the minimum size specified in the scup regulations) was highly problematic. Two seasonal Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs) were implemented to prohibit vessels fishing for squid, black sea bass, or silver hake (also known as whiting) from using mesh smaller than the 5.0-inch (12.7-cm) minimum scup mesh size in the areas during certain times of year. The GRAs were implemented in 2000 (May 24, 2000, 65 FR 33486) and modified several times (December 27, 2000, 65 FR 81761; March 1, 2001, 66 FR 12902; January 2, 2003, 68 FR 60; January 4, 2005, 70 FR 303) between 2000 and 2005. Details on the changes to the GRAs are described in those actions and are not repeated here. Most often the changes were enacted to accommodate access for one of the regulated small-mesh fisheries, while still maintaining an effective level of protection for juvenile scup. The GRAs in their current forms have been in effect since 2003 (Northern GRA) and 2005 (Southern GRA). Scup has been considered rebuilt since 2009, and is currently estimated to be approximately 210 percent of the biomass target, although it has begun to decline in recent years. Research by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center suggests that minimizing juvenile mortality in the GRAs likely contributed to the recovery and expansion of the scup population.

        Like the prior modifications, the Council began considering modifying the GRAs in early 2014 in response to requests from the squid fishery to increase access to historic fishing grounds during the seasons in which the GRAs are in effect. Because of the spatial overlap of several of the alternatives in the Council's Deep-Sea Coral Amendment (http://www.mafmc.org/actions/msb-am16), the Council postponed development of the Scup GRA framework until action on the Coral Amendment had been completed. The Council took final action on the Deep-Sea Coral Amendment in June 2015, and the action is currently under review at NMFS.
        The Council initially considered modifications to the boundaries and seasons of both GRAs, but ultimately determined that the only changes warranted at this time were to the southern and eastern boundaries of the Southern GRA. The Council considered several variations of the Southern GRA boundary and determined that the proposed measure best balanced the needs of the squid fishery and the protective value of the Southern GRA for juvenile scup from January 1-March 15.
        Proposed Modifications
        The proposed change to the Southern GRA would shift the eastern boundary west roughly following the outermost points of the proposed Deep-Sea Coral Protection Areas. The proposal would also remove the southern portions of the GRA that overlap statistical areas 631 and 632. The current (thick outline) and proposed (hatched) Southern GRA are shown in the figure below. The proposed Southern GRA coordinates are provided in the proposed regulatory text.

          EP18AU16.010

        The Council designed the recommended modifications to minimize overlap between the GRA and the recommended discrete deep-sea coral areas. The eastern boundary is intended to restore access to the squid fishery in areas approximately 55 to 60 fathoms (100 to 110 m) and deeper. The shift to the southern boundary north is based on analysis suggesting there are very few scup in statistical areas 631 and 632 from January through March. The Council's proposal would marginally reduce the amount of protection for the scup stock, in return for a modest increase in squid availability. The proposed Southern GRA is smaller than the current one; slightly reducing coverage of the scup estimated to the covered by the GRA. However, analysis shows that this change would result in a modest increase in access for the squid and whiting fisheries and a slight increase in the availability of black sea bass in the GRA from January 1-March 15. It is important to note, however, that the amount of each stock (by weight) currently estimated to be within the GRA during the winter is only a small fraction of the total stock abundance during that same timeframe. As a result, we do not expect the proposed boundary changes to compromise the scup stock or result in overfishing for squid, black sea bass, or whiting.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        The Council conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with an Environmental Assessment. There were 64 federally permitted squid, whiting, and black sea bass vessels fishing with small-mesh from January 1-March 15 in the statistical areas covered by the GRA for the past three years. These are the vessels likely to be affected by this action. For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Of those 64 vessels, 61 are considered “small” by the NMFS size standards, and three are considered “large.” The proposed measure would modify the boundaries of the Southern Scup GRA and is intended to increase access to the squid, whiting, and black sea bass fisheries. The boundary changes were designed to maintain a high level of discard mortality protection for the scup fishery, while increasing opportunity, and therefore revenue, for the small-mesh fishery targeting squid, whiting, and black sea bass. The changes are not expected to result in excessive increases in mortality for any species. As a result, economic impact of this action is expected to be slightly positive for all of the affected vessels in those fisheries.
        Because this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: August 12, 2016.
          Paul Doremus,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 648.124, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

          § 648.124
          Scup commercial season and commercial fishery area restrictions.
          (a) Southern Gear Restricted Area—(1) Restrictions. From January 1 through March 15, all trawl vessels in the Southern Gear Restricted Area that fish for or possess non-exempt species as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must fish with nets that have a minimum mesh size of 5.0-inch (12.7-cm) diamond mesh, applied throughout the codend for at least 75 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net. For trawl nets with codends (including an extension) of fewer than 75 meshes, the entire trawl net must have a minimum mesh size of 5.0 inches (12.7 cm) throughout the net. The Southern Gear Restricted Area is an area bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting the area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):

            Southern Gear Restricted Area

              Point
              N. lat.
              W. long.

              SGA1
              39.333333
              −72.616667

              SGA2
              39.073019
              −72.786958

              SGA3
              38.496545
              −73.467370

              SGA4
              38.477560
              −73.489477

              SGA5
              38.495300
              −73.510888

              SGA6
              38.438654
              −73.557363

              SGA7
              38.219230
              −73.829500

              SGA8
              38.229019
              −73.845524

              SGA9
              38.199688
              −73.877487

              SGA10
              37.492224
              −74.499182

              SGA11
              37.490513
              −74.504757

              SGA12
              37.476656
              −74.510019

              SGA13
              37.116111
              −74.680000

              SGA14
              37.097222
              −74.759444

              SGA15
              37.073889
              −74.683889

              SGA16
              37.057931
              −74.672732

              SGA17
              37.000000
              −74.716667

              SGA18
              37.000000
              −75.050000

              SGA19
              38.000000
              −74.383333

              SGA20
              39.333333
              −72.883333

              SGA1
              39.333333
              −72.616667

      [FR Doc. 2016-19702 Filed 8-17-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Aviation Administration
        14 CFR Part 39
        [Docket No. FAA-2010-0856; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-117-AD]
        RIN 2120-AA64
        Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 Series Airplanes

          AGENCY:
          Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting for part numbers of the operational program software of the flight control computers, and doing corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of erroneous undetected output from a single radio altimeter channel, which resulted in premature autothrottle retard during approach. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct erroneous output from a radio altimeter channel, which could result in premature autothrottle landing flare retard and the loss of automatic speed control, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

          DATES:
          We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 8, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send comments by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.
          • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

        Examining the AD Docket
        You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Richard Reed, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6431; fax (425) 917-6590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Comments Invited

        We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2010-0856; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-117-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.
        We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.
        Discussion
        We have received reports of a number of instances in service, of erroneous undetected output from a single radio altimeter channel, which resulted in premature autothrottle retard during approach. This condition can lead to premature autothrottle landing flare retard and the loss of automatic speed control, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
        Relevant Service Information
        We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1211, dated April 13, 2010, which describes procedures for inspecting to determine the operational program software part numbers of the flight control computers, and installing new software if necessary.
        FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD
        We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
        Costs of Compliance
        We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 207 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the inspection of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the inspection of this proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $17,595, or $85 per product.
        Authority for This Rulemaking
        Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
        We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
        Regulatory Findings

        We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
        1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
        2. Is not a “significant rule” under the 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.
        You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket.

          List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
          Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

        The Proposed Amendment
        Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:

                The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-0856; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-117-AD.
              Comments Due Date
              (a) We must receive comments by November 8, 2010.
              Affected ADs
              (b) None.
              Applicability
              (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1211, dated April 13, 2010.
              Subject
              (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22: Auto Flight.
              Unsafe Condition
              (e) This AD results from reports of erroneous undetected output from a single radio altimeter channel, which resulted in premature autothrottle retard during approach. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to detect and correct erroneous output from a radio altimeter channel, which could result in premature autothrottle landing flare retard and the loss of automatic speed control, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
              Compliance
              (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
              Inspection for Parts
              (g) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine the part number of operational program software (OPS) of the flight control computers. For any OPS having a part number identified in Table 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1211, dated April 13, 2010, before further flight, install new software, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1211, dated April 13, 2010. For any OPS having a part number identified in Table 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1211, dated April 13, 2010, no further action is required by this paragraph.
              Special Flight Permit
              (h) Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
              Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

              (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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. Send information to ATTN: Richard Reed, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6431; fax (425) 917-6590. Information may be e-mailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.

              (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

            Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 10, 2010.
            Jeffrey E. Duven,
            Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

      [FR Doc. 2010-23857 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-13-P